Urologic oncology · 2024
Regional differences in upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients across the United States.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Morra Simone, Scheipner Lukas, Baudo Andrea, Jannello Letizia Maria Ippolita, de Angelis Mario, Siech Carolin, Goyal Jordan A, Touma Nawar, Tian Zhe, Saad Fred, Califano Gianluigi, la Rocca Roberto, Capece Marco, Shariat Shahrokh F, Ahyai Sascha, Carmignani Luca, de Cobelli Ottavio, Musi Gennaro, Briganti Alberto, Chun Felix K H, Longo Nicola, Karakiewicz Pierre I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether regional differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients exist and may potentially result in regional overall mortality (OM) differences. We tested for inter-regional differences, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries.
METHODS: Using SEER database 2000 to 2016, patient (age, sex, race/ethnicity), tumor (location, grade) and treatment (nephroureterectomy, systemic therapy [ST]) characteristics of UTUC patients of all-stages were tabulated and graphically depicted in a stage-specific fashion (T1-2N0M0 vs. T3-4N0M0 vs. TanyN1-2M0/TanyNanyM1). Multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models tested for inter-regional differences in OM.
RESULTS: Regarding T1-2N0M0 patients, statistically significant differences existed for race/ethnicity (Caucasian 71 vs. 98%), location (renal pelvis: 55 vs. 67%), grade (high 60 vs. 83%) and ST (5.5 vs. 13.9%). In MCR models, registries 3 (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.39; P < 0.001) and 4 (HR:1.31; P = 0.01) independently predicted higher OM and Registry 8 (HR:0.64; P = 0.001) lower OM. Regarding T3-4N0M0 patients, statistically significant differences existed for race/ethnicity (Caucasian 70 vs. 98%), location (renal pelvis: 67 vs. 76%), grade (high 84 vs. 94%) and ST (18.7 vs. 29.5%). In MCR models, registries 3 (HR:1.42; P < 0.001) and 4 (HR:1.31; P = 0.009) independently predicted higher OM. Regarding TanyN1-2M0/TanyNanyM1 patients, statistically significant differences existed for location (renal pelvis: 63 vs. 82%), grade (high 92 vs. 98%) and ST (53.4 vs. 58.8%). In MCR models, Registry 3 (HR:1.37; P = 0.004) independently predicted higher OM and Registry 2, (HR:0.78; P = 0.02) lower OM.
CONCLUSIONS: Inter-regional differences were recorded in patients, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Even after adjustment for these characteristics, OM differences persisted which may be indicative of regional differences in quality of care or expertise in UTUC management.
METHODS: Using SEER database 2000 to 2016, patient (age, sex, race/ethnicity), tumor (location, grade) and treatment (nephroureterectomy, systemic therapy [ST]) characteristics of UTUC patients of all-stages were tabulated and graphically depicted in a stage-specific fashion (T1-2N0M0 vs. T3-4N0M0 vs. TanyN1-2M0/TanyNanyM1). Multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models tested for inter-regional differences in OM.
RESULTS: Regarding T1-2N0M0 patients, statistically significant differences existed for race/ethnicity (Caucasian 71 vs. 98%), location (renal pelvis: 55 vs. 67%), grade (high 60 vs. 83%) and ST (5.5 vs. 13.9%). In MCR models, registries 3 (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.39; P < 0.001) and 4 (HR:1.31; P = 0.01) independently predicted higher OM and Registry 8 (HR:0.64; P = 0.001) lower OM. Regarding T3-4N0M0 patients, statistically significant differences existed for race/ethnicity (Caucasian 70 vs. 98%), location (renal pelvis: 67 vs. 76%), grade (high 84 vs. 94%) and ST (18.7 vs. 29.5%). In MCR models, registries 3 (HR:1.42; P < 0.001) and 4 (HR:1.31; P = 0.009) independently predicted higher OM. Regarding TanyN1-2M0/TanyNanyM1 patients, statistically significant differences existed for location (renal pelvis: 63 vs. 82%), grade (high 92 vs. 98%) and ST (53.4 vs. 58.8%). In MCR models, Registry 3 (HR:1.37; P = 0.004) independently predicted higher OM and Registry 2, (HR:0.78; P = 0.02) lower OM.
CONCLUSIONS: Inter-regional differences were recorded in patients, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Even after adjustment for these characteristics, OM differences persisted which may be indicative of regional differences in quality of care or expertise in UTUC management.