Abstract
Purpose of Review
This narrative review aims to evaluate the role of lymph node dissection (LND) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and its implications for staging and management outcomes, as well as future perspectives.
Recent Findings
Multiple studies have demonstrated the limitations of conventional imaging techniques in accurately localizing lymph node metastasis (LNM) in UTUC. While 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) shows promise for preoperative LNM detection, its specificity is low. Alternative methods such as choline PET/CT and sentinel lymph node detection are under consideration but require further investigation. Additionally, various preoperative factors associated with LNM hold potential for predicting nodal involvement, thereby improving nodal staging and oncologic outcomes of LND. Several surgical approaches, including segmental ureterectomy and robot-assisted nephroureterectomy, provide a possibility for LND, while minimizing morbidity.
Summary
LND remains the primary nodal staging tool for UTUC, but its therapeutic benefit is still uncertain. Advances in imaging techniques and preoperative risk assessment show promise in improving LNM detection. Further research and multi-center studies are needed to comprehensively assess the advantages and limitations of LND in UTUC, as well as the long-term outcomes of alternative staging and treatment strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare malignancy originating from the urothelial lining of the urinary tract [1]. It accounts for 5–10% of all urothelial cancers, with an estimated annual incidence in Western countries of 1–2 cases per 100,000 people [2•, 3••]. Despite its low incidence, UTUC often presents with lymph node (LN) metastasis, making diagnosis and management challenging. Approximately 60% of UTUC cases are invasive at the time of diagnosis, highlighting the importance of accurate staging [4].
Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is the gold standard treatment in non-metastatic UTUC [3••, 4, 5]. It provides durable local control and high cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates [4, 6•]. However, in low-risk UTUC, kidney-sparing surgery is considered a viable alternative, as it demonstrates comparable survival outcomes to RNU in these patients [7]. For patients with nodal involvement (pN +), current guidelines advocate RNU followed by adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (ChT) [3••]. The role of lymph node dissection (LND) in UTUC is still under investigation, given the lack of cohesive guidelines and limited therapeutic value [3••, 8,9,10]. LN involvement is a predictor of lower CSS, and overall survival (OS), making LND crucial for accurate nodal staging and identification of individuals who may benefit from adjuvant therapy [11, 12••, 13,14,15,16,17]. While there is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of LND in UTUC, with studies showing conflicting results, its potential benefits remain a subject of interest [4, 11, 18,19,20, 21•, 22].
This study aims to review the status and future perspectives of LND in UTUC, focusing on the implications of LN invasion, the challenges in establishing an optimal LND template, and the potential survival benefits associated with the number of LNs removed. We aim to provide valuable insights for improving diagnostic accuracy and refining therapeutic approaches in the management of UTUC.
Methods
Databases, including PubMed/Medline and Embase, were searched using various combinations of keywords such as “UTUC,” “upper tract urothelial carcinoma,” “lymphadenectomy,” and “lymph node dissection.” Only English-language articles published between January 1980 and April 2023 were included. A total of 178 papers were found, of which 364 were selected as sources for the subsequent review. Original articles, systematic and narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and editorials were selected based on their clinical relevance. Additionally, the references cited in the selected studies were reviewed to identify and include significant papers that were initially excluded from our primary search.
Prognostic Factors for Nodal Involvement
Several prognostic factors for nodal involvement in UTUC have been described. Postoperative pathological parameters include tumor size (> 4 cm), stage, grade, and multifocality, extensive tumor necrosis, location in the renal pelvis (RP) and on the left side, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and perineural invasion (PNI) [23,24,25,26,27, 28•]. Operative factors involve positive surgical margins and the number of LNs removed during LND, with a probability of 24% for patients with one LN removed and peaking at 31% when around 15 LNs were removed [17]. Interestingly, a study by Deuker et al. found that increasing age was correlated with lower rates of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in women but not in men, while a study by Inokuchi et al. identified older age as a predictive factor for LN involvement in both sexes [29, 30]. Elevated preoperative levels of fibrinogen, cystatin-C, C-reactive protein (CRP), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (> 2.7) are associated with LN involvement, as well as low albumin-globulin ratio (AGR) (< 1.45), and preoperative anemia [31,32,33,34,35,36]. The summary of the prognostic factors for LNM is provided in Table 1.
LND as A Diagnostic Tool
Computed tomography (CT) imaging following RNU has low sensitivity in identifying LNM, and therefore, it should not be relied upon to determine the need for LND [37]. Thus, LND is recommended for all patients undergoing RNU [38]. A recent systematic review confirms the significant staging benefits of lymphadenectomy [39]. If suspicious LNs are detected in CT, extended LND, encompassing the identified regions, should be performed [37].
The most commonly used staging system for UTUC is the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage grouping system [40]. It includes tumor stage, nodal stage, and the presence of metastases to predict patient prognosis and guide management decisions [41]. UTUC has four stages, and LNM classifies it as stage IV, which includes metastatic (M1) and locally advanced (T4) disease as well [40]. The AJCC stage grouping system for UTUC remains almost the same in the 6th, 7th, and 8th edition, while the stage grouping system for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) has changed noticeably. In the 8th edition for UCB, T4 and N + stages were separated from M1 stage, while in the 8th edition for UTUC, this aspect remained unchanged [42, 43]. Several studies recommended that stage IV UTUC also should be modified [44•, 45]. A recent study by Abdel-Rahman suggests dividing it into nonmetastatic (T4 and N +) and metastatic disease (M1) subcategories. The results imply that it would improve the prognostic utility compared to the current system [45]. The same modification was suggested in a study by Li et al. as a one proposition. Second proposed modification was based on tumor grade and included dividing IV stage into low grade (T4, N + , M1, G1–2) and high grade (T4, N + , M1, G3–4) [44•]. The current staging system and the suggested changes are shown in Table 2.
Oncological Outcomes
The therapeutic role of LND in RNU in UTUC patients remains questionable [10, 18, 48, 49•]. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigated oncological outcomes of lymphadenectomy in UTUC [20, 50,51,52]. However, a challenge in achieving unbiased comparison arises because patients undergoing LND typically exhibit more advanced tumor stages and grades [12••]. A meta-analysis by Yang et al. was one of the first to assess survival rates in LND and non-LND groups. There was no significant difference in survival rates between LND and non-LND. Nevertheless, in the muscle-invasive patients, the LND group showed higher CSS (HR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.26–3.80; p = 0.005) [50]. The systematic review be Dominguez-Escrig et al. pointed that LND could be most beneficial to patients with ≥ pT2 [52]. Guo et al. found no difference in CSS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) between pN0 and pNx groups, both in overall populations and in patients with muscle-invasive tumor [51]. The meta-analysis by Chan et al. showed no significant improvement in RFS (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.41–1.92), CSS (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.54–1.46), and OS (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.93–1.30), but once again revealed that patients with advanced UTUC (pT2 and pT3) could benefit from LND. Omitting lymphadenectomy in these patients significantly worsened RFS (HR: 2.83; 95% CI: 1.72–4.66) [20].
Similar conclusions can be drawn from more recent publications as well [21•, 53•, 54•]. However, there are studies that point out therapeutic benefits of LND in UTUC. In the propensity score matching study by Ishiyama et al., researchers divided patients into two groups, one of which received complete LND, while the other had no or incomplete LND. CSS, OS, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were significantly higher in the complete LND group (p < 0.05) [55••]. Another study by Kanno et al. revealed the estimated 5-year RFS was significantly higher in the LND group compared with that in the non-LND group (64.2% vs. 86.8%; p = 0.014) [56]. A recent study by Cui et al. showed that LND could be most beneficial in patients with tumors localized in the distal ureter (DU). Furthermore, the LND group was associated with higher RFS (27.0% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.044) and CSS (53.2 vs. 39.8%; p = 0.031) [57••].
In general, the advantage of LND may be more noteworthy for larger localized tumors [39]. The excision of a greater number of LNs was also associated with enhanced survival outcomes in patients with UTUC [58]. Extended LND involving the removal of four or more regional LNs may confer a benefit in terms of OS or CSS for patients in stages pT1–pT3 [20]. However, the LND template is likely to have a greater impact on patient survival than the number of LNs removed [10].
Effect on Further Therapeutic Process
LND plays an important role in patient selection for adjuvant therapies after RNU [59]. Available studies indicate that gemcitabine-platinum combination ChT started within 90 days after RNU significantly improves DFS in patients with locally advanced UTUC [60•]. For metastatic urothelial carcinoma, a meta-analysis showed that cisplatin-based ChT, compared with carboplatin-based ChT, significantly increases the likelihood of both overall response and complete response [61]. Seisen et al. demonstrated an OS benefit from adjuvant platinum-based ChT in patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN + UTUC [62]. In case of non-progressive disease after platinum-based ChT, subsequent maintenance immunotherapy (avelumab) is recommended [64]. Patients positive for programmed death ligand 1 (PDL-1) and ineligible for cisplatin may receive immunotherapy (atezolizumab or pembrolizumab) [64]. Moreover, adjuvant radiotherapy has been suggested to control locoregional disease after surgical removal [65]. However, there is no clear benefit of such treatment after RNU [66]. In terms of the follow-up after RNU, the EAU guidelines indicate cystoscopy at 3 and 9 months, and then annually, for low-risk UTUC, as well as CT urography (CTU) once a year. For patients with high-risk UTUC, cystoscopy with cytology should be performed every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 2 years, and after this annually for 5 years, along with CTU [67]. However, a recent meta-analysis proposed a revision of the current guidelines regarding surveillance protocols. It suggests increase in frequency of imaging to semiannual until the 4th year after RNU [68••]. The management in line with current guidelines is outlined in Fig. 1.
Lymphatic Drainage Patterns in UTUC
LNs are the most common metastatic sites in UTUC; thus, understanding lymphatic drainage patterns is vital for establishing anatomical extent of LND [29, 30, 69,70,71]. The first mapping study on lymphatic drainage in UTUC was conducted by Akaza et al. in the 1980s [72]. They found that for tumors located in the upper half of the ureter (above the crossing with common iliac artery), regional LNs were the paraaortic (PA) and paracaval (PC) LNs. For tumors in the lower half of the ureter, intrapelvic LNs were considered regional. This study played a role in developing the TNM classification for UTUC. Kondo et al. expanded on this research and identified eight regions of LNM based on the primary tumor’s location [72, 73]. They included right/left RP, right/left upper ureter (UU), right/left middle ureter (MU), and right/left DU. The UU was the upper third of the ureter (superior to the inferior mesenteric artery), the MU was considered the middle third from the level of the inferior mesenteric artery to the crossing with the common iliac artery, and the DU below this crossing. For the right-sided RP, UU, and MU tumors, right renal hilar (RH), paracaval (PC), and retrocaval (RC) LNs were considered regional. Additionally, interaortocaval (IAC) LNs were included as regional LNs in the case of ureteral tumors. For cancers of the left RP, UU, and MU, the left RH and PA LNs were considered regional. For tumors of the DU, the ipsilateral common iliac (CI), external iliac (EI), obturator (Ob), and internal iliac (II) LNs were included as regional sites of LNM. It is worth noting that nodal involvement rate was lower in DU (8.3% for right and 13.3% for left) than in RP (30.6% and 24.2%), UU (33.3% and 0%), and MU (20.0% and 42.9%). In 2012, Kondo et al. updated their study and obtained the results similar to those from previous studies [74]. However, they suggested comprising IAC LNs as regional for tumors originating from the right RP, and the presacral nodes for DU tumors, despite the fact they accounted for only 14% LNM in right RP and 14% LNM in right DU (left DU was not mentioned). Hence, the authors advocated for including nodal sites at more than 10% risk of metastasis as regional LNs. Matin et al. conducted a similar study [75]. Right RP tumors had LNM to the RH (22.1%), PC (44.1%), RC (10.3%), and IAC (20.6%) regions. Right upper ureter tumors had LNM to RH (46.2%), PC (46.2%), and RC (7.7%) regions. There were no metastases to the right MU. Right DU tumors had LNM equally to PC and pelvic regions. Left RP tumors had LNM to RH (53.0%) and PA (31.0%) regions. There were also positive LNs in IAC (4%), suprahilar (1%), CI (1%), rectocrural (2%), and aortic bifurcation (1%) sites. The 7% of the landing sites were unspecified. Left UU tumors had LNM to RH (36.4%) and PA (63.6%) regions. Left MU tumors had LNM to PA (40%), CI (40%), and II (20%) regions. Left DU tumors had LNM to PA (33.3%), CI (33.3%), and EI and II (16.7% each) sites. IAC involvement from both sides as well as out-of-field LNM appeared to occur secondarily. Figure 2 depicts a visual representation of the regional lymphatic drainage based on the abovementioned studies.
Anatomical Extent of Lymphadenectomy
LND extent can be either template-based LND or determined by the number of removed LNs [18]. Kondo et al. argued that the total number of removed LNs does not affect UTUC patients’ survival. They suggested that anatomical template-based dissection is more beneficial [76]. Subsequent studies supported these findings and advocated for either complete or incomplete LND, with complete LND involving the resection of all regional LNs [73, 76]. In a 2014 study, the authors once again supported template-based LND, although improved CSS and OS were observed only in patients with RP tumors [77]. However, there was a selection bias as the non-LND group primarily consisted of older patients with severe comorbidities.
The extent of LND has been described by the European Association of Urology (EAU), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and the American Urological Association (AUA) and is shown in Table 3. The EAU template is based on three studies with only two providing specific templates [52, 75, 77]. Kondo et al. suggest resecting RH, PC, RC, and IAC for right-sided RP, UU, and MU tumors and RH and PA for left-sided RP, UU, and MU tumors. For DU tumors, the authors advocate for resection of ipsilateral CI, EI, II, and Ob LNs [77]. In the study by Matin et al., there is a separate template for MU tumors and the authors differentiate primarily excised LNs and additional dissection sites that could provide a greater rate of capturing possible LNMs [75]. For right-sided RP and UU tumors, primarily RH, PC, and RC and the addition of IAC LNs would increase the rate. For left-sided RP and UU tumors, primarily RH, PA, and adding IAC LNs would increase the rate. Right-sided MU tumors include IAC LNs, while adding PC and RC nodes would remove remaining LNMs. Left-sided MU tumors include PA LNs, while adding CI and II nodes would remove remaining LNMs. For right-sided DU tumors, primarily CI, EI, II, and Ob LNs were dissected, while adding PC nodes would remove remaining LNMs. For left-sided DU tumors, CI, EI, II, and Ob LNs were dissected, while adding PA nodes would remove remaining LNMs.
The NCCN suggests resection of the PC LNs from the RH to the inferior vena cava bifurcation, and CI, EI, Ob, and hypogastric LNs in most MU tumors, and similarly for the left side PA LNs from the RH to the aortic bifurcation and CI, EI, Ob, and hypogastric LNs in most MU tumors. In DU tumors, ipsilateral CI, EI, Ob, and hypogastric LNs should be removed.
The AUA for tumors in the pyelocaliceal system suggests removing LNs of the ipsilateral great vessel extending from the RH to at least the inferior mesenteric artery, and for tumors in the upper 2/3 of the ureter LNs of the ipsilateral great vessel extending from the RH to the aortic bifurcation. For tumors in the distal 1/3 of the ureter ipsilateral pelvic, LND should include at minimum the Ob and EI LNs. II and CI may be removed in the appropriate clinical setting. The authors stated that limited data suggest cranial migration of LNM to the ipsilateral great vessels such that higher dissection may be considered in the appropriate clinical setting and per clinician judgment. Through the years, the studies have shown that in terms of the extent of LND the approach is incohesive and differs based on the institution and surgeon’s decision [15, 49•, 71, 73, 75, 78,79,80,81,82,83]. Figure 3 shows the anatomical extent of LND according to studies used in EAU guidelines and shows primarily excised regions.
Complications of LND
Ishiyama compared complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification in the complete LND group and the no/incomplete LND group after matching (16.7% vs 20.0%; p = 0.7385) [55••]. Only lymphatic leakage complications differed significantly, with 4.76% in the complete LND group and 0% in the no/incomplete LND group (p = 0.0231). Other complications showed no significant differences. In the complete LND group, only one patient experienced high-grade (≥ 3) complication. Pearce et al. studied 16,619 patients undergoing RNU for urothelial carcinoma, including 2560 who received LND [84]. Intraoperative complications occurred in 4% of both groups. The LND group had a higher rate of postoperative complications (27 to 29%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.4). However, multivariate analysis showed a 30% higher chance of postoperative complications in patients who underwent LND (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.001–1.7; p = 0.049). Winer et al. found that increased LN yield was associated with increased odds of any complication within 30 days (OR: 1.18 [per 5 nodes]; 95% CI: 1.05–1.32; p = 0.004), but no increased risk of grade ≥ 3 complications [85]. Furthermore, extensive LND did not significantly increase operative time or estimated blood loss. The randomized study by Blom et al. showed no significant impact of LND extension on complication rate, morbidity, or mortality [86]. However, bleeding exceeding 1 L (9.4% and 6.5%), embolism (2.2% and 1.1%), and lymph fluid drainage (3.9% and 2.4%) occurred at a higher rate in the LND group. Kondo et al. conducted comparison of complications between the template-based LND group and the non-LND group [87]. Patients who underwent LND experienced more complications across all Clavien-Dindo grades, but the difference was not statistically significant. The LND group had a higher incidence of complications such as numbness in the thighs (2.6% and 0%) and lymphorrhea (5.2% and 1.1%). The numbness in the thighs could be associated with pelvic LND. The overall incidence of complications and grade ≥ 3 complications were 14.2% and 3.9% in the LND group, compared to 10.1% and 1.1% in the non-LND group. In their previous study, the authors demonstrated that operation time and intraoperative bleeding were greater in the LND groups (323 min and 288 min, 407 mL and 321 mL, respectively) [74]. The authors concluded that LND may slightly increase complications such as lymph fluid drainage and hemorrhage, but these complications do not significantly affect patients’ recovery after surgery.
