Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Do we need repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for pathological T1 bladder cancer

T. Yanagisawa, S. Sato, Y. Hayashida, Y. Okada, K. Iwatani, A. Matsukawa, T. Kimura, H. Takahashi, S. Egawa, SF. Shariat, J. Miki

. 2023 ; 131 (2) : 190-197. [pub] 20220513

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23004468

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical significance of repeat transurethral resection (reTUR) and surgical margin status after en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) for pathological T1 (pT1) bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the record of 106 patients with pT1 high-grade bladder cancer who underwent ERBT between April 2013 and February 2021 at multiple institutions. All specimens were reviewed by a genitourinary pathologist. The primary outcome measures were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with and those without reTUR. We also analysed the predictive value of surgical margin on the likelihood of residual tumour on reTUR. RESULTS: A reTUR was performed in 50 of the 106 patients. The 2-year RFS and 3-year PFS were comparable between patients who underwent reTUR and those who did not (55.1% vs 59.9%, P = 0.6, 80.6% vs 82.6%, P = 0.6, respectively). No patient was upstaged to pT2 on reTUR. Regarding the surgical margin status, there were no recurrences at the original site in 51 patients with negative horizontal margins. Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that a positive vertical margin was an independent prognostic factor of worse PFS. On reTUR, six pTa/is residues were detected in patients with a positive horizontal margin, and three pT1 residues were detected in one patient with a positive vertical margin or other adverse pathological features. CONCLUSIONS: A reTUR after ERBT for pT1 bladder cancer appears not to improve either recurrence or progression. Surgical margin status affects prognosis and reTUR outcomes. A reTUR can be omitted after ERBT in patients with pT1 bladder cancer and negative margins; for those with positive horizontal or vertical margins, reTUR should remain the standard until proven otherwise.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23004468
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230425141425.0
007      
ta
008      
230418s2023 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1111/bju.15760 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)35488409
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Yanagisawa, Takafumi $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $1 https://orcid.org/0000000274100712
245    10
$a Do we need repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for pathological T1 bladder cancer / $c T. Yanagisawa, S. Sato, Y. Hayashida, Y. Okada, K. Iwatani, A. Matsukawa, T. Kimura, H. Takahashi, S. Egawa, SF. Shariat, J. Miki
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical significance of repeat transurethral resection (reTUR) and surgical margin status after en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) for pathological T1 (pT1) bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the record of 106 patients with pT1 high-grade bladder cancer who underwent ERBT between April 2013 and February 2021 at multiple institutions. All specimens were reviewed by a genitourinary pathologist. The primary outcome measures were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with and those without reTUR. We also analysed the predictive value of surgical margin on the likelihood of residual tumour on reTUR. RESULTS: A reTUR was performed in 50 of the 106 patients. The 2-year RFS and 3-year PFS were comparable between patients who underwent reTUR and those who did not (55.1% vs 59.9%, P = 0.6, 80.6% vs 82.6%, P = 0.6, respectively). No patient was upstaged to pT2 on reTUR. Regarding the surgical margin status, there were no recurrences at the original site in 51 patients with negative horizontal margins. Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that a positive vertical margin was an independent prognostic factor of worse PFS. On reTUR, six pTa/is residues were detected in patients with a positive horizontal margin, and three pT1 residues were detected in one patient with a positive vertical margin or other adverse pathological features. CONCLUSIONS: A reTUR after ERBT for pT1 bladder cancer appears not to improve either recurrence or progression. Surgical margin status affects prognosis and reTUR outcomes. A reTUR can be omitted after ERBT in patients with pT1 bladder cancer and negative margins; for those with positive horizontal or vertical margins, reTUR should remain the standard until proven otherwise.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a resekční okraje $7 D000072662
650    12
$a nádory močového měchýře $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D001749
650    _2
$a močový měchýř $x patologie $7 D001743
650    _2
$a urologické chirurgické výkony $7 D013520
650    _2
$a lokální recidiva nádoru $x patologie $7 D009364
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Sato, Shun $u Department of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan $1 https://orcid.org/0000000248527704
700    1_
$a Hayashida, Yasushi $u Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization Ureshino Medical Center, Saga, Japan
700    1_
$a Okada, Yohei $u Department of Urology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
700    1_
$a Iwatani, Kosuke $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Matsukawa, Akihiro $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Kimura, Takahiro $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Takahashi, Hiroyuki $u Department of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Egawa, Shin $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia $u Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Miki, Jun $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan $1 https://orcid.org/0000000246388640
773    0_
$w MED00011371 $t BJU international $x 1464-410X $g Roč. 131, č. 2 (2023), s. 190-197
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35488409 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230418 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230425141422 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1924892 $s 1190677
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 131 $c 2 $d 190-197 $e 20220513 $i 1464-410X $m BJU international $n BJU Int $x MED00011371
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230418

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace