Marco Moschini1, Francesco Soria2, Tobias Klatte3, Gregory J Wirth4, Mehmet Özsoy3, Killian Gust3, Alberto Briganti5, Morgan Roupret6, Martin Susani7, Andrea Haitel7, Shahrokh F Shariat8. 1. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria. 4. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Academic Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Pierre and Marie Curie Medical School, Paris 6 University, Paris, France. 7. Clinical Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria. 8. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. Electronic address: sfshariat@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to validate the value of preoperative patient characteristics in prognosticating survival after radical cystectomy (RC) to guide treatment decisions regarding neoadjuvant systemic treatment. METHODS: We evaluated a single cohort of 449 consecutive patients treated with RC for bladder cancer. Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy were excluded from the study cohort (n = 24). Patients were stratified based on preoperative characteristics into 2 risk groups. The high-risk group included patients harboring clinically non-organ-confined disease (≥ cT3), hydroureteronephrosis, lymphovascular invasion, or variant histology (micropapillary, neuroendocrine, sarcomatoid, or plasmacytoid variants on transurethral resection). The low-risk group included patients with cT2 disease without any of the aforementioned features. Survival expectancies after surgery were evaluated using competing risk and Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: We identified 153 (44.6%) low-risk and 190 (55.4%) high-risk patients. The majority of high-risk patients had only 1 high-risk feature (n = 111; 58.4%); the most common high-risk feature was preoperative hydroureteronephrosis (n = 107; 56.3%). The majority of low-risk patients were upstaged at time of RC (n = 118; 70.6%), whereas a pathologic downstage occurred only in 27 high-risk patients (14.2%). Cancer-specific mortality-free rates at 5 years after RC were 77.4% versus 64.4% for low-risk versus high-risk patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm that preoperative risk features can stratify patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer into differential risk groups regarding survival. Decision-making regarding neoadjuvant systemic therapy administration is likely to be improved by integrating clinical stage, lymphovascular invasion, variant histology, and hydroureteronephrosis.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to validate the value of preoperative patient characteristics in prognosticating survival after radical cystectomy (RC) to guide treatment decisions regarding neoadjuvant systemic treatment. METHODS: We evaluated a single cohort of 449 consecutive patients treated with RC for bladder cancer. Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy were excluded from the study cohort (n = 24). Patients were stratified based on preoperative characteristics into 2 risk groups. The high-risk group included patients harboring clinically non-organ-confined disease (≥ cT3), hydroureteronephrosis, lymphovascular invasion, or variant histology (micropapillary, neuroendocrine, sarcomatoid, or plasmacytoid variants on transurethral resection). The low-risk group included patients with cT2 disease without any of the aforementioned features. Survival expectancies after surgery were evaluated using competing risk and Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: We identified 153 (44.6%) low-risk and 190 (55.4%) high-risk patients. The majority of high-risk patients had only 1 high-risk feature (n = 111; 58.4%); the most common high-risk feature was preoperative hydroureteronephrosis (n = 107; 56.3%). The majority of low-risk patients were upstaged at time of RC (n = 118; 70.6%), whereas a pathologic downstage occurred only in 27 high-risk patients (14.2%). Cancer-specific mortality-free rates at 5 years after RC were 77.4% versus 64.4% for low-risk versus high-risk patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm that preoperative risk features can stratify patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer into differential risk groups regarding survival. Decision-making regarding neoadjuvant systemic therapy administration is likely to be improved by integrating clinical stage, lymphovascular invasion, variant histology, and hydroureteronephrosis.
Authors: Michael J Metcalfe; James E Ferguson; Roger Li; Lianchun Xiao; Charles C Guo; Bogdan A Czerniak; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Shanna M Pretzsch; Neema Navai; David J McConkey; Ashish M Kamat; Mathew Campbell; Colin Dinney Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-07-13
Authors: Albert Font; Montserrat Domenech; Oscar Buisan; Hector Lopez; Andrea González; Olatz Etxaniz; Marta Matas; Xavier Elias; Maica Gomez; Mariona Figols; Judith Horneros; Juan Carlos Pardo; Lucia Notario; Vicenç Ruiz de Porras; Ignacio Perez; Joan Areal; Anna Esteve Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Marco Moschini; David D'Andrea; Stephan Korn; Yasin Irmak; Francesco Soria; Eva Compérat; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Jianjun Gao; Neema Navai; Omar Alhalabi; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Matthew T Campbell; Rebecca Slack Tidwell; Charles C Guo; Ashish M Kamat; Surena F Matin; John C Araujo; Amishi Y Shah; Pavlos Msaouel; Paul Corn; Jianbo Wang; John N Papadopoulos; Shalini S Yadav; Jorge M Blando; Fei Duan; Sreyashi Basu; Wenbin Liu; Yu Shen; Yuwei Zhang; Marc Daniel Macaluso; Ying Wang; Jianfeng Chen; Jianhua Zhang; Andrew Futreal; Colin Dinney; James P Allison; Sangeeta Goswami; Padmanee Sharma Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Andrea Mari; Riccardo Campi; Riccardo Tellini; Giorgio Gandaglia; Simone Albisinni; Mohammad Abufaraj; Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Francesco Montorsi; Roland van Velthoven; Marco Carini; Andrea Minervini; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marco Moschini; Stefania Zamboni; Agostino Mattei; Alberto Martini; Emanuele Zaffuto; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-08