Current Guidelines
Table 3 provides an overview of the current guidelines. Presented recommendations are cohesive regarding the indications for LND in high-grade/high-risk UTUC. However, only the AUA guidelines mention LND for low-risk UTUC. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) did not provide specific guidelines concerning LND in UTUC. In Table 3, low-risk UTUC was defined by low-grade biopsy and normal cytology and high-risk UTUC by high-grade biopsy or cytology with disease progression risk and pathologic stage T2 or greater [88••].
Future Perspectives
Research suggests that certain laboratory tests and genetic markers can provide insights into the prognosis of UTUC and UBC [90, 91•, 92]. The non-invasive tests discussed in this section can be utilized to identify patients who are more likely to have cancer metastasis to the LNs. This, in turn, enables more accurate selection of patients who would benefit from LND.
Laboratory Indicators
Regarding laboratory tests, studies indicate the role of the de Ritis index (alanine aminotransaminase/aspartate aminotransaminase ratio). In studies on the impact of preoperative blood marker levels conducted on a group of 135 patients, it was noted that the elevated de Ritis index ≥ 1.3 is closely correlated with the presence of LNM (p = 0.0096) [93, 94]. Another tumor pathophysiology aspect of growing interest is systemic immune inflammation, which modulates metastasis and tumor invasion [95, 96]. Index of systemic inflammation (SII; neutrophil*thrombocyte/lymphocyte ratio) is an inexpensive tool validating tumor’s response to treatment and anticipating prognosis [97,98,99,100]. In UTUC, high SII values correlate with positive LVI, which affects OS, CSS, and PFS rates [100]. In a recent study, Kobayashi et al. developed models comprising SII > 520, ECOG-PS > 0, and ≥ cT3 as three preoperative risk scores, based on which patients can be classified as requiring LND or adjuvant ChT [101••].
Genetic Markers
UTUC staging may hopefully include analyzing gene and transcript expression levels in the future. Among the genes studied by researchers is FBLN2, encoding fibulin 2 [90, 102,103,104,105,106,107]. Overexpression of FBLN2 is associated with poor DSS and MFS rates in both UTUC and UCB (p < 0.001 in both malignancies), and with higher stage tumors, LNM, and high mitotic activity [90]. Another investigated gene is PDK [108]. It has previously been associated with tumor aggressiveness, proliferation, and resistance to ChT in UCB [109, 110]. A study by Kuo et al. demonstrated that the expression of PDK3 influences the proliferation of UTUC through its involvement in DNA replication and repair processes. Researchers revealed that overexpression of PDK3 correlates with more advanced tumor stages, LNM, higher tumor grades, and increased mitotic index. Moreover, DSS and MFS outcomes were significantly worse in cases where PDK3 in-tumor expression levels were higher (p < 0.0001 for both) [111]. The cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) might serve as another negative prognostic factor for UTUC [112,113,114,115]. COMP overexpression is associated with advanced T stage, LNM, LVI, PNI, high histological grade, and high mitotic rate in UTUC [116]. The study by Li et al. also highlights the significance of the metallothionein 2A (MT2A) as a marker of tumor aggressiveness in both UTUC and UCB [117]. MT2A can serve as a prognostic factor for assessing the risk of tumor severity as it is significantly associated with high tumor stage, LNM, high tumor grade, LVI, and PNI [117].
Other potential genetic prognostic factors for nodal invasion involve the following: solute carrier family 14 member 1 (SLC14A1), ring finger protein 128 (RNF128), nuclear protein Ki67 (Ki67), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-5 (IGFBP-5), forkhead box O3 (FOXO3A), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2), chitinase 3-like-1 (CHI3L1), receptor tyrosine kinase–like orphan receptor 2 (ROR2), epidermal growth factor–containing fibulin-like extracellular matrix protein 1 (EFEMP1), stromal periostin (PN), trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), B7 homolog 3 (B7-H3), B7 homolog 4 (B7-H4), nectin-4, polymerase I and transcript release factor (PTRF), GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3), tumor necrosis factor alpha-induced protein 6 (TNFAIP6), phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome 10 (PTEN), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), E-cadherin, fibroblast growth factor 7 (FGF7), human antigen R (HuR), kisspeptins (KiSS-1), Rac1 small GTPase (Rac1) [118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141]. Table 4 presents an overview of genetic factors associated with nodal involvement in UTUC.
Imaging Tests
The currently available CT and positron emission tomography (PET) examinations are insufficient in accurately localizing LNM in UTUC [142, 143, 144•, 145]. This statement confirms the findings of a multicenter study conducted in 2023, which demonstrated through a retrospective analysis that conventional imaging exhibits limited sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 20; 31) in detecting LNM in UTUC [145]. Therefore, researchers are actively seeking markers and exploring methods to combine existing examinations to improve nodal staging. The literature suggests combining 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET with CT (18FDG-PET/CT) as one of the ways to detect LNM in UTUC and UCB in great detail [146•, 147,148,149,150,151,152]. While the study by Jensen et al. reported similar sensitivity and specificity between 18FDG-PET/CT and MRI in detecting LNM, subsequent research has demonstrated the superiority of the combined method over separate studies using MRI, CT, or PET [150, 152, 153]. The enhanced effectiveness of 18FDG-PET/CT stems from its ability to detect highly metabolic micrometastases, which are too small to be identified by CT alone (< 2.0 mm in largest dimension), thus improving the sensitivity of LN staging [149, 154]. However, 18FDG-PET/CT has low specificity, making it challenging to differentiate between inflammatory and metastatic LNs [149]. Several retrospective studies have investigated the use of this method for preoperative detection of LNM in UTUC and UCB [146•, 147]. In a 2020 study specifically evaluating preoperative detection of LNM, the 18FDG-PET/CT method exhibited a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 84% [146•].
A 2020 systematic review, which included three retrospective studies on LNM detection in UTUC, reported sensitivities ranging from 82 to 95% and specificities ranging from 84 to 91%. These high percentages indicate the substantial prognostic value of 18FDG-PET/CT [149]. Furthermore, a study comparing combined method (18FDG-PET/CT) with CT in UCB for nodal staging revealed sensitivities of 78% and 44%, respectively [155]. The issue with the 18FDG-PET/CT technique is that 18FDG is excreted in the urine, which interferes with the interpretation of images of the bladder and nodal lesions near ureters [156].
The utilization of PET/CT with (11)C-choline, also known as choline PET/CT, is under consideration for diagnosing LNM in UTUC. A study conducted in 2014 demonstrated that patients with UTUC exhibited high choline uptake in the affected LNs [157].
In the study conducted by Polom et al., researchers aimed to detect sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) by administering Technetium-99 m (99mTc) injection during ureterorenoscopy and evaluating the results through single-photon emission-computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) lymphangiography. The findings of the study indicated that while it is theoretically possible to locate SLNs using this method, it proved to be highly challenging due to difficulties associated with injecting Technetium during the course of the study [158•].
There is ongoing research on labeled monoclonal antibodies and their use in the management of urothelial neoplasms [144•]. The use of girentuximab-labeled PET/CT (89Zr-TLX250) appears to be the most promising approach, given its established efficacy in guiding clinical evaluations of renal cell carcinoma and its possible utility in breast cancer staging. TLX250 is an antibody directed against carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), an enzyme showing high activity in urothelial cancer cells [159]. The ongoing phase I study is expected to answer the question of whether 89Zr-TLX250 allows efficient imaging of urothelial malignancies [155].
Imaging studies are currently being utilized as a contributing factor in the development of a preoperative evaluation protocol to determine the presence of LN metastases in UTUC. A study conducted last year demonstrated that by incorporating imaging and biopsy data such as stage, LVI, tumor size, and positive clinical LN status, it was possible to predict the probability of LN metastases in UTUC with an accuracy of 87.8% (AUC 0.878, corrected C-index 0.887) [160••].
Various Surgical Approaches
Although RNU is the preferred surgical treatment for UTUC, it has drawbacks including the risk of decreased renal function and no guarantee of recurrence-free outcomes, leading to increasing interest in exploring less radical approaches [161,162,163]. These alternative options are minimally invasive or nephron-sparing methods. These approaches aim to minimize complications, preserve renal function, and effectively treat UTUC [162, 164].
Nephron-Sparing Approach
Nephron-sparing approaches for UTUC include segmental ureterectomy (SU), ureterorenoscopy, or intraluminal therapy [162, 165, 166]. These approaches remove the tumor while preserving kidney function, resulting in a lower risk of kidney failure compared to RNU. Nephron-sparing methods are used for patients with small volume, noninvasive, and low-grade tumors [161, 162, 167]. Both the EAU and NCCN guidelines recommend nephron-sparing treatment as a viable alternative to RNU for low-risk UTUC patients. These approaches aim to achieve tumor control while minimizing complications associated with radical surgery [161, 162, 167].
