Claudia Collà Ruvolo1, Luigi Nocera2, L Franziska Stolzenbach3, Mike Wenzel4, Gianluigi Califano5, Zhe Tian6, Paolo Verze7, Shahrokh F Shariat8, Fred Saad6, Alberto Briganti9, Vincenzo Mirone5, Pierre I Karakiewicz6. 1. Urology Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy; Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada. Electronic address: c.collaruvolo@gmail.com. 2. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada; Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 3. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada; Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 5. Urology Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 6. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada. 7. Urology Unit, Scuola Medica Salernitana Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy. 8. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. 9. Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pathological stage and grade of renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma (RPUC) are difficult to estimate before radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). OBJECTIVE: To examine tumor size as an independent predictor of muscle-invasive and/or non-organ-confined rates of RPUC at RNU. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2016), we identified nonmetastatic RPUC at RNU. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First, we examined stage and grade distributions. Second, two separate univariable and subsequent multivariable logistic regression models (LRMs) were fitted to test the association between tumor size and the rate of (1) muscle-invasive or higher (pT2-4N0-2) and (2) non-organ-confined (pT3-4N0-2) RPUC at RNU. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 4657 patients, 3052 (65.5%) had pT2-4N0-2 and 2382 (51.2%) pT3-4N0-2 RPUC at RNU. The median tumor size was 3.7 cm (interquartile range 2.5-5.0). The high-grade RPUC rate ranged from 71.1% to 87.2% (p < 0.001) among SEER registries. Conversely, no differences were recorded for stage (p > 0.05) or tumor size (p = 0.1) across all registries. Rates of pT2-4N0-2 and pT3-4N0-2 RPUC increased with tumor size. Specifically, for tumor size intervals from 0.1-1.0 cm to 9.1-10.0 cm, the pT2-4N0-2 rate ranged from 45% to 83% and the pT3-4N0-2 rate ranged from 23% to 75%, respectively (both p < 0.001). In multivariable LRMs, tumor size (in 1-cm units) was an independent predictor of pT2-4N0-2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.25; p < 0.001) and pT3-4N0-2 (OR 1.30; p < 0.001) disease at RNU. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor size is a key predictor of muscle-invasive or non-organ-confined RPUC. Greater tumor size directly and virtually linearly predicts a higher rate of invasive or non-organ-confined RPUC at RNU. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with cancer in urinary tract cells lining the kidney, larger tumor size predicts worse stage of the disease at surgery.
BACKGROUND: Pathological stage and grade of renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma (RPUC) are difficult to estimate before radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). OBJECTIVE: To examine tumor size as an independent predictor of muscle-invasive and/or non-organ-confined rates of RPUC at RNU. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2016), we identified nonmetastatic RPUC at RNU. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First, we examined stage and grade distributions. Second, two separate univariable and subsequent multivariable logistic regression models (LRMs) were fitted to test the association between tumor size and the rate of (1) muscle-invasive or higher (pT2-4N0-2) and (2) non-organ-confined (pT3-4N0-2) RPUC at RNU. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 4657 patients, 3052 (65.5%) had pT2-4N0-2 and 2382 (51.2%) pT3-4N0-2 RPUC at RNU. The median tumor size was 3.7 cm (interquartile range 2.5-5.0). The high-grade RPUC rate ranged from 71.1% to 87.2% (p < 0.001) among SEER registries. Conversely, no differences were recorded for stage (p > 0.05) or tumor size (p = 0.1) across all registries. Rates of pT2-4N0-2 and pT3-4N0-2 RPUC increased with tumor size. Specifically, for tumor size intervals from 0.1-1.0 cm to 9.1-10.0 cm, the pT2-4N0-2 rate ranged from 45% to 83% and the pT3-4N0-2 rate ranged from 23% to 75%, respectively (both p < 0.001). In multivariable LRMs, tumor size (in 1-cm units) was an independent predictor of pT2-4N0-2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.25; p < 0.001) and pT3-4N0-2 (OR 1.30; p < 0.001) disease at RNU. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor size is a key predictor of muscle-invasive or non-organ-confined RPUC. Greater tumor size directly and virtually linearly predicts a higher rate of invasive or non-organ-confined RPUC at RNU. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with cancer in urinary tract cells lining the kidney, larger tumor size predicts worse stage of the disease at surgery.
Authors: Nicola Longo; Giuseppe Celentano; Luigi Napolitano; Roberto La Rocca; Marco Capece; Gianluigi Califano; Claudia Collà Ruvolo; Francesco Mangiapia; Ferdinando Fusco; Simone Morra; Carmine Turco; Francesco Di Bello; Giovanni Maria Fusco; Luigi Cirillo; Crescenzo Cacciapuoti; Lorenzo Spirito; Armando Calogero; Antonello Sica; Caterina Sagnelli; Massimiliano Creta Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Gianluigi Califano; Idir Ouzaid; Paul Laine-Caroff; Arthur Peyrottes; Claudia Collà Ruvolo; Benjamin Pradère; Vincent Elalouf; Vincent Misrai; Jean-François Hermieu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Evanguelos Xylinas Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Arthur Peyrottes; Gianluigi Califano; Idir Ouzaïd; Paul Lainé-Caroff; Thibaut Long Depaquit; Jean-François Hermieu; Evanguelos Xylinas Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-03-24
Authors: Maximilian Pallauf; Frederik König; David D'Andrea; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Hadi Mostafaei; Reza Sari Motlagh; Fahad Quhal; Abdulmajeed Aydh; Takafumi Yanagisawa; Tatsushi Kawada; Pawel Rajwa; Lukas Lusuardi; Francesco Soria; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Morgan Rouprêt; Michael Rink; Yair Lotan; Vitaly Margulis; Nirmish Singla; Evanguelos Xylinas; Shahrokh F Shariat; Benjamin Pradere Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Claudia Collà Ruvolo; Christoph Würnschimmel; Mike Wenzel; Luigi Nocera; Giuseppe Celentano; Francesco Mangiapia; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Felix H C Chun; Alberto Briganti; Nicola Longo; Vincenzo Mirone; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Łukasz Białek; Konrad Bilski; Jakub Dobruch; Wojciech Krajewski; Tomasz Szydełko; Piotr Kryst; Sławomir Poletajew Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 6.639