Decisional and prognostic impact of diagnostic ureteroscopy in high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A multi-institutional collaborative analysis (ROBUUST collaborative group).

Diagnostic ureteroscopy Kidney-sparing surgery Nephroureterectomy Upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Journal

Urologic oncology
ISSN: 1873-2496
Titre abrégé: Urol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9805460

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 May 2024
Historique:
received: 31 12 2023
revised: 11 03 2024
accepted: 20 04 2024
medline: 18 5 2024
pubmed: 18 5 2024
entrez: 17 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Diagnostic ureteroscopy (URS) with or without biopsy remains a subject of contention in the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), with varying recommendations across different guidelines. The study aims to analyse the decision-making and prognostic role of diagnostic ureteroscopy (URS) in high-risk UTUC patients undergoing curative surgery. In this retrospective multi-institutional analysis of high-risk UTUC patients from the ROBUUST dataset, a comparison between patients who received or not preoperative URS and biopsy before curative surgery was carried out. Logistic regression analysis evaluated differences between patients receiving URS and its impact on treatment strategy. Survival analysis included 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). After adjusting for high-risk prognostic group features, Cox proportional hazard model estimated significant predictors of time-to-event outcomes. Overall, 1,912 patients were included, 1,035 with preoperative URS and biopsy and 877 without. Median follow-up: 24 months. Robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy was the most common procedure (55.1%), in both subgroups. The 5-year OS (P = 0.04) and CSS (P < 0.001) were significantly higher for patients undergoing URS. The 5-year RFS (P = 0.6), and MFS (P = 0.3) were comparable between the 2 groups. Preoperative URS and biopsy were neither a significant predictor of worse oncological outcomes nor of a specific treatment modality. The advantage in terms of OS and CSS in patients undergoing preoperative URS could derive from a better selection of candidates for curative treatment. The treatment strategy is likely more influenced by tumor features than by URS findings.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Diagnostic ureteroscopy (URS) with or without biopsy remains a subject of contention in the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), with varying recommendations across different guidelines. The study aims to analyse the decision-making and prognostic role of diagnostic ureteroscopy (URS) in high-risk UTUC patients undergoing curative surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS METHODS
In this retrospective multi-institutional analysis of high-risk UTUC patients from the ROBUUST dataset, a comparison between patients who received or not preoperative URS and biopsy before curative surgery was carried out. Logistic regression analysis evaluated differences between patients receiving URS and its impact on treatment strategy. Survival analysis included 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). After adjusting for high-risk prognostic group features, Cox proportional hazard model estimated significant predictors of time-to-event outcomes.
RESULTS RESULTS
Overall, 1,912 patients were included, 1,035 with preoperative URS and biopsy and 877 without. Median follow-up: 24 months. Robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy was the most common procedure (55.1%), in both subgroups. The 5-year OS (P = 0.04) and CSS (P < 0.001) were significantly higher for patients undergoing URS. The 5-year RFS (P = 0.6), and MFS (P = 0.3) were comparable between the 2 groups. Preoperative URS and biopsy were neither a significant predictor of worse oncological outcomes nor of a specific treatment modality.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The advantage in terms of OS and CSS in patients undergoing preoperative URS could derive from a better selection of candidates for curative treatment. The treatment strategy is likely more influenced by tumor features than by URS findings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38760274
pii: S1078-1439(24)00440-X
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.04.021
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Francesco Ditonno (F)

University of Verona, Department of Urology, Verona, Italy; Rush University, Department of Urology, Chicago, IL.

Antonio Franco (A)

Rush University, Department of Urology, Chicago, IL; Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Alessandro Veccia (A)

University of Verona, Department of Urology, Verona, Italy.

Riccardo Bertolo (R)

University of Verona, Department of Urology, Verona, Italy.

Zhenjie Wu (Z)

Changhai Hospital Naval Medical University, Department of Urology, Shanghai, China.

Linhui Wang (L)

Changhai Hospital Naval Medical University, Department of Urology, Shanghai, China.

Firas Abdollah (F)

Henry Ford Hospital, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Detroit, MI.

Marco Finati (M)

Henry Ford Hospital, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Detroit, MI.

Giuseppe Simone (G)

IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Rome, Italy.

Gabriele Tuderti (G)

IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Rome, Italy.

Emma Helstrom (E)

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Philadelphia, PA.

Andres Correa (A)

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Philadelphia, PA.

Ottavio De Cobelli (O)

European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Division of Urology, Milan, Italy.

Matteo Ferro (M)

European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Division of Urology, Milan, Italy.

Francesco Porpiglia (F)

University of Turin San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Division of Urology, Turin, Italy.

Daniele Amparore (D)

University of Turin San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Division of Urology, Turin, Italy.

Antonio Tufano (A)

Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Department of Urology, Naples, Italy.

Sisto Perdonà (S)

Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Department of Urology, Naples, Italy.

Raj Bhanvadia (R)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Urology, Dallas, TX.

Vitaly Margulis (V)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Urology, Dallas, TX.

Stephan Brönimann (S)

John Hopkins University, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD.

Nirmish Singla (N)

John Hopkins University, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD.

Dhruv Puri (D)

UC San Diego School of Medicine, Department of Urology, La Jolla, CA.

Ithaar H Derweesh (IH)

UC San Diego School of Medicine, Department of Urology, La Jolla, CA.

Dinno F Mendiola (DF)

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Desai Sethi Urology Institute, Miami, FL.

Mark L Gonzalgo (ML)

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Desai Sethi Urology Institute, Miami, FL.

Reuben Ben-David (R)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, Department of Urology, New York, NY.

Reza Mehrazin (R)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, Department of Urology, New York, NY.

Sol C Moon (SC)

Department of Urology, University of Alabama, Heersink School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL.

Soroush Rais-Bahrami (S)

Department of Urology, University of Alabama, Heersink School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL.

Courtney Yong (C)

Indiana University, Department of Urology, Indianapolis, IN.

Chandru P Sundaram (CP)

Indiana University, Department of Urology, Indianapolis, IN.

Farshad Sheybaee Moghaddam (FS)

Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center University of Southern California, Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA.

Alireza Ghoreifi (A)

Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center University of Southern California, Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA.

Hooman Djaladat (H)

Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center University of Southern California, Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA.

Riccardo Autorino (R)

Rush University, Department of Urology, Chicago, IL.

Alessandro Antonelli (A)

University of Verona, Department of Urology, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: alessandro.antonelli@univr.it.

Classifications MeSH