These methods are particularly beneficial for patients with a solitary functioning kidney, bilateral disease, or chronic kidney disease. Clinicians with these techniques can customize treatment based on individual patient needs, ensuring optimal outcomes while reducing the risk of complications [168].
During ureterorenoscopic surgery or intraluminal therapy, LND is not feasible, ruling out their use in suspected LNMs [169]. An alternative for ureter-localized UTUC is SU with regional LND, even for high-risk cancer [170]. A 2022 meta-analysis indicates that the SU and RNU have similar RFS, PFS, CCS, and OS rates. However, accurate staging and precise diagnosis of UTUC are crucial for determining the suitability of SU. Meticulous patient selection is essential for maximizing the benefits associated with this method [162].
Minimally Invasive Surgery
Minimally invasive surgery, including laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) and robotic-assisted nephroureterectomy (RRNU), offers advantages over traditional RNU such as shorter postoperative recovery, minimal blood loss, improved LND rates, and reduced short-term morbidity [164, 171,172,173,174]. Treatment outcomes are similar to classic RNU, with the benefit of lower perioperative mortality using robotic surgery (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.53–0.91, p = 0.008). However, further studies are needed to confirm these findings as the meta-analysis that reported this conclusion had some heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 50%) [171, 175].
Minimally invasive surgery, unlike the nephron-sparing approach, provides the option of LND for patients who require this procedure [171, 176]. Widely used robotic systems are the da Vinci Si® and Xi® [177••]. Studies show that the use of the Xi® is safe and can enable extensive LND without open surgery [171]. Preserving the integrity of the LNs during extraction, particularly in patients with pT3-T4 disease, is essential to minimize the potential dissemination of cancer cells [176]. Additional precautions during laparoscopic surgeries include avoiding entry into the urinary tract, preventing direct instrument-tumor contact, and using an endobag for tumor extraction [10].
A 2020 study analyzing data from three specialized centers using robotic techniques for treatment found no increased risk of tumor spread with these surgical methods. The extent of LND, whether a template LND or resection of only enlarged LNs, was determined by the surgeon. The study reported minimal perioperative mortality and no conversions to open surgery, suggesting that RRNU holds promise as a future treatment modality, even in advanced stages requiring LND [177••].
Conclusions
Several prognostic factors for LN involvement in UTUC have been identified, but LND remains the only effective nodal staging tool. However, the therapeutic benefit of lymphadenectomy is still inconclusive. Mapping studies have contributed our understanding of LN drainage sites, redeveloping the anatomical scope of LND, and potentially enhancing patient survival. Nevertheless, further prospective multi-center studies are required to comprehensively assess the advantages and limitations of LND in UTUC.
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Giudici N, Bonne F, Blarer J, Minoli M, Krentel F, Seiler R. Characteristics of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma in the context of bladder cancer: a narrative review. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:4036–50.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17–48. This article provides the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence and outcomes.
Rouprêt M, Seisen T, Birtle AJ, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2023 Update. Eur Urol. 2023;84(1):49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.013.This article provides updated guidelines in UTUC management based on systematic literature search. It highlights the importance of patients’ stratification based on histology and clinical examination, the use of kidney-sparing surgery in selected cases, and the role of new medications. Moreover, the indications for LND are specified in this guideline and the importance of two studies by Kondo et al. and Matin et al. is emphasized.
Margulis V, Shariat SF, Matin SF, Kamat AM, Zigeuner R, Kikuchi E, et al. Outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy: a series from the upper tract urothelial carcinoma collaboration. Cancer. 2009;115:1224–33.
Zigeuner R, Pummer K. Urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: surgical approach and prognostic factors. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):720–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.006.
Teoh JYC, Ng CF, Eto M, Chiruvella M, Capitanio U, Esen T, et al. Radical nephroureterectomy for UTUC conferred survival benefits irrespective of age and comorbidities. World J Urol. 2022;40:2657–65. The study confirms the role of RNU as a gold standard management in UTUC and states that it should be considered even in elderly patients when it is deemed feasible.
Seisen T, Peyronnet B, Dominguez-Escrig JL, et al. Oncologic outcomes of kidney-sparing surgery versus radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review by the EAU nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):1052–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.014.
Lughezzani G, Jeldres C, Isbarn H, Shariat SF, Sun M, Pharand D, et al. A critical appraisal of the value of lymph node dissection at nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urology. 2010;75:118–24.
Nazzani S, Mazzone E, Preisser F, Tian Z, Mistretta FA, Shariat SF, et al. Rates of lymph node invasion and their impact on cancer specific mortality in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:1238–45.
Alvarez-Maestro M, Rivas JG, Gregorio SA, Guerin CC, Gómez ÁT, Ledo JC. Current role of lymphadenectomy in the upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cent European J Urol. 2016;69(4):384–90. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2016.834.
Roscigno M, Brausi M, Heidenreich A, et al. Lymphadenectomy at the time of nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60(4):776–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.009.
Yanagisawa T, Kawada T, Von Deimling M, Laukhtina E, Kimura T, Shariat SF, et al. CURRENT OPINION Need for and extent of lymph node dissection for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: an updated review in 2023. Curr Opin Urol [Internet]. 2023;2023:0–000. Available from: https://www.co-urology.com. This review offers a comprehensive summary of the existing evidence pertaining to the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic effects of template-based LND in patients diagnosed with UTUC. The authors suggest it should be offered to all patients who are planned for RNU for high-risk nonmetastatic UTUC. The study also discusses the possible role of robot-assisted RNU.
Ouzzane A, Colin P, Ghoneim TP, Zerbib M, de La Taille A, Audenet F, et al. The impact of lymph node status and features on oncological outcomes in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (UTUC) treated by nephroureterectomy. World J Urol [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2023 Jun 21];31:189–97. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23229227/.
Leow JJ, Orsola A, Chang SL, Bellmunt J. A contemporary review of management and prognostic factors of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 Jun 21];41:310–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25736461/.
Brausi MA, Gavioli M, De Luca G, Verrini G, Peracchia GC, Simonini GL, et al. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLD) in conjunction with nephroureterectomy in the treatment of infiltrative transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the upper urinary tract: impact on survival. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2023 Jun 21];52:1414–20. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17507148/.
Roscigno M, Shariat SF, Margulis V, Karakiewicz P, Remzi M, Kikuchi E, et al. Impact of lymph node dissection on cancer specific survival in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma treated with radical nephroureterectomy. J Urol [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 Jun 21];181:2482–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19371878/.
Zareba P, Rosenzweig B, Winer AG, Coleman JA. Association between lymph node yield and survival among patients undergoing radical nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the upper tract. Cancer. 2017;123:1741–50.
Peyrottes A, Califano G, Ouzaïd I, et al. Lymph node dissection during radical nephro-ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A review. Front Surg. 2022;9:852969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.852969.
McIntosh AG, Umbreit EC, Wood CG, Matin SF, Karam JA. Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10(5):2233–45. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.11.34.
Chan VW, Wong CHM, Yuan Y, Teoh JY. Lymph node dissection for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review. Arab J Urol. 2020;19(1):37–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1791563.
Hsieh HC, Wang CL, Chen CS, Yang CK, Li JR, Wang SS, et al. The prognostic impact of lymph node dissection for clinically node-negative upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma in patients who are treated with radical nephroureterectomy. PLoS One [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 May 24];17:e0278038. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278038. This study confirms the role of LND with RNU for optimal tumor staging. It states that LND does not show therapeutic benefits in terms of oncological outcomes.
Lenis AT, Donin NM, Faiena I, Salmasi A, Johnson DC, Drakaki A, et al. Role of surgical approach on lymph node dissection yield and survival in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2018;36:9.e1-9.e9.
Hu XH, Miao J, Qian L, Zhang DH, Wei HB. The predictors and surgical outcomes of different distant metastases patterns in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A SEER-based study. Front Surg. 2022;9:1045831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.1045831.
Bolenz C, Shariat SF, Fernández MI, Margulis V, Lotan Y, Karakiewicz P, et al. Risk stratification of patients with nodal involvement in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: value of lymph-node density. BJU Int. 2009;103:302–6.
Chromecki TF, Cha EK, Fajkovic H, Margulis V, Novara G, Scherr DS, et al. The impact of tumor multifocality on outcomes in patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61:245–53.
Zigeuner R, Shariat SF, Margulis V, Karakiewicz PI, Roscigno M, Weizer A, et al. Tumour necrosis is an indicator of aggressive biology in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Eur Urol. 2010;57:575–81.
Isbarn H, Jeldres C, Shariat SF, Liberman D, Sun M, Lughezzani G, et al. Location of the primary tumor is not an independent predictor of cancer specific mortality in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol. 2009;182:2177–81.
Lin TW, Lee HY, Yang SF, Li CC, Ke HL, Li WM, et al. Perineural invasion is a powerful prognostic factor for upper tract urothelial carcinoma following radical nephroureterectomy. Ann Surg Oncol [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 May 24];29:3306–17. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34994908/. This study describes the association between PNI and the prognosis of UTUC which may help achieve better risk stratification and better selection for perioperative treatment.
Deuker M, Rosiello G, Stolzenbach LF, Martin T, Ruvolo CC, Nocera L, et al. Sex- and age-related differences in the distribution of metastases in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2021;19:534–40.
Inokuchi J, Kuroiwa K, Kakehi Y, Sugimoto M, Tanigawa T, Fujimoto H, et al. Role of lymph node dissection during radical nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial cancer: multi-institutional large retrospective study JCOG1110A. World J Urol. 2017;35:1737–44.
Xu H, Ai JZ, Tan P, Lin TH, Jin X, Gong LN, et al. Pretreatment elevated fibrinogen level predicts worse oncologic outcomes in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Asian J Androl [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 May 24];22:177–83. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31169138/.
Tan P, Shi M, Chen J, Xu H, Xie N, Xu H, et al. The preoperative serum cystatin-C as an independent prognostic factor for survival in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Asian J Androl [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 24];21:163–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30416134/.
Saito K, Kawakami S, Ohtsuka Y, Fujii Y, Masuda H, Kumagai J, et al. The impact of preoperative serum C-reactive protein on the prognosis of patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma treated surgically. BJU Int [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2023 May 24];100:269–73. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17488302/.
Xu H, Tan P, Ai J, Huang Y, Lin T, Yang L, et al. Prognostic impact of preoperative albumin-globulin ratio on oncologic outcomes in upper tract urothelial carcinoma treated with radical nephroureterectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 May 24];16:e1059–68. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29980449/.
Rink M, Sharifi N, Fritsche HM, Aziz A, Miller F, Kluth LA, et al. Impact of preoperative anemia on oncologic outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinoma treated with radical nephroureterectomy. J Urol [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 May 24];191:316–22. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24036235/.
Vartolomei MD, Mathieu R, Margulis V, Karam JA, Rouprêt M, Lucca I, et al. Promising role of preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy. World J Urol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 May 24];35:121–30. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27209168/.
Yee A, Cha E, Sfakianos J, Kim P, Friedman F, Sternberg I, et al. MP77-14 can pre-operative CT identify positive lymph nodes in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma? J Urol. 2014;191(4S):e917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2477.
Shvero A, Hubosky SG. Management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Curr Oncol Rep. 2022;24(5):611–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-021-01179-8.
Duquesne I, Ouzaid I, Loriot Y, Moschini M, Xylinas E. Lymphadenectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2019;8(8):1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8081190.
Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Schilsky RL, Brookland RK, Washington MK, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). In: AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed; 2010.
Ehdaie B, Shariat SF, Savage C, Coleman J, Dalbagni G. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence and cancer-specific death for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Comparison to American Joint Committee on Cancer staging classification. Urol J. 2014;11(2):1435–41.
Cornejo KM, Rice-Stitt T, Wu CL. Updates in staging and reporting of genitourinary malignancies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144:305–19. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2019-0544-RA.
Abdel-Rahman O. Validation of the eighth AJCC new substages for bladder cancer among different staging contexts. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:e1095–106.
Li Z, Li X, Liu Y, Fang J, Zhang X, Xiao K. Can American Joint Committee on Cancer prognostic groups be individualized in patients undergoing surgery for stage IV invasive upper tract urothelial carcinoma? J Cancer. 2021;12:2023–9. This article proposes a modification of the AJCC staging system of UTUC. It states that the subclassification of stage IV can increase the level of prognostic detail and individualize the prediction of survival in invasive UTUC patients.
Abdel-Rahman O. Revisiting the prognostic heterogeneity of AJCC stage IV carcinomas of the upper urinary tract. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16:e859–65.
Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2023 May 24];17:1471–4. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20180029/.
Schmoll H-J. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edition. Annals of Oncology [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2023 Jun 24];14:345. Available from: http://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923753419453532/fulltext.
Zhai TS, Jin L, Zhou Z, Liu X, Liu H, Chen W, et al. Effect of lymph node dissection on stage-specific survival in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma treated with nephroureterectomy. BMC Cancer. 2019;19.
Matsumoto R, Abe T, Takada N, Minami K, Harabayashi T, Nagamori S, et al. Oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy in conjunction with template-based lymph node dissection: an extended follow-up study. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2020;38:933.e13-933.e18. This is one of the most recent studies confirming the significant role of template-based LND in staging and disease control described as eliminating LNM, including micrometastases in patients with clinically node-negative invasive UTUC.
Yang D, Chen Q, Song X, Wang J, Che X, Zhu Z, et al. Effect of lymph node dissection on the outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinomas: a meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.1586/147371402014895670 [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Jun 21];14:667–75. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2014.895670.
Guo R, Zhu Y, Xiong G, Li X, Zhang K, Zhou L. Role of lymph node dissection in the management of upper tract urothelial carcinomas: a meta-analysis. BMC Urol [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 Jun 21];18:1–9. Available from: https://bmcurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-018-0336-5.
Dominguez-Escrig JL, Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Bruins HM, Yuan CY, Babjuk M, et al. 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 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 27];5:224–41. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29158169/.
Piontkowski AJ, Corsi N, Morisetty S, Majdalany S, Rakic I, Li P, et al. Benefit of lymph node dissection in cN+ patients in the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: analysis of NCDB registry. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2022;40:409.e9-409.e17. The authors used the National Cancer Database to examine differences in survival between cN+ patients who underwent RNU with LND versus those who underwent RNU without LND.
Hakimi K, Carbonara U, Djaladat H, Mehrazin R, Eun D, Reese A, et al. Outcomes of lymph node dissection in nephroureterectomy in the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: analysis of the ROBUUST Registry. J Urol [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 21];208:268–76. Available from: https://www.auajournals.org/doi/https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002690. This multicenter retrospective analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes of LND in patients diagnosed with UTUC. The results of this study suggest that LND during nephroureterectomy in patients with positive lymph nodes provides prognostic data, but is not associated with improved OS.
Ishiyama Y, Kondo T, Kubota S, Shimada K, Yoshida K, Takagi T, et al. Therapeutic benefit of lymphadenectomy for older patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a propensity score matching study. Jpn J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Jun 21];51:802–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyaa256. In this article, the researchers assessed CSS, OS, MFS, and complications rates after surgery in two groups of patients: those who underwent complete LND and those who had no or incomplete lymphadenectomy. This assessment was performed both before and after 1:1 propensity score matching, to ensure a more balanced comparison between the two groups.
Kanno T, Kobori G, Ito K, et al. Oncological outcomes of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection during retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy for renal pelvic or upper ureteral tumors: matched-pair analysis. J Endourol. 2022;36(9):1206–13. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0103.
Cui Y, Lu Y, Wu J, Quan C. Benefits of lymphadenectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma only located in the lower ureter: A bicentre retrospective cohort study. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1115830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1115830. This study presents previously undocumented evidence supporting the potential benefits of LND for patients with UTUC in the distal ureter, precisely stage ≥ pT2, and the AC cohort.
Lee HY, Chang CH, Huang CP, Yu CC, Lo CW, Chung SD, et al. Is lymph node dissection necessary during radical nephroureterectomy for clinically node-negative upper tract urothelial carcinoma? A multi-institutional study. Front Oncol. 2022;12.
Jung H, Giusti G, Fajkovic H, Herrmann T, Jones R, Straub M, et al. Consultation on UTUC, Stockholm 2018: aspects of treatment. World J Urol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 24];37:2279–87. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31123852/.
Birtle A, Johnson M, Chester J, Jones R, Dolling D, Bryan RT, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (the POUT trial): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 May 24];395:1268–77. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32145825/. The study is described as the largest randomized controlled clinical trial conducted exclusively in patients with UTUC worldwide. This phase 3, open-label trial involved 71 participants in the UK.
Galsky MD, Chen GJ, Oh WK, Bellmunt J, Roth BJ, Petrioli R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Ann Oncol [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2023 May 24];23:406–10. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21543626/.
Seisen T, Krasnow RE, Bellmunt J, et al. Effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy after radical nephroureterectomy for locally advanced and/or positive regional lymph node upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 May 24] ;35(8):852–860. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.4141.
Kopel J, Sharma P. Narrative review of the surgical management of high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma. AME Med J. 2020;6 https://doi.org/10.21037/amj-2020-smgm-01. https://amj.amegroups.org/article/view/5840
Yu WB, Rao JY. Programmed death ligand-1/programmed death-1 inhibition therapy and programmed death ligand-1 expression in urothelial bladder carcinoma. Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2019;5(3):170–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdtm.2019.08.003.
Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Compérat EM, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2020 update. Eur Urol. Elsevier B.V.; 2021;62–79.
Iwata T, Kimura S, Abufaraj M, Janisch F, Karakiewicz PI, Seebacher V, et al. The role of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery for upper and lower urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2019;37:659–71.
Hasan MN, Rouprêt M, Keeley F, Cracco C, Jones R, Straub M, et al. Consultation on UTUC, Stockholm 2018 aspects of risk stratification: long-term results and follow-up. World J Urol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 24];37:2289–96. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02739-1.
Martini A, Lonati C, Nocera L, Fallara G, Raggi D, Herout R, et al. Oncologic surveillance after radical nephroureterectomy for high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol Oncol [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 May 24];5:451–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35504834/. It suggests a revision of the current guidelines regarding surveillance protocols after radical nephroureterectomy.
Shinagare AB, Fennessy FM, Ramaiya NH, Jagannathan JP, Taplin ME, Van den Abbeele AD. Urothelial cancers of the upper urinary tract: metastatic pattern and its correlation with tumor histopathology and location. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011;35(2):217–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e31820d7a37.
Arancibia MF, Bolenz C, Michel MS, Keeley FX Jr, Alken P. The modern management of upper tract urothelial cancer: surgical treatment. BJU Int. 2007;99(5):978–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06705.x.
Furuse H, Matsushita Y, Yajima T, Kato T, Suzuki T, Matsumoto R, et al. Systematic regional lymph node dissection for upper tract urothelial carcinoma improves patient survival. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2017;47:239–46.
Akaza H, Koiso K, Niijima T. Clinical evaluation of urothelial tumors of the renal pelvis and ureter based on a new classification system. Cancer. 1987;59(7):13691375. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19870401)59:7<1369::aid-cncr2820590724>3.0.co;2-a.
Kondo T, Nakazawa H, Ito F, Hashimoto Y, Toma H, Tanabe K. Impact of the extent of regional lymphadenectomy on the survival of patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. J Urol [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2023 May 25];178:1212–7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17698147/.
Kondo T, Tanabe K. Role of lymphadenectomy in the management of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and the upper urinary tract. Int J Urol. 2012;19(8):710–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03009.x.
Matin SF, Sfakianos JP, Espiritu PN, Coleman JA, Spiess PE. Patterns of lymphatic metastases in upper tract urothelial carcinoma and proposed dissection templates. J Urol. 2015;194:1567–74.
Kondo T, Hashimoto Y, Kobayashi H, Iizuka J, Nakazawa H, Ito F, et al. Template-based lymphadenectomy in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: impact on patient survival. Int J Urol. 2010;17:848–54.
Kondo T, Hara I, Takagi T, Kodama Y, Hashimoto Y, Kobayashi H, et al. Template-based lymphadenectomy in urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis: a prospective study. International Journal of Urology [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 May 24];21:453–9. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12338.
Ikeda M, Matsumoto K, Sakaguchi K, Ishii D, Tabata KI, Kurosawa K, et al. Effect of lymphadenectomy during radical nephroureterectomy in locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:556–62.
Roscigno M, Shariat SF, Margulis V, Karakiewicz P, Remzi M, Kikuchi E, et al. The extent of lymphadenectomy seems to be associated with better survival in patients with nonmetastatic upper-tract urothelial carcinoma: how many lymph nodes should be removed? Eur Urol. 2009;56:512–9.
Rao SR, Correa JJ, Sexton WJ, et al. Prospective clinical trial of the feasibility and safety of modifiedretroperitoneal lymph node dissection at time of nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E475–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11170.x.
Abe T, Takada N, Matsumoto R, Osawa T, Sazawa A, Maruyama S, et al. Outcome of regional lymphadenectomy in accordance with primary tumor location on laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a prospective study. J Endourol. 2015;29:304–9.
Yoo S, You D, Jeong IG, Hong B, Hong JH, Ahn H, et al. Does lymph node dissection during nephroureterectomy affect oncological outcomes in upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients without suspicious lymph node metastasis on preoperative imaging studies? World J Urol. 2017;35:665–73.
Inokuchi J, Eto M, Hara T, Fujimoto H, Nishiyama H, Miyazaki J, et al. Impact of lymph node dissection on clinical outcomes during nephroureterectomy in patients with clinically node-negative upper urinary tract urothelial cancer: subanalysis of a multi-institutional nationwide case series of the Japanese Urological Association. Jpn J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 May 25];47:652–9. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jjco/article/47/7/652/3111223.
Pearce SM, Pariser JJ, Patel SG, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL, Smith ND. The effect of surgical approach on performance of lymphadenectomy and perioperative morbidity for radical nephroureterectomy. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2016;34:121.e15-121.e21.
Winer AG, Vertosick EA, Ghanaat M, Corradi RB, Carlsson S, Sjoberg DD, et al. Prognostic value of lymph node yield during nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2017;35:151.e9-151.e15.
Blom JHM, van Poppel H, Maréchal JM, Jacqmin D, Schröder FH, de Prijck L, et al. Radical nephrectomy with and without lymph-node dissection: final results of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Randomized Phase 3 Trial 30881. Eur Urol. 2009;55:28–34.
Kondo T, Takagi T, Tanabe K. Therapeutic role of template-based lymphadenectomy in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Limited: World J Clin Oncol. Baishideng Publishing Group Co.; 2015. p. 237–51.
Coleman JA, Clark PE, Bixler BR, Buckley DI, Chang SS, Chou R, et al. Diagnosis and management of non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma: AUA/SUO Guideline. J Urol. 2023;209:1071–81. The document is one of the three guidelines providing recommendations for diagnosis and management of non-metastatic UTUC. This includes indications and detailed extent of LND.
Flaig TW, Spiess PE, Chair V, Abern M, Agarwal N, Buyyounouski MK, et al. NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2023 Bladder Cancer [Internet, slides number 26, 51, 52]. © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2023 [cited 2023 May 25] Available from: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1417. [It is required to log in before accessing the Guidelines]. Provided guidelines recommend differentiating the tumors between DU tumors and RP, UU, and MU tumors in terms of the extent of LND, hence suggesting extensive LND in the event of proximal urinary tract tumors.
Li WM, Chan TC, Huang SK, et al. Prognostic utility of FBLN2 expression in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2020;10:570340. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.570340.
Wang X, Yang G, Chai Y, et al. Decreased preoperative serum AGR as a diagnostic marker of poor prognosis after radical surgery of upper urinary tract and bladder cancers from a pooled analysis of 9,002 Patients. Dis Markers. 2022;2022:6575605. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6575605. A comprehensive analysis of 12 retrospective studies involving 9002 patients reveals the significant value of the preoperative serum albumin/globulin ratio as a promising prognostic indicator following radical surgery for urothelial carcinoma.
Yin G, Man C, Liao S, Qiu H. The prognosis role of ast/alt (de ritis) ratio in patients with adult secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Mediators Inflamm. 2020;2020:5719751. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5719751.
Nishikawa M, Miyake H, Kurahashi T, Fujisawa M. Significance of multiple preoperative laboratory abnormalities as prognostic indicators in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract following radical nephroureterectomy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018;23:151–7.
Mori K, Janisch F, Mostafaei H, Kimura S, Lysenko I, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Prognostic role of preoperative De Ritis ratio in upper tract urothelial carcinoma treated with nephroureterectomy. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2020;38:601.e17-601.e24.
Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, Balkwill F. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature. 2008;454(7203):436–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07205.
Coussens LM, Werb Z. Inflammation and cancer. Nature [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2023 Jun 23];420:860–7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12490959/.
Wang K, Diao F, Ye Z, et al. Prognostic value of systemic immune-inflammation index in patients with gastric cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0243-2.
Zhang Y, Chen B, Wang L, Wang R, Yang X. Systemic immune-inflammation index is a promising noninvasive marker to predict survival of lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(3):e13788. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013788.
Wang L, Wang C, Wang J, Huang X, Cheng Y. A novel systemic immune-inflammation index predicts survival and quality of life of patients after curative resection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017;143:2077–86.
Jan HC, Hu CY, Wu KY, Tai TY, Weng HY, Yang WH, et al. The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) increases the prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in upper tract urothelial carcinoma after radical nephroureterectomy. Cancer Manag Res. 2022;14:3139–49.
Kobayashi S, Ito M, Takemura K, Suzuki H, Yonese I, Koga F. Preoperative models incorporating the systemic immune-inflammation index for predicting prognosis and muscle invasion in patients with non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2022;27:574–84. This retrospective study develops models for preoperative and postoperative patient selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and LND using the systemic immuno-inflammatory index. It emphasizes the negative significance of high preoperative SII values regarding survival and muscle invasion in UTUC patients.
Ibrahim AM, Sabet S, El-Ghor AA, et al. Fibulin-2 is required for basement membrane integrity of mammary epithelium. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):14139. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32507-x.
De Vega S, Iwamoto T, Yamada Y. Fibulins: multiple roles in matrix structures and tissue functions. Cell Mol Life Sci [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 May 25];66:1890–902. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19189051/.
Argraves WS, Greene LM, Cooley MA, Gallagher WM. Fibulins: physiological and disease perspectives. EMBO Rep [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2023 May 25];4:1127. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC1326425/.
Timpl R, Sasaki T, Kostka G, Chu ML. Fibulins: a versatile family of extracellular matrix proteins. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2023 May 25];4:479–89. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12778127/.
Baird BN, Schliekelman MJ, Ahn YH, et al. Fibulin-2 is a driver of malignant progression in lung adenocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067054.
Senapati S, Gnanapragassam VS, Moniaux N, Momi N, Batra SK. Role of MUC4-NIDO domain in the MUC4-mediated metastasis of pancreatic cancer cells. Oncogene [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2023 May 25];31:3346–56. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22105367/.
Mohammad T, Arif K, Alajmi MF, Hussain A, Islam A, Rehman MT, et al. Identification of high-affinity inhibitors of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase-3: towards therapeutic management of cancer. J Biomol Struct Dyn [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 May 25];39:586–94. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31903847/.
Zhu J, Zheng G, Xu H, Jin X, Tang T, Wang X. Expression and prognostic significance of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase 1 in bladder urothelial carcinoma. Virchows Arch [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 May 25];477:637–49. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32388719/.
Woolbright BL, Choudhary D, Mikhalyuk A, Trammel C, Shanmugam S, Abbott E, et al. The role of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase-4 (PDK4) in bladder cancer and chemoresistance. Mol Cancer Ther [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 May 25];17:2004–12. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29907593/.
Kuo YH, Chan TC, Lai HY, et al. Overexpression of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase-3 predicts poor prognosis in urothelial carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2021;11:749142. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.749142.
Posey KL, Coustry F, Hecht JT. Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein: COMPopathies and beyond. Matrix Biol [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 May 25];71–72:161–73. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29530484/.
Englund E, Bartoschek M, Reitsma B, Jacobsson L, Escudero-Esparza A, Orimo A, et al. Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein contributes to the development and metastasis of breast cancer. Oncogene [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 May 25];35:5585–96. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27065333/.
Liu T ting, Liu X sheng, Zhang M, Liu X ni, Zhu F xiang, Zhu F ming, et al. Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein is a prognostic factor and biomarker of colon cancer and promotes cell proliferation by activating the Akt pathway. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 May 25];144:1049–63. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29560517/.
Norman GL, Gatselis NK, Shums Z, Liaskos C, Bogdanos DP, Koukoulis GK, et al. Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein: a novel non-invasive marker for assessing cirrhosis and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 May 25];7:1875–83. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26207169/.
Kuo YH, Lai HY, Chan TC, Hsing CH, Huang SK, Hsieh KL, et al. Upregulation of cartilage oligomeric matrix protein predicts poor prognosis in urothelial carcinoma. Onco Targets Ther [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 May 24];15:727–40. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35795328/.
Li WM, Ke HL, Kuo YH, Lai HY, Chan TC, Hsing CH, et al. High MT2A expression predicts worse prognosis in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Oncology [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 May 24];100:485–97. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35817020/.
Chan TC, Wu WJ, Li WM, Shiao MS, Shiue YL, Li CF. SLC14A1 prevents oncometabolite accumulation and recruits HDAC1 to transrepress oncometabolite genes in urothelial carcinoma. Theranostics [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 May 27];10:11775–93. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33052246/.
Lee YY, Wang CT, Huang SKH, Wu WJ, Huang CN, Li CC, et al. Downregulation of RNF128 predicts progression and poor prognosis in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper tract and urinary bladder. J Cancer [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 May 24];7:2187–96. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27994654/.
Lee YE, Chan TC, Tian YF, Liang PI, Shiue YL, Chen YS, et al. High expression of chitinase 3-like-1 is an unfavorable prognostic factor in urothelial carcinoma of upper urinary tract and urinary bladder. Urol Oncol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 24];37:299.e7–299.e18. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30660494/.
Krabbe LM, Bagrodia A, Haddad AQ, Kapur P, Khalil D, Hynan LS, et al. Multi-institutional validation of the predictive value of Ki-67 in patients with high grade urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. J Urol [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 May 24];193:1486–93. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25451830/.
Liang PI, Wang YH, Wu TF, Wu WR, Liao AC, Shen KH, et al. IGFBP-5 overexpression as a poor prognostic factor in patients with urothelial carcinomas of upper urinary tracts and urinary bladder. J Clin Pathol [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2023 May 24];66:573–82. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23539739/.
Zhang G, Shi W, Jia E, et al. FOXO3A expression in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2021;11:603681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.603681.
Zimpfer A, Kdimati S, Mosig M, Rudolf H, Zettl H, Erbersdobler A, et al. ERBB2 amplification as a predictive and prognostic biomarker in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cancers 2023, Vol 15, Page 2414 [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 22];15:2414. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/9/2414/htm.
Yeh CF, Chan TC, Ke HL, Chen TJ, Wu LC, Lee HY, et al. Prognostic significance of ror2 expression in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Biomedicines [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Jun 22];9:1054. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/9/8/1054/htm.
Chen TJ, Chan TC, Li WS, Li CF, Ke HL, Wei YC, et al. Utility of efemp1 in the prediction of oncologic outcomes of urothelial carcinoma. Genes (Basel) [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Jun 22];12:872. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/12/6/872/htm.
Miyai K, Kawamura K, Ito K, Matsukuma S, Tsuda H. Prognostic impact of stromal periostin expression in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):787. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09893-7.
Tomiyama E, Fujita K, Nakano K, Kuwahara K, Minami T, Kato T, et al. Trop-2 in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Curr Oncol [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 22];29:3911–21. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35735421/.
Koyama Y, Morikawa T, Miyama Y, et al. B7-H3 expression in upper tract urothelial carcinoma associates with adverse clinicopathological features and poor survival. Pathol Res Pract. 2020;216(12):153219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2020.153219.
Mizuno T, Kamai T, Tsuzuki T, Nishihara D, Kijima T, Arai K, et al. Elevated expression of B7 homolog 4 is associated with disease progression in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 22];71:565–78. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34275008/.
Tomiyama E, Fujita K, Rodriguez Pena MDC, Taheri D, Banno E, Kato T, et al. Expression of nectin-4 and PD-L1 in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Jun 22];21:1–13. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32751328/.
Yeh HC, Margulis V, Singla N, Hernandez E, Panwar V, Woldu SL, et al. PTRF independently predicts progression and survival in multiracial upper tract urothelial carcinoma following radical nephroureterectomy. Urol Oncol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Jun 22];38:496–505. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31862213/.
Wang Y, Zhang J, Wang Y, Wang S, Zhang Y, Miao Q, et al. Expression status of GATA3 and mismatch repair proteins in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Front Med [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 Jun 22];13:730–40. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31020542/.
Inoue S, Mizushima T, Fujita K, Meliti A, Ide H, Yamaguchi S, et al. GATA3 immunohistochemistry in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract as a urothelial marker and a prognosticator. Hum Pathol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 Jun 22];64:83–90. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28428106/.
Chan TC, Li CF, Ke HL, Wei YC, Shiue YL, Li CC, et al. High TNFAIP6 level is associated with poor prognosis of urothelial carcinomas. Urol Oncol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 Jun 22];37:293.e11–293.e24. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30595463/.
Rieken M, Shariat SF, Karam JA, Foerster B, Khani F, Gust K, et al. Frequency and prognostic value of PTEN loss in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma treated with radical nephroureterectomy. J Urol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 Jun 22];198:1269–77. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28709887/.
Soria F, Moschini M, Haitel A, Wirth GJ, Karam JA, Wood CG, et al. HER2 overexpression is associated with worse outcomes in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). World J Urol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 Jun 22];35:251–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27272502/.
Favaretto RL, Bahadori A, Mathieu R, Haitel A, Grubmüller B, Margulis V, et al. Prognostic role of decreased E-cadherin expression in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a multi-institutional study. World J Urol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 Jun 22];35:113–20. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27129576/.
Fan EW, Li CC, Wu WJ, Huang CN, Li WM, Ke HL, et al. FGF7 over expression is an independent prognosticator in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract and bladder. J Urol [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 Jun 22];194:223–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25623741/.
Takeda T, Kikuchi E, Mikami S, Suzuki E, Matsumoto K, Miyajima A, et al. Prognostic role of KiSS-1 and possibility of therapeutic modality of metastin, the final peptide of the KiSS-1 gene, in urothelial carcinoma. Mol Cancer Ther [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2023 Jun 22];11:853–63. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22367780/.
Kamai T, Shirataki H, Nakanishi K, et al. Increased Rac1 activity and Pak1 overexpression are associated with lymphovascular invasion and lymph node metastasis of upper urinary tract cancer. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:164. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-10-164.
Green DA, Rink M, Xylinas E, Matin SF, Stenzl A, Roupret M, et al. Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and the upper tract: disparate twins. J Urol [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2023 May 27];189:1214–21. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23023150/.
Rink M, Ehdaie B, Cha EK, Green DA, Karakiewicz PI, Babjuk M, et al. Stage-specific impact of tumor location on oncologic outcomes in patients with upper and lower tract urothelial carcinoma following radical surgery. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2023 May 27];62:677–84. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22349570/.
Al-Zubaidi M, Viswambaram P, McCombie S, et al. 89Zirconium-labelled girentuximab (89Zr-TLX250) PET in Urothelial Cancer Patients (ZiPUP): Protocol for a phase I trial of a novel staging modality for urothelial carcinoma. BMJ Open. 2022;12(4):e060478. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060478. This paper presents a phase 1 clinical trial that explores the application of 89Zirconium-labeled girentuximab (89Zr-TLX250) PET/CT for evaluating urothelial carcinoma of the urinary tract. This method holds the potential for improved accuracy in detecting the progression and presence of UTUC metastasis. One of the reasons for its effectiveness is its lower kidney excretion compared to FDG, the tracer used in the standard imaging modality (FDG-PET/CT).
Pallauf M, D’Andrea D, König F, Laukhtina E, Yanagisawa T, Rouprêt M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical lymph node staging for upper tract urothelial cancer patients: a multicenter, retrospective, observational study. J Urol [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 22];209:515–24. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36475808/.
Voskuilen CS, Schweitzer D, Jensen JB, Nielsen AM, Joniau S, Muilwijk T, et al. Diagnostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography for lymph node staging in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:73–9. A retrospective study assessed the significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in preoperatively detecting LNM in patients with UTUC. The study emphasizes the high sensitivity and specificity of this imaging technique in detecting metastasis in UTUC patients.
Zattoni F, Incerti E, Colicchia M, Castellucci P, Panareo S, Picchio M, et al. Comparison between the diagnostic accuracies of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and conventional imaging in recurrent urothelial carcinomas: a retrospective, multicenter study. Abdom Radiol. 2018;43:2391–9.
Soubra A, Hayward D, Dahm P, Goldfarb R, Froehlich J, Jha G, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging bladder cancer: a single-institution study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2016;34:1229–37.
Aydh A, Abufaraj M, Mori K, Quhal F, Pradere B, Motlagh RS, Mostafaei H, Karakiewicz PI, Shariat SF. Performance of fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomographycomputed tomography imaging for lymph node staging in bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review. ArabJ Urol. 2020;19(1):59–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1858012.
Jensen TK, Holt P, Gerke O, Riehmann M, Svolgaard B, Marcussen N, et al. Preoperative lymph-node staging of invasive urothelial bladder cancer with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed axial tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: Correlation with histopathology. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011;45:122–8.
Asai S, Fukumoto T, Tanji N, Miura N, Miyagawa M, Nishimura K, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20:1042–7.
Tanaka H, Yoshida S, Komai Y, Sakai Y, Urakami S, Yuasa T, et al. Clinical value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: impact on detection of metastases and patient management. Urol Int. 2016;96:65–72.
Takayanagi A, Takahashi A, Yorozuya W, Okabe K, Kaji T, Takagi Y. The usefulness of positron emission tomography / computed tomography in the diagnosis of metastasis in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 22];113:51–5. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37081652/.
Galili U. Cancer immunotherapy by anti-gal-mediated in situ conversion of tumors into autologous vaccines. In The natural anti-gal antibody as foe turned friend in medicine. 1st ed. Elsevier: Academic Press 2018;171–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813362-0.00010-5
Nayak B, Dogra PN, Naswa N, Kumar R. Diuretic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection and locoregional staging of urinary bladder cancer: prospective evaluation of a novel technique. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:386–93.
Jana S, Blaufox MD. Nuclear medicine studies of the prostate, testes, and bladder. Semin Nucl Med. 2006;36:51–72.
Sassa N, Kato K, Abe S, Iwano S, Ito S, Ikeda M, et al. Evaluation of 11C-choline PET/CT for primary diagnosis and staging of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Jun 22];41:2232–41. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25104209/.
Polom W, Cytawa W, Polom A, et al. Challenging visualization of sentinel lymph nodes in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. J Clin Med. 2021;10(23):5465. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235465. The paper explores the potential use of a radioisotopic technique with technetium-99m (99mTc) tracer for detecting sentinel lymph nodes in UTUC. The study demonstrates the feasibility of detecting sentinel lymph nodes in UTUC, but highlights the challenges associated with tracer injection.
Shamis SAK, Edwards J, McMillan DC. The relationship between carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) and patient survival in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagn Pathol. 2023;18(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-023-01325-9.
Venkat S, Khan AI, Lewicki PJ, Borregales L, Scherr DS. Novel nomograms to predict muscle invasion and lymph node metastasis in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 22];40:108.e11–108.e17. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35034804/. This study introduces preoperative normograms that accurately predict muscle invasive disease and LNM in UTUC. These normograms are developed using data such as age, tumor stage, LVI status, tumor size, and clinical lymph node status. Surgeons can utilize these normograms as valuable tools in planning surgical treatments.
Levy A, Canes D. Perioperative complications and adverse sequelae of radical nephroureterectomy. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(4):1853–9. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.12.25.
Ham WS, Park JS, Jang WS, Kim J. Nephron-sparing approaches in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: current and future strategies. Biomedicines. 2022;10(9):2223. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10092223.
Raman JD, Lin YK, Kaag M, Atkinson T, Crispen P, Wille M, et al. High rates of advanced disease, complications, and decline of renal function after radical nephroureterectomy. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2014;32:47.e9-47.e14.
Kenigsberg AP, Smith W, Meng X, Ghandour R, Rapoport L, Bagrodia A, et al. Robotic nephroureterectomy vs laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: increased utilization, rates of lymphadenectomy, decreased morbidity robotically. J Endourol. 2021;35:312–8.
Farrow JM, Kern SQ, Gryzinski GM, Sundaram CP. Nephron-sparing management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Investig Clin Urol. 2021;62:389–98.
Suriano F, Brancato T. Nephron-sparing management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Rev Urol. 2014;16:21–8.
Piraino JA, Snow ZA, Edwards DC, Hager S, McGreen BH, Diorio GJ. Nephroureterectomy vs segmental ureterectomy of clinically localized, high-grade, urothelial carcinoma of the ureter: practice patterns and outcomes. Urol Oncol: Semin Original Inv. 2020;38:851.e1-851.e10.
Ko YH. Nephron-sparing approaches in the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: indications and clinical outcomes. Transl Cancer Res [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 May 27];9:6589. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC8798147/.
Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Compérat E, Zigeuner R, Sylvester RJ, Burger M, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2017 update. Eur Urol. 2018;73:111–22.
Kim TH, Lee CU, Kang M, et al. Comparison of oncologic and functional outcomes between radical nephroureterectomy and segmental ureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87573-5.
Veccia A, Carbonara U, Der Weesh I, Mehraziz R, Porter J, Abdollah F, et al. Single-stage Xi® robotic radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: surgical technique and outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2022;74:233–41.
Clements MB, Krupski TL, Culp SH. Robotic-assisted surgery for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comparative survival analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2550–62.
Azawi NH, Berg KD, Thamsborg AKM, Dahl C, Jepsen JV, Kroman-Andersen B, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic nephroureterectomy: does lymphadenectomy have an impact on the clinical outcome? Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49:1785–92.
Tataru OS, Bujoreanu EC, Coste BO, Maghiar TT, Petrut B. Robotic and 3D laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy with en bloc specimen excision (kidney, ureter, bladder cuff excision and extended lymphadenectomy) – case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2022;92:106902.
O'Sullivan NJ, Naughton A, Temperley HC, Casey RG. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy; a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJUI Compass. 2023;4(3):246–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.208.
Morselli S, Vitelli FD, Verrini G, et al. Comparison of tumor seeding and recurrence rate after laparoscopic vs. open nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Front Surg. 2021;8:769527. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.769527.
De Groote R, Decaestecker K, Larcher A, Buelens S, De Bleser E, D’Hondt F, et al. Robot-assisted nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: results from three high-volume robotic surgery institutions. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:211–9. The study highlights the significance and outcomes of robot-assisted nephroureterectomy as the least invasive surgical approach for UTUC removal. The operations were performed using the da Vinci Si® and Xi® robots. The study assesses the oncological safety of the procedure, including perioperative morbidity, intra- and postoperative complications, and metastases.
Funding
This research has been supported by a research grant from the Wroclaw Medical University SUBZ.C090.23.080.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design.
• A. D.: literature search, writing–original draft
• J. K.: conceptualization, writing–review and editing
• K. L.: literature search, writing–original draft
• P. T.: visualization, writing–original draft
• K. B.: visualization, writing–original draft
• T. S.: writing–review and editing
• W. K.: writing–review and editing
• B. M.: conceptualization, supervision
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dłubak, A., Karwacki, J., Logoń, K. et al. Lymph Node Dissection in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Curr Oncol Rep 25, 1327–1344 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-023-01460-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-023-01460-y