Oncologic outcomes for open and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma
- 100 Downloads
Oncologic benefits of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LNU) are unclear. We aimed to evaluate the impact of surgical approach for radical nephroureterectomy on oncologic outcomes in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).
Of 426 patients who underwent radical nephroureterectomy at five medical centers between February 1995 and February 2017, we retrospectively investigated oncological outcomes in 229 with locally advanced UTUC (stages cT3-4 and/or cN+). The surgical approach was classified as open nephroureterectomy (ONU) or LNU, and oncologic outcomes, including intravesical recurrence-free survival (RFS), visceral RFS, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), were compared between the groups. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox-regression analyses was performed to evaluate the impact of LNU on the prognosis.
Of the 229 patients, 48 (21%) underwent LNU. There were significant differences in patient backgrounds, including preoperative renal function, lymph-node involvement, lymphovascular invasion, and surgical margins, between the groups. Before the background adjustment, intravesical RFS, visceral RFS, CSS, and OS were significantly inferior in the ONU group than in the LNU group. However, in the IPTW-adjusted Cox-regression analysis, no significant differences were observed in intravesical RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = 0.476), visceral RFS (HR, 0.46; P = 0.109), CSS (HR, 0.48; P = 0.233), and OS (HR, 0.40; P = 0.147).
Surgical approaches were not independently associated with prognosis in patients with locally advanced UTUC.
KeywordsUpper tract urothelial carcinoma Radical nephroureterectomy Laparoscopic Oncologic outcome
Upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Open radical nephroureterectomy
Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy
Inverse probability of treatment weighting
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status
Estimated glomerular filtration rate
Chronic kidney disease
The authors would like to thank Hiroyuki Ito, Kazuaki Yoshikawa, Atsushi Sasaki, Hiromichi Iwamura, Ken Fukushi, Jotaro Mikami, Takuma Narita, Toshikazu Tanaka, Itsuto Hamano, Yuki Fujita, Yukie Nishizawa, Satomi Sakamoto, and Yuriko Tanabe for their invaluable help with data collection. The authors would also like to thank Enago (www.enago.jp) for the English language review.
Conception and design: Shingo Hatakeyama. Acquisition of data: Koichi Kido, Naoki Fujita, Shingo Hatakeyama, Takahiro Yoneyama, Yasuhiro Hashimoto, Takuya Koie, Ikuya Iwabuchi, Masaru Ogasawara, Toshiaki Kawaguchi. Analysis and interpretation of data: Shingo Hatakeyama, Yuki Tobisawa, Tohru Yoneyama. Drafting of the manuscript: Koichi Kido, Shingo Hatakeyama. Critical revision of the manuscript: Naoki Fujita, Takuya Koie, Chikara Ohyama. Statistical analysis: Shingo Hatakeyama, Tohru Yoneyama. Obtaining funding: Shingo Hatakeyama, Takuya Koie, Chikara Ohyama. Administrative, technical, or material support: Yuki Tobisawa, Tohru Yoneyama
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 15H02563, 15K15579, 17K11118, 17K11119, 17K16768, 17K16770, and 17K16771) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by an ethics review board of Hirosaki University School of Medicine (authorization numbers; 2017–089) and all other hospitals.
For this type of study, formal written consent is not required. Pursuant to the provisions of the ethics committee and the ethic guideline in Japan, written consent was not required in exchange for public disclosure of study information in the case of retrospective and/or observational study using a material such as the existing documentation. The study information was open for the public consumption at http://www.med.hirosaki-u.ac.jp/~uro/html/IRB/IRBdoc.html.
- 2.Miyazaki J, Nishiyama H, Fujimoto H et al (2016) Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy in muscle-invasive upper tract urothelial carcinoma: subanalysis of the Multi-Institutional National Database of the Japanese Urological Association. J Endourol 30(5):520–525. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0757 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Ariane MM, Colin P, Ouzzane A et al (2012) Assessment of oncologic control obtained after open versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UUT-UCs): results from a large French multicenter collaborative study. Ann Surg Oncol 19(1):301–308. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1841-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Ni S, Tao W, Chen Q et al (2012) Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy for the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 61(6):1142–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Kim HS, Ku JH, Jeong CW et al (2016) Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy is associated with worse survival outcomes than open radical nephroureterectomy in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma. World J Urol 34(6):859–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1712-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, International Union against Cancer., ebrary Inc. (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
- 14.Messer JC, Terrell JD, Herman MP 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.07.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Ito Y, Kikuchi E, Tanaka N et al (2011) Preoperative hydronephrosis grade independently predicts worse pathological outcomes in patients undergoing nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 185(5):1621–1626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kubota Y, Nakaigawa N, Committee for Establishment of the Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Bladder C, the Japanese Urological A (2016) Essential content of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer: the Japanese Urological Association 2015 update. Int J Urol 23(8):640–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13141 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Austin PC, Stuart EA (2015) Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med 34(28):3661–3679. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6607 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar