Clinical genitourinary cancer · 2026
Role of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Histological Variant Urothelial Carcinoma.
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.
Suartz Caio Vinícius, de Lima Richard Dobrucki, Setoue Débora Narumi Demitrol, Brito Pedro Henrique Souza, Sant'Anna Pedro Vasconcelos Henry, Azevedo Maria Fernanda Dias, de Moraes Caio Mazzoneto Teófilo, da Silva Luiz Guilherme Pereira, Schumacher Leonam Bringhenti, Galvez Victor Vion Sant, Dener Maurício Cordeiro, Nahas William Carlos, Ribeiro-Filho Leopoldo Alves
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy is well established for pure muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma; however, its role in tumors with histological variants remains controversial, particularly outside European and North American cohorts. This study evaluated the impact of neoadjuvant therapy in Latin American patients with urothelial carcinoma and histological variants undergoing radical cystectomy.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent radical cystectomy between 2005 and 2025 at a tertiary oncology center. Patients with urothelial carcinoma and histological variants identified on transurethral resection or cystectomy specimens were included. Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes were collected. Survival outcomes were compared between patients treated with and without neoadjuvant therapy.
RESULTS: The initial cohort included 733 patients, with a mean age of 67 years; 66.3% were male. The most frequent variants were squamous (56%), glandular (11.2%), and micropapillary (8%). Among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, complete pathological response (pT0) occurred in 10% (n = 5) and positive surgical margins in 12% (n = 6), compared with 4.65% (n = 6) and 18.6% (n = 24), respectively, in those treated with upfront surgery. No significant survival differences were observed in the overall cohort. In the squamous variant, pT0 was achieved in 8% (n = 2) of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy versus 1.32% (n = 1) without it. In the micropapillary variant, pT0 rates were 16.67% (n = 2) with neoadjuvant therapy and 25% (n = 3) without, while nodenegative disease (pN0) occurred in 66.67% (n = 8) and 50% (n = 6), respectively. In the glandular variant, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with numerically higher pT0 rates (20% vs. 8.33%) and improved survival outcomes; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited sample size and number of events.
CONCLUSION: In this largest Latin American cohort to date, neoadjuvant therapy conferred a clear oncologic benefit only in patients with glandular differentiation. For other histological variants, upfront radical cystectomy remains the preferred approach when complete resection is feasible.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent radical cystectomy between 2005 and 2025 at a tertiary oncology center. Patients with urothelial carcinoma and histological variants identified on transurethral resection or cystectomy specimens were included. Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes were collected. Survival outcomes were compared between patients treated with and without neoadjuvant therapy.
RESULTS: The initial cohort included 733 patients, with a mean age of 67 years; 66.3% were male. The most frequent variants were squamous (56%), glandular (11.2%), and micropapillary (8%). Among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, complete pathological response (pT0) occurred in 10% (n = 5) and positive surgical margins in 12% (n = 6), compared with 4.65% (n = 6) and 18.6% (n = 24), respectively, in those treated with upfront surgery. No significant survival differences were observed in the overall cohort. In the squamous variant, pT0 was achieved in 8% (n = 2) of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy versus 1.32% (n = 1) without it. In the micropapillary variant, pT0 rates were 16.67% (n = 2) with neoadjuvant therapy and 25% (n = 3) without, while nodenegative disease (pN0) occurred in 66.67% (n = 8) and 50% (n = 6), respectively. In the glandular variant, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with numerically higher pT0 rates (20% vs. 8.33%) and improved survival outcomes; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited sample size and number of events.
CONCLUSION: In this largest Latin American cohort to date, neoadjuvant therapy conferred a clear oncologic benefit only in patients with glandular differentiation. For other histological variants, upfront radical cystectomy remains the preferred approach when complete resection is feasible.