Jiafeng Shou1, Qi Zhang1, Dahong Zhang2. 1. Department of Urology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. Department of Urology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 3100102375@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of different distant metastases pattern in bladder cancer is unexplored still now. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of different distant metastases pattern on the survival of patients with stage IV bladder cancers. METHODS: A SEER analysis was performed and the overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to further analyze survival outcome and other prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 90,382 eligible cases were retrieved in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Among these patients, stage of IV bladder cancer accounted for 7.03% (6354/90382) at initial diagnosis. Patients who suffered metastasis occupied 35.51% (2256/6354). Comparing with other three single metastases, the patients with liver metastasis exhibited worst OS whose mean of survival was 7.118 months. Multivariate analysis with Cox hazard regression model showed that metastatic site was an independent prognostic factor of OS in patients with single metastasis (P < 0.05). The results of univariate survival analysis showed that metastatic pattern, sex, age, race, tumor stage, N-classification, differentiated grade, histological type, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and insurance status were not significantly correlated with overall survival of patients with two or three metastatic sites (all, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Bone was the most common site of single metastasis for bladder cancers. Patients with liver metastasis had worse survival outcome comparing with other three distant metastases. Knowledge of these differences in metastatic patterns might help to better guide pre-treatment evaluation of bladder cancer and make determination regarding curative-intent interventions.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of different distant metastases pattern in bladder cancer is unexplored still now. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of different distant metastases pattern on the survival of patients with stage IV bladder cancers. METHODS: A SEER analysis was performed and the overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to further analyze survival outcome and other prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 90,382 eligible cases were retrieved in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Among these patients, stage of IV bladder cancer accounted for 7.03% (6354/90382) at initial diagnosis. Patients who suffered metastasis occupied 35.51% (2256/6354). Comparing with other three single metastases, the patients with liver metastasis exhibited worst OS whose mean of survival was 7.118 months. Multivariate analysis with Cox hazard regression model showed that metastatic site was an independent prognostic factor of OS in patients with single metastasis (P < 0.05). The results of univariate survival analysis showed that metastatic pattern, sex, age, race, tumor stage, N-classification, differentiated grade, histological type, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and insurance status were not significantly correlated with overall survival of patients with two or three metastatic sites (all, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Bone was the most common site of single metastasis for bladder cancers. Patients with liver metastasis had worse survival outcome comparing with other three distant metastases. Knowledge of these differences in metastatic patterns might help to better guide pre-treatment evaluation of bladder cancer and make determination regarding curative-intent interventions.
Authors: Elenir B C Avritscher; Catherine D Cooksley; H Barton Grossman; Anita L Sabichi; Lois Hamblin; Colin P Dinney; Linda S Elting Journal: Urology Date: 2006-09-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Angela B Mariotto; K Robin Yabroff; Yongwu Shao; Eric J Feuer; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: H von der Maase; S W Hansen; J T Roberts; L Dogliotti; T Oliver; M J Moore; I Bodrogi; P Albers; A Knuth; C M Lippert; P Kerbrat; P Sanchez Rovira; P Wersall; S P Cleall; D F Roychowdhury; I Tomlin; C M Visseren-Grul; P F Conte Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeremy Mason; Zaki Hasnain; Gus Miranda; Karanvir Gill; Hooman Djaladat; Mihir Desai; Paul K Newton; Inderbir S Gill; Peter Kuhn Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-08-14