Alexander Upfill-Brown1, Andrew T Lenis1, Izak Faiena1, Amirali H Salmasi1, David C Johnson1, Aydin Pooli1, Alexandra Drakaki1,2,3, Kiran Gollapudi4, Jeremy Blumberg4, Allan J Pantuck1,3, Karim Chamie5,6. 1. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. kchamie@mednet.ucla.edu. 6. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. kchamie@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is the gold standard treatment for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), select patients may benefit from endoscopic treatment (ET). European Association of Urology guidelines recommend ET for patients with low-risk (LR) disease: unifocal, < 2 cm, low-grade lesions without local invasion. To inform the utility of ET, we compare the overall survival (OS) of patients receiving ET and RNU using current and previous guidelines of LR disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic, cT1 or less UTUC diagnosed in 2004-2012 were collected from the National Cancer Database. OS was analyzed with inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox proportional hazard regression. Analyses were conducted for LR disease under updated (size < 2 cm) and previous guidelines (size < 1 cm). RESULTS: Patients who were older, healthier, and treated at an academic facility had higher odds of receiving ET. In 851 identified patients with LR disease, RNU was associated with increased OS compared with ET (p = 0.006); however, there was no difference between ET and RNU (p = 0.79, n = 202) under the previous guidelines (size < 1 cm). In, otherwise, LR patients, the largest tumor size with no difference between ET and RNU was ≤ 1.5 cm (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: RNU is associated with improved survival when compared with ET in the management of LR UTUC using current guidelines with a size threshold of < 2 cm. In appropriately selected LR patients, we find no difference between RNU and ET up to a tumor size of ≤ 1.5 cm. However, in the absence of prospective studies, the usage of ET is best left up to clinician discretion.
PURPOSE: While radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is the gold standard treatment for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), select patients may benefit from endoscopic treatment (ET). European Association of Urology guidelines recommend ET for patients with low-risk (LR) disease: unifocal, < 2 cm, low-grade lesions without local invasion. To inform the utility of ET, we compare the overall survival (OS) of patients receiving ET and RNU using current and previous guidelines of LR disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with non-metastatic, cT1 or less UTUC diagnosed in 2004-2012 were collected from the National Cancer Database. OS was analyzed with inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox proportional hazard regression. Analyses were conducted for LR disease under updated (size < 2 cm) and previous guidelines (size < 1 cm). RESULTS:Patients who were older, healthier, and treated at an academic facility had higher odds of receiving ET. In 851 identified patients with LR disease, RNU was associated with increased OS compared with ET (p = 0.006); however, there was no difference between ET and RNU (p = 0.79, n = 202) under the previous guidelines (size < 1 cm). In, otherwise, LR patients, the largest tumor size with no difference between ET and RNU was ≤ 1.5 cm (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS:RNU is associated with improved survival when compared with ET in the management of LR UTUC using current guidelines with a size threshold of < 2 cm. In appropriately selected LR patients, we find no difference between RNU and ET up to a tumor size of ≤ 1.5 cm. However, in the absence of prospective studies, the usage of ET is best left up to clinician discretion.
Authors: Mark L Cutress; Grant D Stewart; Edward C G Tudor; Eric A Egong; Simon Wells-Cole; Simon Phipps; Ben G Thomas; Antony C P Riddick; S Alan McNeill; David A Tolley Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas Seisen; Benoit Peyronnet; Jose Luis Dominguez-Escrig; Harman M Bruins; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Marko Babjuk; Andreas Böhle; Maximilian Burger; Eva M Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Eero Kaasinen; Joan Palou; Bas W G van Rhijn; Richard J Sylvester; Richard Zigeuner; Shahrokh F Shariat; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jay Simhan; Marc C Smaldone; Brian L Egleston; Daniel Canter; Steven N Sterious; Anthony T Corcoran; Serge Ginzburg; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Morgan Rouprêt; Marko Babjuk; Eva Compérat; Richard Zigeuner; Richard J Sylvester; Maximilian Burger; Nigel C Cowan; Paolo Gontero; Bas W G Van Rhijn; A Hugh Mostafid; Joan Palou; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: R Yakoubi; P Colin; T Seisen; P Léon; L Nison; G Bozzini; S F Shariat; M Rouprêt Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Vitaly Margulis; Shahrokh F Shariat; Surena F Matin; Ashish M Kamat; Richard Zigeuner; Eiji Kikuchi; Yair Lotan; Alon Weizer; Jay D Raman; Christopher G Wood Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ahmad Shabsigh; Nir Kleinmann; Angela B Smith; Douglas Scherr; Elyse Seltzer; Mark Schoenberg; Seth P Lerner Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2021-03-07 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Jeremy Ng Chieng Hin; Dinul Hettiarachchilage; Paul Gravestock; Bhavan Rai; Bhaskar K Somani; Rajan Veeratterapillay Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Katherine E Fero; Yong Shan; Patrick M Lec; Vidit Sharma; Aditya Srinivasan; Giri Movva; Jacques Baillargeon; Karim Chamie; Stephen B Williams Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-10-01