Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Cases. Nov 6, 2020; 8(21): 5104-5115
Published online Nov 6, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i21.5104
Oncological impact of different distal ureter managements during radical nephroureterectomy for primary upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
Shi-Cong Lai, Peng-Jie Wu, Jian-Yong Liu, Samuel Seery, Sheng-Jie Liu, Xing-Bo Long, Ming Liu, Jian-Ye Wang
Shi-Cong Lai, Peng-Jie Wu, Jian-Yong Liu, Sheng-Jie Liu, Xing-Bo Long, Ming Liu, Jian-Ye Wang, Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China
Shi-Cong Lai, Jian-Yong Liu, Xing-Bo Long, Ming Liu, Jian-Ye Wang, Graduate School of Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China
Samuel Seery, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
Author contributions: Lai SC, Wu PJ, and Wang JY designed the study; Lai SC, Wu PJ, Liu JY, Liu SJ, and Long XB participated in collecting the data; Lai SC and Wu PJ participated in interpreting the data; Lai SC and Seery S drafted and revised the paper; Liu M and Wang JY participated in critically reviewing the paper; All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Supported by the Capital Clinical Characteristics Applications Research Program, No. Z171100001017201; the Beijing Hospital Clinical Research 121 Project, No. BJ-2018-090; and the Beijing Hospital Clinical Research, No. BJ-2015-098.
Institutional review board statement: This study was approved by the institutional research ethics committee of our hospital (2019BJYYEC-237-01) and all procedures were conducted in accordance with Helsinki Declaration principles.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors report no conflicts of interest regarding this study or report.
Data sharing statement: The original anonymous dataset is available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.
STROBE statement: The guidelines provided in the STROBE Statement have been adopted.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Jian-Ye Wang, MD, Professor, Surgeon, Surgical Oncologist, Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 Dahua Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100730, China. wangjy@bjhmoh.cn
Received: May 15, 2020
Peer-review started: May 15, 2020
First decision: September 12, 2020
Revised: September 14, 2020
Accepted: September 23, 2020
Article in press: September 23, 2020
Published online: November 6, 2020
Abstract
BACKGROUND

The current standard surgical treatment for non-metastatic upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with bladder cuff excision (BCE). Typically, BCE techniques are classified in one of the following three categories: An open technique described as intrasvesical incision of the bladder cuff, a transurethral incision of the bladder cuff (TUBC), and an extravesical incision of the bladder cuff (EVBC) method. Even though each of these management techniques are widely used, there is no consensus about which surgical intervention is superior, with the best oncologic outcomes.

AIM

To investigate the oncological outcomes of three BCE methods during RNU for primary UTUC patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 248 primary UTUC patients, who underwent RNU with BCE between January 2004 to December 2018. Patients were analyzed according to each BCE method. Data extracted included patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and oncological outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and log-rank tests. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was utilized to identify independent predictors. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 248 participants, 39.9% (n = 99) underwent intrasvesical incision of the bladder cuff, 38.7% (n = 96) EVBC, and 21.4% (n = 53) TUBC. At a median follow-up of 44.2 mo, bladder recurrence developed in 17.2%, 12.5%, and 13.2% of the cases, respectively. Cancer-specific deaths occurred in 11.1%, 5.2%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with a log-rank test highlighted no significant differences in intravesical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival among these approaches with P values of 0.987, 0.825, and 0.497, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the lower ureter location appears to have inferior intravesical recurrence-free survival (P = 0.042). However, cancer-specific survival and overall survival were independently influenced by tumor stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.439; 95% confidence interval: 2.424-29.377; P = 0.001) and lymph node status (HR = 14.343; 95%CI: 5.176-39.745; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

All three techniques had comparable outcomes; although, EVBC and TUBC are minimally invasive. While based upon rather limited data, these findings will support urologists in blending experience with evidence to inform patient choices. However, larger, rigorously designed, multicenter studies with long term outcomes are still required.

Keywords: Bladder cuff excision, Prognosis, Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma, Radical nephroureterectomy, Technique, Survival

Core Tip: In this work, by focusing on a Chinese population, we intended to evaluated the oncological outcomes of three bladder cuff excision methods during radical nephroureterectomy for primary upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma patients. Survival analysis suggests all three techniques had comparable outcomes, although, extravesical incision of the bladder cuff and transurethral incision of the bladder cuff are minimally invasive. We hope that current comparative knowledge can add further sophistication to the evidence base for this disease and intervention. Generating accurate estimations using long-term morbidity data benefits both clinicians and patients in terms of disease management and for shared decision-making.