Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Urothelkarzinom des oberen Harntraktes: aktuelle Behandlungsstrategien

Urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: current treatment strategies

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Die Onkologie Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Das Therapiespektrum des Urothelkarzinoms des oberen Harntraktes ist breit und hängt maßgeblich von der individuellen Risikokonstellation ab. Eine möglichst exakte Diagnosestellung und Ausbreitungsdiagnostik sind unabdingbar für die Einordnung in die Niedrig- bzw. Hochrisikogruppe (low-risk bzw. high-risk).

Ziel

Darstellung der weiterentwickelten Diagnostik- und Therapiemöglichkeiten sowie der differenzierten Behandlungsstrategien des lokal begrenzten Urothelkarzinoms des oberen Harntrakts.

Material und Methoden

Selektive Literaturrecherche in der Datenbank PubMed zu den Themen Urothelkarzinom des oberen Harntrakts, Diagnostik, organerhaltende Therapie, radikale Nephroureterektomie sowie multimodale Therapiekonzepte.

Ergebnisse

Die Fortschritte bei der Bildgebung und den endoskopischen Techniken haben die diagnostische Sicherheit für das Urothelkarzinom des oberen Harntraktes erhöht und das Understaging reduziert. Die möglichst akkurate Einordnung in die Hoch- oder Niedrigrisikogruppe vereinfacht eine Therapieentscheidung. Nierenerhaltende Verfahren, z. B. eine endoskopische lasergestützte Tumorablation oder eine Uretersegmentresektion, können in bestimmten Konstellationen eingesetzt werden. Die radikale Nephroureterektomie ist der Goldstandard bei high-risk Karzinomen aufgrund des hohen Risikos für eine Progression und Metastasierung. Bei einem klinischen Tumorstadium ≥cT3 wird ein offener Zugang gegenüber einer laparoskopischen Vorgehensweise favorisiert. Eine adjuvante platinhaltige Chemotherapie soll nach der radikalen Nephroureterektomie bei einem pathologischen Tumorstadium ≥pT2 und/oder pN+ durchgeführt werden.

Diskussion

Mittlerweile bieten neue Algorithmen die Möglichkeit, therapieinduzierte Morbidität zu reduzieren und das onkologische Outcome zu verbessern, v. a. durch effektivere Multimodalkonzepte.

Abstract

Background

The treatment spectrum of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract is broad and depends largely on the individual risk constellation. The diagnosis and diagnostics of spreading need to be as accurate as possible for the classification into the low-risk or high-risk group.

Objective

Presentation of new achievements in diagnostics and treatment options as well as the differentiated treatment strategies for localized urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract.

Material and methods

A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed on the topic of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract, diagnostics, organ-preserving strategies, radical nephroureterectomy and multimodal treatment concepts.

Results

Advances in imaging and endoscopic techniques, in particular, have increased the diagnostic certainty and reduced understaging. An accurate stratification as possible into the low-risk or high-risk group simplifies clinical decision making. Kidney-preserving procedures, such as endoscopic laser-guided tumor ablation or ureteral segmental resection, can be used in certain constellations. Radical nephroureterectomy remains the gold standard for high-risk urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract due to the high risk of progression and metastases. For clinical stage ≥cT3 tumors an open approach is favored over a laparoscopic approach. Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be performed in a pathological tumor stage ≥pT2 and/or pN+ following radical nephroureterectomy.

Discussion

New algorithms meanwhile provide the possibility to reduce treatment-induced morbidity and to improve the oncological outcome, particularly through more effective multimodal concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9

Literatur

  1. Siegel RL et al (2021) Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 71(1):7–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rouprêt M et al (2021) European association of urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2020 update. Eur Urol 79(1):62–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. System, E.-E.C.I (2022) Incidence and mortality statistics, by registry and cancer site

    Google Scholar 

  4. Robert-Koch-Institut, Z.f.K.i. (2021) Datenbankabfrage mit Schätzung der Inzidenz, Prävalenz und des Überlebens von Krebs in Deutschland auf Basis der epidemiologischen Landeskrebsregisterdaten

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fernández MI et al (2020) Arsenic exposure is associated with significant upper tract urothelial carcinoma health care needs and elevated mortality rates. Urol Oncol 38(7):638.e7–638.e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.01.014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Huang D et al (2018) Systematic review: an update on the spectrum of urological malignancies in lynch syndrome. Bladder Cancer 4(3):261–268

