Laura-Maria Krabbe1,2, Aditya Bagrodia3, Mary E Westerman3, Bishoy A Gayed3, Ahmed Q Haddad3, Arthur I Sagalowsky3, Shahrokh F Shariat3,4, Payal Kapur5, Yair Lotan3, Vitaly Margulis3. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. lauramaria.krabbe@ukmuenster.de. 2. Department of Urology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, GB A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. lauramaria.krabbe@ukmuenster.de. 3. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Urology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the potential biologic impact of tumor location on oncological outcomes for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), we used prospectively collected molecular signatures of high-grade UTUC. METHODS: Immunohistochemical staining for p21, p27, p53, cyclin E, and Ki-67 was prospectively performed on 96 UTUC specimens of patients with non-metastatic high-grade UTUC treated with extirpative surgery. Patients were grouped according to primary tumor location (pelvicalyceal vs. ureteral) where primary tumor was defined as the highest tumor stage and diameter. Primary outcome was assessment of differences in marker expression between groups. Secondary outcome was difference in survival according to marker status. RESULTS: Pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors were found in 52.1 and 47.9 %, respectively, and 42.7 % of patients had non-organ-confined disease. Over a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 31.2 and 20.8 % of patients experienced disease recurrence and died of UTUC, respectively. The total number of altered markers stained for was 0-2 in 67.7 and 3-5 in 32.3 % of patients. The number of altered markers and alteration status of markers were not significantly different between patients with primary pelvicalyceal versus ureteral tumors when stratified by tumor stage and nodal status. There were no significant differences in survival outcomes between both groups when stratified by number of altered markers (0-2 and 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: The prospective assessment of selected cell cycle and proliferative markers suggests no molecular difference between UTUC of the pelvicalyceal system and that of the ureter. Our study is limited by its size and definition of location.
PURPOSE: To assess the potential biologic impact of tumor location on oncological outcomes for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), we used prospectively collected molecular signatures of high-grade UTUC. METHODS: Immunohistochemical staining for p21, p27, p53, cyclin E, and Ki-67 was prospectively performed on 96 UTUC specimens of patients with non-metastatic high-grade UTUC treated with extirpative surgery. Patients were grouped according to primary tumor location (pelvicalyceal vs. ureteral) where primary tumor was defined as the highest tumor stage and diameter. Primary outcome was assessment of differences in marker expression between groups. Secondary outcome was difference in survival according to marker status. RESULTS: Pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors were found in 52.1 and 47.9 %, respectively, and 42.7 % of patients had non-organ-confined disease. Over a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 31.2 and 20.8 % of patients experienced disease recurrence and died of UTUC, respectively. The total number of altered markers stained for was 0-2 in 67.7 and 3-5 in 32.3 % of patients. The number of altered markers and alteration status of markers were not significantly different between patients with primary pelvicalyceal versus ureteral tumors when stratified by tumor stage and nodal status. There were no significant differences in survival outcomes between both groups when stratified by number of altered markers (0-2 and 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: The prospective assessment of selected cell cycle and proliferative markers suggests no molecular difference between UTUC of the pelvicalyceal system and that of the ureter. Our study is limited by its size and definition of location.
Authors: Ricardo L Favaretto; Shahrokh F Shariat; Caroline Savage; Guilherme Godoy; Daher C Chade; Matthew Kaag; Bernard H Bochner; Jonathan Coleman; Guido Dalbagni Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Giovanni Lughezzani; Maximilian Burger; Vitaly Margulis; Surena F Matin; Giacomo Novara; Morgan Roupret; Shahrokh F Shariat; Christopher G Wood; Richard Zigeuner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vitaly Margulis; Ramy F Youssef; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Yair Lotan; Christopher G Wood; Richard Zigeuner; Eiji Kikuchi; Alon Weizer; Jay D Raman; Mesut Remzi; Marco Roscigno; Francesco Montorsi; Christian Bolenz; Wassim Kassouf; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Morgan Rouprêt; Marko Babjuk; Eva Compérat; Richard Zigeuner; Richard Sylvester; Max Burger; Nigel Cowan; Andreas Böhle; Bas W G Van Rhijn; Eero Kaasinen; Joan Palou; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jay D Raman; Casey K Ng; Douglas S Scherr; Vitaly Margulis; Yair Lotan; Karim Bensalah; Jean-Jacques Patard; Eiji Kikuchi; Francesco Montorsi; Richard Zigeuner; Alon Weizer; Christian Bolenz; Theresa M Koppie; Hendrik Isbarn; Claudio Jeldres; Wareef Kabbani; Mesut Remzi; Mathias Waldert; Christopher G Wood; Marco Roscigno; Mototsuga Oya; Cord Langner; J Stuart Wolf; Philipp Ströbel; Mario Fernández; Pierre Karakiewcz; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: G J Wirth; A Haitel; M Moschini; F Soria; T Klatte; M R Hassler; K Bensalah; A Briganti; J A Karam; Y Lotan; V Margulis; J D Raman; M Remzi; N Rioux-Leclercq; B D Robinson; M Rouprêt; C G Wood; S F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.226