Secondary neoplasms of the urinary bladder-clinical management and oncological outcomes.
Bladder cancer
metastatic cancer
secondary neoplasm
survival
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
28
05
2020
accepted:
23
12
2020
entrez:
23
7
2021
pubmed:
24
7
2021
medline:
24
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Secondary neoplasms of the bladder account for 4.5% of all bladder neoplasms however there is limited literature reporting management and survival. This is the largest single centre series presented in current literature with long term oncological follow up. This is a single institutional, retrospective cohort study of patients with a histological diagnosis of a secondary bladder neoplasm from January 2007 to December 2017 (n=40). Prognostic variables examined included age at diagnosis, histology, disease free survival and treatment. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survival. We used multiple regression analysis to identify the most significant treatments for each population group in terms of their survival. Twenty-one patients were male (53%) with a median age of 68 and 19 were female (47%) with a median age of 64. The most common secondary neoplasms and their median survival were prostate [12 patients (30%), 446 days], colorectal [9 patients (23%), 403 days], ovarian [5 patients (13%), 369 days], cervical [4 patients (10%), 148 days], breast [3 patients (8%), 241 days], lymphoma [3 patients (8%), 145 days], gastric [2 patients (5%), 66 days], and renal [2 patients (5%), 854 days]. Those receiving treatment following a secondary diagnosis demonstrated statistical significance in survival for colorectal (surgery P=0.013), prostate (radiotherapy P=0.0012 and hormonal therapy P=0.004) and ovarian cancer (chemotherapy P=0.00002). Prognosis and treatment depends upon the primary neoplasm. There is some survival benefit in well selected patients receiving treatment following a diagnosis of a bladder secondary.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Secondary neoplasms of the bladder account for 4.5% of all bladder neoplasms however there is limited literature reporting management and survival. This is the largest single centre series presented in current literature with long term oncological follow up.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a single institutional, retrospective cohort study of patients with a histological diagnosis of a secondary bladder neoplasm from January 2007 to December 2017 (n=40). Prognostic variables examined included age at diagnosis, histology, disease free survival and treatment. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survival. We used multiple regression analysis to identify the most significant treatments for each population group in terms of their survival.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-one patients were male (53%) with a median age of 68 and 19 were female (47%) with a median age of 64. The most common secondary neoplasms and their median survival were prostate [12 patients (30%), 446 days], colorectal [9 patients (23%), 403 days], ovarian [5 patients (13%), 369 days], cervical [4 patients (10%), 148 days], breast [3 patients (8%), 241 days], lymphoma [3 patients (8%), 145 days], gastric [2 patients (5%), 66 days], and renal [2 patients (5%), 854 days]. Those receiving treatment following a secondary diagnosis demonstrated statistical significance in survival for colorectal (surgery P=0.013), prostate (radiotherapy P=0.0012 and hormonal therapy P=0.004) and ovarian cancer (chemotherapy P=0.00002).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Prognosis and treatment depends upon the primary neoplasm. There is some survival benefit in well selected patients receiving treatment following a diagnosis of a bladder secondary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34295729
doi: 10.21037/tau-20-955
pii: tau-10-06-2427
pmc: PMC8261409
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2427-2434Informations de copyright
2021 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-955). Dr. Sharma reports grants from NIHR, and Cancer treatment and research trust (CTRT), outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Am J Surg Pathol. 2014 Aug;38(8):e6-e19
pubmed: 25029122
J Urol. 1951 Jan;65(1):144-53
pubmed: 14804776
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 May;96(18):e6790
pubmed: 28471976
J Urol. 1955 Oct;74(4):498-521
pubmed: 13264313
Am J Surg Pathol. 2014 Aug;38(8):e20-34
pubmed: 25029121
Eur Urol. 2016 Feb;69(2):300-10
pubmed: 26346676
BJU Int. 2009 Sep;104(6):770-6
pubmed: 19624595
J Urol. 1956 Jun;75(6):965-72
pubmed: 13320594
Histopathology. 2000 Jan;36(1):32-40
pubmed: 10632749
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1999;10(1):39-42
pubmed: 10207766
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Oct;139(1):10-6
pubmed: 26271155
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-2328
pubmed: 31216226
Int J Surg Pathol. 2018 Apr;26(2):120-125
pubmed: 29166807
Can J Urol. 2007 Feb;14(1):3443-8
pubmed: 17324324
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Sep 20;25(27):4308-10
pubmed: 17878482
J Urol. 1963 Sep;90:281-4
pubmed: 14055988
Urol Int. 2018;101(2):125-131
pubmed: 29055945
Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):74-85
pubmed: 15405683
Br J Urol. 1989 Aug;64(2):138-42
pubmed: 2765779
Breast. 2018 Jun;39:131-138
pubmed: 29679849
Int J Surg Pathol. 2012 Aug;20(4):342-8
pubmed: 22134629