Literature DB >> 32319003

Percutaneous nephrostomy in obstructing pelvic malignancy does not facilitate further oncological treatment.

Samuel Stephen Folkard1, Srijit Banerjee2, Richard Menzies-Wilson3, Joseph Reason3, Evangelos Psallidas2, Elliot Clissold3, Ahmad Al-Mushatat2, Saurabh Chaudhri4, James Stephen Arthur Green3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with ureteric obstruction in advanced malignancy is unclear. How quality of life is affected by a nephrostomy and how many of these patients undergo further oncological treatment remains uncertain. The objective of this retrospective multicentre study was to look at the outcomes of patients who had percutaneous nephrostomy insertion for malignancy.
METHODS: We identified patients who had a nephrostomy inserted for ureteric obstruction due to malignancy at our institution from January 2015 to December 2018. We obtained data retrospectively from our electronic patient record system. Patients who had nephrostomy insertion for other causes such as ureteric calculi or injury were excluded from the study.
RESULTS: 105 patients underwent nephrostomy insertion during this time interval. 51.42% patients (n = 54) had urological malignancies (bladder and/or prostate cancer). The median LOS was 14 days (range 1-104 days) post-procedure and 39.04% (n = 41) had at least one 30-day readmission to hospital. The average starting creatinine level was 348 mmol/L (range 49-1133) and the average creatinine at discharge was 170 mmol/L (range 44-651). Although the average change in the creatinine (190 mmol/L) is statistically significant (p < 0.001), it did not seem to prolong life of the patients. Only 26 (24.76%) patients were alive (all-cause mortality) at the end of the 4-year period with an average life expectancy of 139 days following nephrostomy. Only 30.47% (n = 32) patients underwent further oncological treatment.
CONCLUSION: In our series, most patients who had nephrostomy insertion for ureteric obstruction due to malignancy had no further oncological treatment following insertion. Percutaneous nephrostomy is a procedure not without associated morbidity and does not always prolong survival. Due to the poor prognosis in cases of advanced malignancy, we advocate multi-disciplinary decision-making prior to nephrostomy insertion.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Nephrostomy; Obstructing pelvic malignancy; Quality of Life

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32319003     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-020-02466-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  16 in total

1.  The role of percutaneous nephrostomy in malignant ureteric obstruction.

Authors:  J R Wilson; G H Urwin; M J Stower
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Outcome of palliative urinary diversion in the treatment of advanced malignancies.

Authors:  B Shekarriz; H Shekarriz; J Upadhyay; M Banerjee; H Becker; J E Pontes; D P Wood
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1999-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Retrograde or antegrade double-pigtail stent placement for malignant ureteric obstruction?

Authors:  M C Uthappa; N C Cowan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.350

4.  A prognostic model for survival after palliative urinary diversion for malignant ureteric obstruction: a prospective study of 208 patients.

Authors:  Maurício D Cordeiro; Rafael F Coelho; Daher C Chade; Rodrigo R Pessoa; Mateus S Chaib; José R Colombo-Júnior; José Pontes-Júnior; Giuliano B Guglielmetti; Miguel Srougi
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Malignant ureteral obstruction: outcomes after intervention. Have things changed?

Authors:  Lih-Ming Wong; Laurence K Cleeve; Alvin D Milner; Alexander G Pitman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-05-17       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Quality-of-life assessment after palliative interventions to manage malignant ureteral obstruction.

Authors:  Wayne Laurence Monsky; Chris Molloy; Bedro Jin; Timothy Nolan; Dayantha Fernando; Shaun Loh; Chin-Shang Li
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 7.  Malignant ureteric obstruction decompression: how much gain for how much pain? A narrative review.

Authors:  Joanna Prentice; Tarik Amer; Ali Tasleem; Omar Aboumarzouk
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Palliative percutaneous nephrostomy in recurrent cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis of 50 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Rodrigo Dienstmann; Cristhiane da Silva Pinto; Margarida Tutungi Pereira; Isabele Avila Small; Carlos Gil Ferreira
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 3.612

9.  Prognostic model for predicting survival after palliative urinary diversion for ureteral obstruction: analysis of 140 cases.

Authors:  Junichiro Ishioka; Yukio Kageyama; Masaharu Inoue; Yotsuo Higashi; Kazunori Kihara
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury--true GFR versus urinary creatinine clearance and estimating equations.

Authors:  Gudrun Bragadottir; Bengt Redfors; Sven-Erik Ricksten
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2013-06-15       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Outcomes Related to Percutaneous Nephrostomies (PCN) in Malignancy-Associated Ureteric Obstruction: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Francesca J New; Sally J Deverill; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 2.  Acute Kidney Injury in the Patient with Cancer.

Authors:  Alejandro Meraz-Munoz; Amit Langote; Kenar D Jhaveri; Hassane Izzedine; Prakash Gudsoorkar
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-29
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.