Eun Sang Yoo1, Yun-Sok Ha1, Jun Nyung Lee1, Bum Soo Kim1, Bup Wan Kim1, Seok-Soo Byun2, Young Deuk Choi3, Ho Won Kang4, Seok-Joong Yun4, Wun-Jae Kim4, Jeong Hyun Kim5, Tae Gyun Kwon1. 1. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. 3. Department of Urology and Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, Korea. 5. Department of Urology, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate whether lymphovascular invasion (LVI) can replace lymph node (LN) involvement as a prognostic marker in patients who do not undergo lymph node dissection (LND) during surgery in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). METHODS: A total of 505 patients who underwent radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) were recruited from four academic centres and divided into four groups: node negative (N0, Group 1); node positive (N+, Group 2); no LND without LVI (NxLVI-, Group 3); and no LND with LVI (NxLVI+, Group 4). RESULTS: Patients in Group 2 had larger tumours, a higher incidence of left-sided involvement, more aggressive T stage and grade, and a higher positive surgical margin rate than patients in other groups. Pathological features (T stage and grade) were poorer in Group 4 than in Groups 1 and 3. Compared to other groups, Group 2 had the worst prognostic outcomes regarding locoregional/distant metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). LVI and LN status in Group 4 was not associated with MFS in multivariate analysis. Among Nx diseases, LVI was not an independent predictor of MFS or CCS. The small number of cases in Groups 2 and 4 is a major limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes according to LVI did not correlate with those outcomes predicted by LN involvement in patients with UTUC. Therefore, LVI may not be used as a substitute for nodal status in patients who do not undergo LND at the time of surgery.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate whether lymphovascular invasion (LVI) can replace lymph node (LN) involvement as a prognostic marker in patients who do not undergo lymph node dissection (LND) during surgery in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). METHODS: A total of 505 patients who underwent radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) were recruited from four academic centres and divided into four groups: node negative (N0, Group 1); node positive (N+, Group 2); no LND without LVI (NxLVI-, Group 3); and no LND with LVI (NxLVI+, Group 4). RESULTS:Patients in Group 2 had larger tumours, a higher incidence of left-sided involvement, more aggressive T stage and grade, and a higher positive surgical margin rate than patients in other groups. Pathological features (T stage and grade) were poorer in Group 4 than in Groups 1 and 3. Compared to other groups, Group 2 had the worst prognostic outcomes regarding locoregional/distant metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). LVI and LN status in Group 4 was not associated with MFS in multivariate analysis. Among Nx diseases, LVI was not an independent predictor of MFS or CCS. The small number of cases in Groups 2 and 4 is a major limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes according to LVI did not correlate with those outcomes predicted by LN involvement in patients with UTUC. Therefore, LVI may not be used as a substitute for nodal status in patients who do not undergo LND at the time of surgery.
Authors: Maria Vassilakopoulou; Thibault de la Motte Rouge; Pierre Colin; Adil Ouzzane; David Khayat; Meletios-Athanasios Dimopoulos; Christos A Papadimitriou; Aristotle Bamias; Géraldine Pignot; François Xavier Nouhaud; Sophie Hurel; Laurent Guy; Pierre Bigot; Mathieu Roumiguié; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Vincent Trudeau; Giorgio Gandaglia; Jonas Shiffmann; Ioana Popa; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Pierre Colin; Adil Ouzzane; David R Yates; François Audenet; Audenet François; Géraldine Pignot; Alexis Arvin-Berod; Olivier Merigot de Treigny; Guy Laurent; Antoine Valeri; Jacques Irani; Irani Jacques; Fabien Saint; Solène Gardic; Pascal Gres; François Rozet; Yann Neuzillet; Alain Ruffion; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Michael Metcalfe; Wassim Kassouf; Ricardo Rendon; David Bell; Jonathan Izawa; Joseph Chin; Anil Kapoor; Edward Matsumoto; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Fred Saad; Louis Lacombe; Yves Fradet; Adrian Fairey; Niels-Eric Jacobson; Darryl Drachenberg; Ilias Cagiannos; Alan So; Peter Black Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Yang Hyun Cho; Young Ho Seo; Seung Jun Chung; Insang Hwang; Ho Song Yu; Sun-Ouck Kim; Seung Il Jung; Taek Won Kang; Dong Deuk Kwon; Kwangsung Park; Jun Eul Hwang; Suk Hee Heo; Geun Soo Kim; Eu Chang Hwang Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2014-07-11