• Something wrong with this record ?

Oncologic Outcomes of Kidney Sparing Surgery versus Radical Nephroureterectomy for the Elective Treatment of Clinically Organ Confined Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma of the Distal Ureter

T. Seisen, L. Nison, M. Remzi, T. Klatte, R. Mathieu, I. Lucca, G. Bozzini, U. Capitanio, G. Novara, O. Cussenot, E. Compérat, R. Renard-Penna, B. Peyronnet, AS. Merseburger, HM. Fritsche, M. Hora, SF. Shariat, P. Colin, M. Rouprêt,

. 2016 ; 195 (5) : 1354-61. [pub] 20151121

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc17000842

PURPOSE: We compared the oncologic outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy, distal ureterectomy and endoscopic surgery for elective treatment of clinically organ confined upper tract urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a multi-institutional collaborative database we identified 304 patients with unifocal, clinically organ confined urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter and bilateral functional kidneys. Rates of overall, cancer specific, local recurrence-free and intravesical recurrence-free survival according to surgery type were compared using Kaplan-Meier statistics. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the adjusted outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy, distal ureterectomy and endoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Overall 128 (42.1%), 134 (44.1%) and 42 patients (13.8%) were treated with radical nephroureterectomy, distal ureterectomy and endoscopic surgery, respectively. Although rates of overall, cancer specific and intravesical recurrence-free survival were equivalent among the 3 surgical procedures, 5-year local recurrence-free survival was lower for endoscopic surgery (35.7%) than for nephroureterectomy (95.0%, p <0.001) or ureterectomy (85.5%, p = 0.01) with no significant difference between nephroureterectomy and distal ureterectomy. On multivariable analyses only endoscopic surgery was an independent predictor of decreased local recurrence-free survival compared to nephroureterectomy (HR 1.27, p = 0.001) or distal ureterectomy (HR 1.14, p = 0.01). Distal ureterectomy and endoscopic surgery did not significantly correlate to cancer specific or intravesical recurrence-free survival. However, when adjustment was made for ASA(®) (American Society of Anesthesiologists(®)) score, distal ureterectomy (HR 0.80, p = 0.01) and endoscopic surgery (HR 0.84, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of increased overall survival, although no significant difference was found between them. CONCLUSIONS: Because of better oncologic outcomes, distal ureterectomy could be considered the elective first line treatment of clinically organ confined urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc17000842
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20170120105742.0
007      
ta
008      
170103s2016 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.036 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.036 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)26612196
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Seisen, Thomas $u Academic Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France; UPMC Universitaire Paris 06, GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro and Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Paris, France.
245    10
$a Oncologic Outcomes of Kidney Sparing Surgery versus Radical Nephroureterectomy for the Elective Treatment of Clinically Organ Confined Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma of the Distal Ureter / $c T. Seisen, L. Nison, M. Remzi, T. Klatte, R. Mathieu, I. Lucca, G. Bozzini, U. Capitanio, G. Novara, O. Cussenot, E. Compérat, R. Renard-Penna, B. Peyronnet, AS. Merseburger, HM. Fritsche, M. Hora, SF. Shariat, P. Colin, M. Rouprêt,
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: We compared the oncologic outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy, distal ureterectomy and endoscopic surgery for elective treatment of clinically organ confined upper tract urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a multi-institutional collaborative database we identified 304 patients with unifocal, clinically organ confined urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter and bilateral functional kidneys. Rates of overall, cancer specific, local recurrence-free and intravesical recurrence-free survival according to surgery type were compared using Kaplan-Meier statistics. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the adjusted outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy, distal ureterectomy and endoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Overall 128 (42.1%), 134 (44.1%) and 42 patients (13.8%) were treated with radical nephroureterectomy, distal ureterectomy and endoscopic surgery, respectively. Although rates of overall, cancer specific and intravesical recurrence-free survival were equivalent among the 3 surgical procedures, 5-year local recurrence-free survival was lower for endoscopic surgery (35.7%) than for nephroureterectomy (95.0%, p <0.001) or ureterectomy (85.5%, p = 0.01) with no significant difference between nephroureterectomy and distal ureterectomy. On multivariable analyses only endoscopic surgery was an independent predictor of decreased local recurrence-free survival compared to nephroureterectomy (HR 1.27, p = 0.001) or distal ureterectomy (HR 1.14, p = 0.01). Distal ureterectomy and endoscopic surgery did not significantly correlate to cancer specific or intravesical recurrence-free survival. However, when adjustment was made for ASA(®) (American Society of Anesthesiologists(®)) score, distal ureterectomy (HR 0.80, p = 0.01) and endoscopic surgery (HR 0.84, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of increased overall survival, although no significant difference was found between them. CONCLUSIONS: Because of better oncologic outcomes, distal ureterectomy could be considered the elective first line treatment of clinically organ confined urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter.
650    _2
$a karcinom z přechodných buněk $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D002295
650    _2
$a přežití bez známek nemoci $7 D018572
650    _2
$a elektivní chirurgické výkony $x metody $7 D017558
650    _2
$a Evropa $x epidemiologie $7 D005060
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a incidence $7 D015994
650    _2
$a laparoskopie $x metody $7 D010535
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lokální recidiva nádoru $x epidemiologie $7 D009364
650    _2
$a nefrektomie $x metody $7 D009392
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $x epidemiologie $7 D011183
650    _2
$a prognóza $7 D011379
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a míra přežití $x trendy $7 D015996
650    _2
$a časové faktory $7 D013997
650    _2
$a ureter $x chirurgie $7 D014513
650    _2
$a nádory močovodu $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D014516
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
700    1_
$a Nison, Laurent $u Academic Department of Urology, University Hospital Claude Huriez, Lille, France.
700    1_
$a Remzi, Mezut $u Academic Department of Urology, Landesklinikum Korneuburg, Korneuburg, Austria.
700    1_
$a Klatte, Tobias $u Academic Department of Urology, Medical University Vienna, General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Mathieu, Romain $u Academic Department of Urology, Medical University Vienna, General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Lucca, Ilaria $u Academic Department of Urology, Medical University Vienna, General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Bozzini, Grégory $u Academic Department of Urology, University Hospital Claude Huriez, Lille, France.
700    1_
$a Capitanio, Umberto $u Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
700    1_
$a Novara, Giacomo $u Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology-Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
700    1_
$a Cussenot, Olivier $u Academic Department of Urology, University Hospital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; UPMC Universitaire Paris 06, GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro and Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Paris, France.
700    1_
$a Compérat, Eva $u Academic Department of Pathology, University Hospital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France.
700    1_
$a Renard-Penna, Raphaële $u Academic Department of Radiology, University Hospital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France.
700    1_
$a Peyronnet, Benoit $u Academic Department of Urology, University Hospital Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
700    1_
$a Merseburger, Axel S $u Academic Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.
700    1_
$a Fritsche, Hans-Martin $u Academic Department of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Germany.
700    1_
$a Hora, Milan $u Academic Department of Urology, Faculty Hospital Plzeň and Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Medicine in Plzeň, Plzeň, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Academic Department of Urology, Medical University Vienna, General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Colin, Pierre $u Department of Urology, Private Hospital La Louvière, Lille, France.
700    1_
$a Rouprêt, Morgan $u Academic Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France; UPMC Universitaire Paris 06, GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro and Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Paris, France. Electronic address: morgan.roupret@psl.aphp.fr.
773    0_
$w MED00003040 $t The Journal of urology $x 1527-3792 $g Roč. 195, č. 5 (2016), s. 1354-61
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26612196 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20170103 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20170120105852 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1179982 $s 961409
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 195 $c 5 $d 1354-61 $e 20151121 $i 1527-3792 $m The Journal of urology $n J Urol $x MED00003040
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20170103

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options