| Literature DB >> 35313884 |
Kai Li1, Xiao Yang1, Juntao Zhuang1, Lingkai Cai1, Jie Han1, Hao Yu1, Zijian Zhou1, Jianchen Lv1, Dexiang Feng1, Baorui Yuan1, Qikai Wu1, Pengchao Li1, Qiang Cao2, Qiang Lu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate whether Pentafecta is suitable for bladder cancer patients receiving laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC).Entities:
Keywords: Bladder cancer; Pelvic lymph node dissection; Pentafecta; Radical cystectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35313884 PMCID: PMC8939065 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-022-00987-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Urol ISSN: 1471-2490 Impact factor: 2.264
The clinicopathological characteristics among BCa patients
| Characteristics | Total | Pentafecta attained | Pentafecta not attained | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n, %) | 340 (100) | 50 (14.7) | 290 (85.4) | |
| Mean age, years ± SD | 66.41 ± 11.27 | 62.64 ± 10.36 | 67.07 ± 11.31 | 0.01 |
| Gender (n, %) | 0.317 | |||
| Male | 288 (84.7) | 40 (80.0) | 248 (85.5) | |
| Female | 52 (15.3) | 10 (20.0) | 42 (14.5) | |
| Smoking history (yes, %) | 131 (38.5) | 14 (28.0) | 117 (40.3) | 0.136 |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n, %) | 38 (11.2) | 8 (16.0) | 30 (10.3) | 0.241 |
| Type of urinary diversion (n, %) | 0.014 | |||
| Cutaneous ureterostomy | 173 (50.9) | 16 (32.0) | 157 (54.1) | |
| Conduit | 107 (31.5) | 21 (42.0) | 86 (29.7) | |
| Orthotopic neobladder | 60 (17.6) | 13 (26.0) | 47 (16.2) | |
| Pathological T-stage (%) | 0.488 | |||
| pT0 | 29 (8.5) | 1 (2.0) | 28 (9.7) | |
| pTa | 25 (7.4) | 3 (6.0) | 22 (7.6) | |
| pT1 | 96 (28.2) | 17 (34.0) | 79 (27.2) | |
| pT2 | 83 (24.4) | 12 (24.0) | 71 (24.5) | |
| pT3 | 65 (19.1) | 9 (18.0) | 56 (19.3) | |
| pT4 | 42 (12.4) | 8 (16.0) | 34 (11.7) | |
| Pathological N-stage (%) | 0.408 | |||
| N0 | 312 (91.8) | 44 (88.0) | 268 (92.4) | |
| N1 | 15 (4.4) | 4 (8.0) | 11 (3.8) | |
| N2 | 9 (2.6) | 2 (4.0) | 7 (2.4) | |
| N3 | 4 (1.2) | 0 (0) | 4 (1.4) | |
| No. lymph node removed (mean, ± SD) | 10.46 ± 8.60 | 20.34 ± 4.23 | 8.76 ± 8.0 | < 0.001 |
BCa = bladder cancer; SD = standard deviation
Fig. 1Achievement of Pentafecta
Fig. 2Overall survival (OS) between Pentafecta attained and non-attained group
Multivariable Cox’s proportional hazard regression model to predict overall survival
| Variable | HR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (male vs. female) | 0.81 (0.44–1.50) | 0.510 |
| Age (≤ 65 vs. > 65) | 0.68 (0.42–1.10) | 0.113 |
| Diversion type (conduit vs. cutaneous ureterostomy) | 1.52 (0.96–2.41) | 0.072 |
| Diversion type (neobladder vs. cutaneous ureterostomy) | 0.59 (0.26–1.36) | 0.218 |
| Pathological T-stage (MIBC vs. NMIBC) | 3.70 (2.19–6.26) | < 0.001 |
| Pathological N-stage (N + vs. N−) | 2.08 (1.08–4.00) | 0.028 |
| Smoking history (yes vs. no) | 1.23 (0.78–1.95) | 0.381 |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) | 0.56 (0.20–1.57) | 0.271 |
| Pentafecta (yes vs. no) | 0.33 (0.14–0.78) | 0.011 |
Fig. 3Subgroup survival analysis on the number of removed LNs. A Compare the group with 10–15 LNs removed and meeting the remaining four Pentafecta criteria to group with ≥ 16 LNs removed (Pentafecta group) in OS. B In NMIBC patients, compare the group with ≥ 10 LNs removed to group with < 10 LNs removed in OS. C In MIBC patients, compare the group with ≥ 10 LNs removed to group with < 10 LNs removed in OS
Multivariable Cox’s proportional hazard regression model to predict overall survival in the subgroup (10 LNs as Pentafecta threshold)
| Variable | HR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (male vs. female) | 0.72 (0.38–1.38) | 0.325 |
| Age (≤ 65 vs. > 65) | 1.07 (0.63–1.81) | 0.817 |
| Diversion type (conduit vs. cutaneous ureterostomy) | 1.31 (0.80–2.16) | 0.289 |
| Diversion type (neobladder vs. cutaneous ureterostomy) | 0.79 (0.36–1.84) | 0.476 |
| Pathological T-stage (MIBC vs. NMIBC) | 4.96 (2.61–9.40) | < 0.001 |
| Pathological N-stage (N + vs. N−) | 2.86 (1.31–6.22) | 0.008 |
| Smoking history (yes vs. no) | 0.92 (0.55–1.55) | 0.756 |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) | 0.92 (0.32–2.61) | 0.870 |
| Pentafecta (10 LNs) (yes vs. no) | 0.31 (0.11–0.89) | 0.029 |
Fig. 4Overview of PLND. A The status of PLND both in NMIBC and MIBC. B In both NMIBC and MIBC, compare the age of patients in the PLND and no PLND group. C In NMIBC patients, compare the PLND group with no PLND group in OS. D In MIBC patients, compare the PLND group with no PLND group in OS
Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis of the factors leading to PLND
| Variable | OR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (male vs. female) | 1.29 (0.58–2.87) | 0.533 |
| Age (≤ 65 vs. > 65) | 3.33 (1.68–6.59) | 0.001 |
| Diversion type (conduit vs. cutaneous ureterostomy) | 1.40 (0.74–2.65) | 0.30 |
| Diversion type (neobladder vs. cutaneous ureterostomy) | 2.53 (0.81–9.10) | 0.093 |
| Pathological T-stage (MIBC vs. NMIBC) | 0.73 (0.40–1.31) | 0.286 |
| Smoking history (yes vs. no) | 1.36 (0.72–2.59) | 0.345 |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) | 8.36 (1.09–64.12) | 0.041 |
Multivariable logistic regression predictive model of Pentafecta achievement
| Variable | OR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (male vs. female) | 0.72 (0.31–1.67) | 0.445 |
| Age (≤ 65 vs. > 65) | 1.51 (0.79–2.91) | 0.214 |
| Diversion type (conduit vs. cutaneous ureterostomy) | 2.09 (1.01–4.31) | 0.047 |
| Diversion type (neobladder vs. cutaneous ureterostomy) | 2.47 (1.01–6.05) | 0.048 |
| Pathological T-stage (MIBC vs. NMIBC) | 1.10 (0.58–2.07) | 0.780 |
| Pathological N-stage (N + vs. N−) | 1.68 (0.58–4.85) | 0.339 |
| Smoking history (yes vs. no) | 1.36 (0.72–2.59) | 0.345 |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) | 1.48 (0.60–3.67) | 0.397 |
| Surgical experience (continuous) | 1.05 (1.03–1.07) | < 0.001 |