Literature DB >> 10091780

Outcome of palliative urinary diversion in the treatment of advanced malignancies.

B Shekarriz1, H Shekarriz, J Upadhyay, M Banerjee, H Becker, J E Pontes, D P Wood.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether palliative endourologic or percutaneous urinary diversion in the treatment of advanced cancer provides significant improvement in quality or duration of life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate survival and performance status after endourologic palliative urinary diversion in patients with advanced malignancy and to compare the results for different malignancies.
METHODS: One hundred three patients with advanced malignancies underwent palliative urinary diversion (stent or nephrostomy) between 1986 and 1997. Ninety-two patients and 11 patients had bilateral and unilateral obstruction, respectively. Indications, complications, performance status after diversion, and survival for patients with different malignancies were identified and compared. A modified Karnofsky performance scale (KPS) was used for assessment of physical performance. A scale of 0-4 was used: 0) hospitalized until death; 1) bedridden at home, severe pain despite analgesia; 2) moderate disability, moderate pain despite analgesia; 3) mild disability, pain free with medication; and 4) normal.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 68 years. The mean pre- and postoperative creatinine levels were 6 mg/dL and 3.3 mg/dL, respectively (P < 0.0001). The median survival and days of hospitalization were 112 and 45, respectively. The median postdiversion KPS score was 2 (range, 0-4), and 15% of patients never left the hospital. Overall, 51% required secondary percutaneous procedures, and 68.4% had complications (minor, 63%; major, 5.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with advanced cancers had poor performance status and survival after diversion. Eighty six percent had cancer-related symptoms despite the diversion. The average survival was 5 months, 50% of which was spent in the hospital. Primary endourologic procedures had a high failure rate, and additional procedures were required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10091780     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990215)85:4<998::aid-cncr30>3.0.co;2-f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  23 in total

Review 1.  Percutaneous nephrostomy and antegrade ureteral stenting: technique-indications-complications.

Authors:  Klaus Armin Hausegger; Horst Rupert Portugaller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Management of ureteral obstruction in crossed fused renal ectopia: A case report.

Authors:  Nicholas Bhojwani; Jason Brett Hartman; Manzoor Ahmed; Robert Morgan; Jon C Davidson
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Percutaneous nephrostomy: technical aspects and indications.

Authors:  Mandeep Dagli; Parvati Ramchandani
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.513

4.  [Diagnostic puncture of the renal pelvis: avoidance of urinary diversion in cases of hydronephrosis and non-specific fever].

Authors:  A S Brandt; S Degener; D A Lazica; S Roth
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Outcomes of stent-change therapy for bilateral malignancy-related ureteral obstruction.

Authors:  Sang Hoon Song; Sahyun Pak; In Gab Jeong; Kun Suk Kim; Hyung Keun Park; Choung-Soo Kim; Hanjong Ahn; Bumsik Hong
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 6.  Use of percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteral stenting in management of ureteral obstruction.

Authors:  Linda Hsu; Hanhan Li; Daniel Pucheril; Moritz Hansen; Raymond Littleton; James Peabody; Jesse Sammon
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2016-03-06

7.  Racial disparities in the use of palliative therapy for ureteral obstruction among elderly patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Benjamin A Spencer; Beverly J Insel; Dawn L Hershman; Mitchell C Benson; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-01-06       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Percutaneous nephrostomy in obstructing pelvic malignancy does not facilitate further oncological treatment.

Authors:  Samuel Stephen Folkard; Srijit Banerjee; Richard Menzies-Wilson; Joseph Reason; Evangelos Psallidas; Elliot Clissold; Ahmad Al-Mushatat; Saurabh Chaudhri; James Stephen Arthur Green
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 9.  Palliative management of malignant upper urinary tract obstruction.

Authors:  P Sountoulides; I Mykoniatis; N Dimasis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2014 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 0.471

10.  Percutaneous nephrostomy for ureteric obstruction due to advanced pelvic malignancy: have we got the balance right?

Authors:  Saumya Misra; Charles Coker; Jonathan Richenberg
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-05-12       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.