Peking University First Hospital Urology: Upper-Tract and Cancer Teams

What the department is and how it is organised

Peking University First Hospital is a university teaching hospital in Beijing. Its urology department traces its founding to Wu Jieping in 1946; the university urology institute followed in 1978, and national key-discipline recognition in 1989. The department combines a clinical service with academic and quality-control responsibilities rather than operating as a stand-alone surgical centre.

The department identifies prostate disease, urinary tumours, urinary reconstruction, stones, functional urology and andrology among its directions, alongside kidney transplantation. It also describes national urology quality-control work and research platforms for urologic and male-genital cancers. These different responsibilities help explain why a department-wide reputation is only a starting point: the relevant team depends on the diagnosis and the decision being considered. Listing transplantation here does not establish access or eligibility.

The hospital placed second in urology in the Fudan 2023 national specialty reputation list, a historical departmental reference rather than a ranking of individual doctors or subspecialties.

Upper-tract reconstruction and ureter disease

Li Xuesong's official hospital biography identifies him as urology department director and deputy director of the university urology institute. His documented focus spans urinary tumours, benign and malignant ureter disease, hydronephrosis, complex upper-tract urothelial cancer and reconstruction. This makes the upper tract an important junction between the department's reconstructive and cancer work. It is not a separate ranking or a statement that the same operation serves both problems.

For an enquiry about a ureter problem, distinguish the diagnosis from the proposed operation. Is the question about an obstruction already investigated, a suspected tumour, or reconstruction following previous treatment? If different hospitals have proposed different approaches, include those recommendations and the reasons given. Ask which team can assess the unresolved question rather than requesting robotic surgery solely because a published case used that technology.

An April 2026 hospital report describes Li Xuesong's reconstruction team performing robotic intracorporeal kidney autotransplantation for complex upper-tract obstruction. This means moving the patient's own kidney, not using a donor organ. The report is a technical case, not comparative evidence or a promise of routine international access. Someone asking about it would still need an individual specialist assessment of alternatives.

Urologic cancer work and the institute's research direction

Zhou Liqun's checked official biography identifies him as director of the university urology institute, a chief physician, professor and doctoral supervisor. His listed focus includes complex urogenital tumours and laparoscopic and robotic techniques. His institute directorship and Li Xuesong's departmental directorship are different posts; separating them gives a clearer picture of the department's clinical and academic leadership.

Zhou's publications include bladder- and kidney-cancer biology and urinary DNA methylation research. The first concerns understanding cancer at a biological level; the latter investigates molecular information in urine. These research directions should not be mistaken for an offer of a routine screening test. A useful question is whether any proposed investigation is established clinical care, a research procedure, or unnecessary for the decision at hand.

For a cancer-related enquiry, say whether the request concerns an uncertain diagnosis, review of an existing treatment proposal, or options after treatment already received. A technical interest in minimally invasive surgery does not by itself resolve those questions. Ask the reviewing team to explain how its proposed approach relates to the existing pathology and imaging, and what information remains missing before a recommendation can be made.

Upper-tract cancer research and a dated paper recognition

Peking University's medical school reported on 14 December 2017 that a BJU International meta-analysis received the journal's 2017 China annual-paper recognition. The study examined ureteroscopy before radical nephroureterectomy in upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. Zhou Liqun, Zhang Kai and Li Xuesong were on the team; Guo Runqi and Hong Peng were first authors. It is a specific research contribution, rather than an undated claim of international prestige.

The work examined a decision about investigation before planned cancer surgery by bringing together earlier studies. For someone seeking another opinion, it illustrates the difference between asking whether an operation is technically possible and asking how the evidence supports the pathway leading to it. The paper's recognition does not instruct an individual patient to undergo or avoid ureteroscopy.

If ureteroscopy or surgery has already been proposed, a focused question is: what uncertainty would the proposed investigation resolve in this case, and could that answer change the plan? Ask the specialist to relate the explanation to the actual records rather than applying a research headline to everyone. This keeps the discussion centred on the patient's decision instead of the prestige of a publication.

Academic honours and professional responsibilities

Li Xuesong's official biography lists the Gold Lancet and Guozhimingyi honours, as well as medical-science recognitions associated with education, Beijing and professional organisations. It also lists him as editor-in-chief of Translational Andrology and Urology. The editorial responsibility relates to evaluating and communicating research, distinct from the hospital's assessment of an individual case.

Zhou Liqun's biography records first-contributor recognition for an education science-progress second prize and a Huaxia medical second prize. No award years are added here where the checked biography does not provide them. Together with the dated BJU International recognition, these are attributable academic contributions rather than a generic claim that every team member holds the same honours.

When comparing opinions, keep academic background separate from the proposed care plan. Useful questions include who would take responsibility for the assessment, whether another subspecialty opinion is needed, and how the alternatives would be explained. Neither an award nor an editorial appointment answers those questions on its own; they become meaningful alongside the clinician's documented field and the patient's specific problem.

Practical questions before an overseas referral

Before travel, ask which records the reviewing service needs for the specific question: existing imaging, pathology reports, earlier operation records or a treatment summary may be relevant, but formats and requirements need confirmation. If the issue follows earlier surgery, identify what was done and what remains unresolved. Do not commission new investigations solely to complete a generic checklist.

A written preliminary response should clarify whether a records review is possible, what cannot be decided remotely, and whether further assessment would be needed in China. Ask about interpretation, the scope of hospital charges and the plan for communicating with the doctors at home. No named appointment, admission or particular procedure should be assumed before the hospital accepts the case.

Urology care and surgery in China

How ChinaSpecialistCare can help with this enquiry

ChinaSpecialistCare can help organise a focused urology enquiry, prepare the records requested for review and coordinate appointments and interpretation where available. We provide independent coordination, not official hospital representation. An initial enquiry is free; acceptance, the treating clinician and any procedure remain subject to the hospital's assessment and confirmation.