Chuan-Shu Chen1, Chia-Yen Lin2, Chun-Li Wang3, Shian-Shiang Wang4, Jian-Ri Li5, Chun-Kuang Yang5, Chen-Li Cheng5, Kun-Yuan Chiu6, Shun-Fa Yang7. 1. Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 2. Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; Division of Surgical Critical Care, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 4. Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; Department of Applied Chemistry, National Chi Nan University, Nantou, Taiwan. 5. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 6. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; Department of Applied Chemistry, National Chi Nan University, Nantou, Taiwan. Electronic address: kychiu37782002@gmail.com. 7. Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; Department of Medical Research, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. Electronic address: ysf@csmu.edu.tw.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) on node-negative upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) in patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in single tertiary referral center of middle Taiwan between 2001 and 2015. Seven hundred and twenty-eight patients were diagnosed of UTUC and underwent RNU with ipsilateral bladder cuff excision including 303 and 195 patients with N0 and Nx status respectively. LVI status was assessed as a prognostic factor for cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: LVI was observed in 82 patients (16.5%). LVI presentation associated with smoking status, advanced tumor stage, high tumor grade, positive surgical margin, and consequence lung/liver/bone metastasis. In the multivariate analysis, LVI was failed to predict CSS, OS, and disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 [0.55-2.09], 1.05 [0.62-1.79], 1.15 [0.69-1.92], in CSS, OS, DFS, respectively). In the subgroup analysis of pT1-2 disease, the CSS, OS, and DFS were associated with LVI status (HR [95% CI]: 2.29 [0.44-11.84], 3.17 [1.16-8.67], 2.66 [1.04-6.79], in CSS, OS, DFS, respectively). In contrast, there was no difference in pT3 disease. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, LVI status was not associated with survival outcomes of node-negative UTUC in our study. The subgroup analysis showed different prognostic impacts of LVI status in node-negative UTUC with T1-2 and T3 stage. Further evidence to clarify the prognostic effect is needed to make LVI became a practical factor in clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) on node-negative upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) in patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in single tertiary referral center of middle Taiwan between 2001 and 2015. Seven hundred and twenty-eight patients were diagnosed of UTUC and underwent RNU with ipsilateral bladder cuff excision including 303 and 195 patients with N0 and Nx status respectively. LVI status was assessed as a prognostic factor for cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: LVI was observed in 82 patients (16.5%). LVI presentation associated with smoking status, advanced tumor stage, high tumor grade, positive surgical margin, and consequence lung/liver/bone metastasis. In the multivariate analysis, LVI was failed to predict CSS, OS, and disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 [0.55-2.09], 1.05 [0.62-1.79], 1.15 [0.69-1.92], in CSS, OS, DFS, respectively). In the subgroup analysis of pT1-2 disease, the CSS, OS, and DFS were associated with LVI status (HR [95% CI]: 2.29 [0.44-11.84], 3.17 [1.16-8.67], 2.66 [1.04-6.79], in CSS, OS, DFS, respectively). In contrast, there was no difference in pT3 disease. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, LVI status was not associated with survival outcomes of node-negative UTUC in our study. The subgroup analysis showed different prognostic impacts of LVI status in node-negative UTUC with T1-2 and T3 stage. Further evidence to clarify the prognostic effect is needed to make LVI became a practical factor in clinical decision-making.