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Green DA et al (2013) Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and the upper tract: disparate twins. J Urol 189(4):1214–1221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Margulis V et al (2009) Outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy: a series from the upper tract urothelial carcinoma collaboration. Cancer 115(6):1224–1233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown GA et al (2006) Nephroureterectomy for treating upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: time to change the treatment paradigm? BJU Int 98(6):1176–1180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Birtle A et al (2020) Adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (the POUT trial): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 395(10232):1268–1277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lughezzani G et al (2012) Prognostic factors in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas: a comprehensive review of the current literature. Eur Urol 62(1):100–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Matsumoto K et al (2011) Racial differences in the outcome of patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: an international study. BJU Int 108(8 Pt 2):E304–E309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rink M et al (2013) Impact of smoking on oncologic outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinoma after radical nephroureterectomy. Eur Urol 63(6):1082–1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Simsir A et al (2011) Prognostic factors for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas: stage, grade, and smoking status. Int Urol Nephrol 43(4):1039–1045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carrion A et al (2016) Intraoperative prognostic factors and atypical patterns of recurrence in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma treated with laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy. Scand J Urol 50(4):305–312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ehdaie B et al (2011) Obesity adversely impacts disease specific outcomes in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 186(1):66–72

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Rouprêt M et al (2012) Genetic variability in 8q24 confers susceptibility to urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract and is linked with patterns of disease aggressiveness at diagnosis. J Urol 187(2):424–428

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Xia L et al (2018) Impact of surgical waiting time on survival in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a national cancer database study. Urol Oncol 36(1):10.e15–10.e22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nishiyama N et al (2018) Upper tract urothelial carcinoma following intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer: Results from a multi-institutional retrospective study. Urol Oncol 36(6):306.e9–306.e15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Messer JC et al (2013) Multi-institutional validation of the ability of preoperative hydronephrosis to predict advanced pathologic tumor stage in upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol 31(6):904–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Janisch F et al (2020) Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (MDCTU) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC): a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 38(5):1165–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Takahashi N et al (2010) Gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance urography for upper urinary tract malignancy. J Urol 183(4):1330–1365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Malm C et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: how samples are collected matters. Scand J Urol 51(2):137–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Koll FJ et al (2021) Evaluation of pre-operative biopsy, surgical procedures and oncologic outcomes in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Front Surg 8:790738

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ritter M et al (2013) Standardized ex vivo comparison of different upper urinary tract biopsy devices: impact on ureterorenoscopes and tissue quality. World J Urol 31(4):907–912

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Foerster B et al (2019) Biopsy techniques in the upper urinary tract for the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma: systematic review. Urologe A 58(1):14–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Klein JT et al (2019) Cryobiopsy in the upper urinary tract: preclinical evaluation of a novel device. Urology 123:273–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kriegmair MC et al (2021) Enhanced imaging in urological endoscopy. Urologe A 60(1):8–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bus MT et al (2016) Optical coherence tomography as a tool for in vivo staging and grading of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a study of diagnostic accuracy. J Urol 196(6):1749–1755

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sonn GA et al (2009) Optical biopsy of human bladder neoplasia with in vivo confocal laser endomicroscopy. J Urol 182(4):1299–1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Territo A et al (2021) Diagnostic ureteroscopy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: friend or foe? Arab J Urol 19(1):46–58

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Seisen T, Colin P, Rouprêt M (2015) Risk-adapted strategy for the kidney-sparing management of upper tract tumours. Nat Rev Urol 12(3):155–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rouprêt M, Colin P, Yates DR (2014) A new proposal to risk stratify urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract (UTUCs) in a predefinitive treatment setting: low-risk versus high-risk UTUCs. Eur Urol 66(2):181–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Margulis V et al (2010) Preoperative multivariable prognostic model for prediction of nonorgan confined urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. J Urol 184(2):453–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Seisen T et al (2016) Oncologic outcomes of kidney-sparing surgery versus radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review by the EAU non-muscle invasive bladder cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol 70(6):1052–1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shoen E et al (2021) Use of the T‑1470 litetouch™ laser in the en bloc resection of an upper tract urothelial cancer. Case Rep Urol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6623326

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Grasso M et al (2012) Ureteroscopic and extirpative treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a 15-year comprehensive review of 160 consecutive patients. BJU Int 110(11):1618–1626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vemana G et al (2016) Survival comparison between endoscopic and surgical management for patients with upper tract urothelial cancer: a matched propensity score analysis using surveillance, epidemiology and end results-medicare data. Urology 95:115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fang D et al (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and renal function outcomes obtained after segmental ureterectomy versus radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 42(11):1625–1635

