| Literature DB >> 29195499 |
Kazutoshi Fujita1, Kei Taneishi2, Teruo Inamoto3, Yu Ishizuya4, Shingo Takada5, Masao Tsujihata6, Go Tanigawa7, Noriko Minato8, Shigeaki Nakazawa9, Tsuyoshi Takada10, Toshichika Iwanishi11, Motohide Uemura12, Yasushi Okuno2, Haruhito Azuma3, Nonomura Norio12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) improved the prognosis of patients with high-risk upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC)and to identify the patients who benefited from AC.Entities:
Keywords: Adjuvant chemotherapy; Hemoglobin; Sodium; Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29195499 PMCID: PMC5710092 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-017-0305-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Urol ISSN: 1471-2490 Impact factor: 2.264
Patient characteristics of overall cohort (n = 344)
| RNU only | RNU plus AC |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | 241 (70) | 103 (30) | |
| Age (years)(median (range)) | 74 (34–91) | 66 (28–82) | < 0.0001 |
| Gender, n (%) | 0.20 | ||
| Male | 166 (69) | 78 (76) | |
| Female | 75 (31) | 25 (24) | |
| ECOG performance status | 0.40 | ||
| 0–1 | 199 (83) | 91 (88) | |
| 2–4 | 13 (5) | 3 (3) | |
| Unknown | 29 (12) | 9 (9) | |
| Pathological T stage, n (%) | 0.007 | ||
| ≤ T2 | 70 (29) | 18 (17) | |
| T3 | 158 (66) | 84 (82) | |
| T4 | 13 (5) | 1 (1) | |
| Tumor grade, n (%) | 0.056 | ||
| G1 | 13 (5) | 3 (3) | |
| G2 | 90 (37) | 27 (26) | |
| G3 | 138 (58) | 73 (71) | |
| LVI, n (%) | 0.003 | ||
| Absent | 107 (44) | 29 (28) | |
| Present | 128 (53) | 73 (71) | |
| Unknown | 6 (3) | 1 (1) |
Fig. 1Cancer-specific survival of the overall cohort (a) and the propensity score-matched cohort (b) (solid line: patients with RNU + AC, dashed line: patients with RNU alone). AC, adjuvant chemotherapy; RNU, radical nephroureterectomy
Patient characteristics of propensity score matched cohort (n = 150)
| RNU only | RNU plus AC |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | 75 | 75 | |
| Age (years)(median (range)) | 66 (34–85) | 68 (28–82) | 0.62 |
| Gender, n (%) | 0.28 | ||
| Male | 50 (67) | 56 (75) | |
| Female | 25 (33) | 19 (25) | |
| ECOG performance status, n (%) | 1.0 | ||
| 0–1 | 72 (96) | 72 (96) | |
| 2–4 | 3 (4) | 3 (4) | |
| Pathological T stage, n (%) | 0.51 | ||
| ≤ T2 | 12 (16) | 15 (20) | |
| T3 | 60 (80) | 59 (79) | |
| T4 | 3 (4) | 1 (1) | |
| Tumor grade, n (%) | 0.84 | ||
| G1 | 2 (2) | 1 (1) | |
| G2 | 23 (31) | 23(31) | |
| G3 | 50(67) | 51 (68) | |
| LVI, n (%) | 1.0 | ||
| Absent | 24 (32) | 23 (31) | |
| Present | 51 (68) | 52 (69) |
Subgroup analysis to identify the patients who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy
| RNU only | RNU + AC | HR | 95% CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| age | |||||
| ≤ 70 | 14/48 | 7/49 | 0.46 | 0.18–1.1 | 0.099 |
| > 70 | 14/27 | 9/26 | 0.56 | 0.24–1.3 | 0.19 |
| pT2 | |||||
| ≤ 2 | 4/12 | 4/15 | 0.66 | 0.16–2.6 | 0.56 |
| 3 | 22/60 | 12/59 | 0.51 | 0.25–1.0 | 0.066 |
| 4 | 2/3 | 0/1 | – | – | 1 |
| Na-Hb score | |||||
| 0 | 5/30 | 2/19 | 0.84 | 0.16–4.3 | 0.84 |
| 1–2 | 23/45 | 12/54 | 0.30 | 0.15–0.61 | 0.001 |
| ECOG PS | |||||
| 0–1 | 27/72 | 16/72 | 0.542 | 0.292–1.01 | 0.053 |
| ≥ 2 | 1/3 | 0/3 | – | – | 1 |
| LVI | |||||
| – | 4/24 | 2/23 | 0.483 | 0.088–2.64 | 0.40 |
| + | 24/51 | 14/52 | 0.51 | 0.26–0.98 | 0.046 |
| Grade | |||||
| 1–2 | 3/25 | 3/24 | 0.99 | 0.20–4.9 | 0.99 |
| 3 | 25/50 | 13/51 | 0.41 | 0.21–0.81 | 0.011 |
Fig. 2Cancer-specific survival of propensity score-matched cohort stratified by preoperative sodium and hemoglobin levels. a Patients with normal sodium and normal hemoglobin levels. b Patients with low sodium or low hemoglobin levels. (solid line: patients with RNU + AC, dashed line: patients with RNU alone). AC, adjuvant chemotherapy; RNU, radical nephroureterectomy