| Literature DB >> 34084116 |
Dalia O Mohamed1, Mona M Sayed1, Islam F Abdelkawi2, Mahmoud H Elshoieby3, Salah M Khallaf4, Lamia M Khallaf5, Doaa M Fouad5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomizing patients to bladder preservation or radical cystectomy (RC) for the treatment of bladder cancer has not been practical, due to patient and physician preferences. Therefore, continually comparing the 2 treatment modalities is needed, in order to make the proper choice for each patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of T1-4N0M0 bladder cancer patients, who presented to the South Egypt Cancer Institute between 2007 and 2017 and were treated by either bladder preservation or RC were reviewed.Entities:
Keywords: Bladder cancer; Cystectomy; Preservation; Squamous cell carcinoma; Transitional cell carcinoma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34084116 PMCID: PMC8137092 DOI: 10.1097/CU9.0000000000000009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Urol ISSN: 1661-7649
Patients characteristics.
| Bladder preservation (n = 81) | RC (n = 85) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median age at diagnosis, y | 60 (30–70) | 56 (40–70) | 0.102 |
| Age grouping, n (%) | 0.041 | ||
| <50 years | 13 (16%) | 25 (30%) | |
| ≥50 years | 68 (84%) | 60 (60%) | |
| Sex, n (%) | 0.093 | ||
| Male | 67 (83%) | 61 (72%) | |
| Female | 14 (17%) | 14 (28%) | |
| Pathology, n (%) | 0.000 | ||
| TCC | 72 (89%) | 41 (48%) | |
| Squamous cell | 8 (10%) | 37 (43%) | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 0 (0%) | 4 (5%) | |
| Undifferntiated | 1 (1%) | 3 (3%) | |
| Grade, n (%) | 0.098 | ||
| Low grade | 31 (38%) | 22 (26%) | |
| High grade | 50 (62%) | 63 (74%) | |
| Stage, n (%) | 0.167 | ||
| T1 | 5 (6%) | 3 (3%) | |
| T2 | 43 (53%) | 34 (40%) | |
| T3 | 27 (33%) | 35 (41%) | |
| T4 | 6 (7%) | 13 (15%) |
Treatment outcome for all the patients.
| Bladder preservation group | RC group | |
|---|---|---|
| Local recurrence, n (%) | 22 (27%) | 22 (25.9%) |
| Distant metastasis, n (%) | 35 (43%) | 31 (36.5%) |
| Free from disease, n (%) | 37 (45.7%) | 45 (25.9% |
| Living at the end of the study, n (%) | 37 (45.7%) | 50 (58.8%) |
Figure 1LRFS for bladder preservation versus RC groups.
Figure 2DFS for bladder preservation versus RC groups.
Figure 3OS of the bladder preservation versus RC groups.