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Azizi M et al (2019) Optimal management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: an unmet need. Curr Treat Options Oncol 20(5):40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Piraino JA et al (2020) Nephroureterectomy vs. segmental ureterectomy of clinically localized, high-grade, urothelial carcinoma of the ureter: practice patterns and outcomes. Urol Oncol 38(11):851.e1–851.e10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bagrodia A et al (2013) Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes of partial ureterectomy vs radical nephroureterectomy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urology 81(5):972–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Colin P et al (2012) Comparison of oncological outcomes after segmental ureterectomy or radical nephroureterectomy in urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract: results from a large French multicentre study. BJU Int 110(8):1134–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Foerster B et al (2019) Endocavitary treatment for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis of the current literature. Urol Oncol 37(7):430–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Giannarini G et al (2011) Antegrade perfusion with bacillus Calmette-Guérin in patients with non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: who may benefit? Eur Urol 60(5):955–960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kleinmann N et al (2020) Primary chemoablation of low-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma using UGN-101, a mitomycin-containing reverse thermal gel (OLYMPUS): an open-label, single-arm, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 21(6):776–785

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Matin SF et al (2021) Durability of response to primary chemoablation of low-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma using UGN-101, a mitomycin-containing reverse thermal gel: OLYMPUS trial final report. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000002350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Peyronnet B et al (2019) Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy versus open radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: an European Association of Urology guidelines systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 5(2):205–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Matin SF et al (2015) Patterns of lymphatic metastases in upper tract urothelial carcinoma and proposed dissection templates. J Urol 194(6):1567–1574

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kondo T et al (2010) Template-based lymphadenectomy in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: impact on patient survival. Int J Urol 17(10):848–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Dominguez-Escrig JL et al (2019) Potential benefit of lymph node dissection during radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review by the European Association of Urology guidelines panel on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol Focus 5(2):224–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hwang EC et al (2019) Single-dose intravesical chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013160.pub2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Li WM et al (2010) Oncologic outcomes following three different approaches to the distal ureter and bladder cuff in nephroureterectomy for primary upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol 57(6):963–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. O’Brien T et al (2011) Prevention of bladder tumours after nephroureterectomy for primary upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a prospective, multicentre, randomised clinical trial of a single postoperative intravesical dose of mitomycin C (the ODMIT‑C Trial). Eur Urol 60(4):703–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hosogoe S et al (2018) Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves oncological outcomes in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol Focus 4(6):946–953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kubota Y et al (2017) Oncological outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a multicenter study. Oncotarget 8(60):101500–101508

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Zennami K et al (2021) Two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int 127(3):332–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. D’Andrea D et al (2021) Comparative effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder and upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int 127(5):528–537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Yip W et al (2022) Final results of a multicenter prospective phase II clinical trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 40(6_suppl):440–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaag MG et al (2010) Changes in renal function following nephroureterectomy may affect the use of perioperative chemotherapy. Eur Urol 58(4):581–587

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Leow JJ et al (2021) Neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis, and future perspectives on systemic therapy. Eur Urol 79(5):635–654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hird AE et al (2021) Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a microsimulation model. Clin Genitourin Cancer 19(2):e135–e147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bajorin DF et al (2021) Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med 384(22):2102–2114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Bellmunt J et al (2021) Adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor010): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 22(4):525–537

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Iwata T et al (2019) The role of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery for upper and lower urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review. Urol Oncol 37(10):659–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Die Autoren danken herzlich Herrn Dr. de Petriconi für die Bereitstellung der Abb. 2 und 9.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Deutschland

    Maria Marx, Felix Wezel, Jan-Thorsten Klein, Friedemann Zengerling &  Christian Bolenz

  2. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland

    Laura-Maria Krabbe

Authors
  1. Maria Marx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura-Maria Krabbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Felix Wezel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan-Thorsten Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Friedemann Zengerling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian Bolenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Bolenz.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. Marx, L.-M. Krabbe, F. Wezel, J.-T. Klein, F. Zengerling und C. Bolenz geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marx, M., Krabbe, LM., Wezel, F. et al. Urothelkarzinom des oberen Harntraktes: aktuelle Behandlungsstrategien. Onkologie 28, 753–763 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761-022-01220-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761-022-01220-w

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation