Urologic oncology · 2021
Does neoadjuvant chemotherapy have therapeutic benefit for node-positive upper tract urothelial carcinoma? Results of a multi-center cohort study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Shigeta Keisuke, Matsumoto Kazuhiro, Ogihara Koichiro, Murakami Tetsushi, Anno Tadatsugu, Umeda Kota, Izawa Mizuki, Baba Yuto, Sanjo Tansei, Shojo Kazunori, Tanaka Nobuyuki, Takeda Toshikazu, Morita Shinya, Kosaka Takeo, Mizuno Ryuichi, Arita Yuki, Akita Hirotaka, Jinzaki Masahiro, Kikuchi Eiji, Oya Mototsugu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The indications of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for lymph node-positive upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) have not been investigated regarding improved survival outcomes. Our specific aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of clinically node-positive UTUC patients who were treated by NAC followed by radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) or upfront RNU followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (AC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 966 UTUC patients, we identified 89 with clinical nodal involvement who received either NAC before RNU nor AC after upfront RNU. Cox proportional hazard models were employed to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy modality on the oncological outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the patient cohort, 36 (40.4%) received NAC followed by RNU, whereas 53 (59.6%) underwent RNU followed by AC. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor size ≥3 cm, clinical T4, and gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen were independent risk factors for disease recurrence, whereas NAC followed by RNU was an independent factor for favorable RFS. Furthermore, regarding cancer-specific survival (CSS), NAC followed by RNU remained an independent factor for favorable CSS. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 1-year and 2-year RFS were 67.9% and 47.0%, respectively, in the NAC+RNU group, which were significantly higher than those in the RNU+AC group (43.9% and 24.6%, respectively, P = 0.006). Moreover, the 1-year and 2-year CSS were 80.5% and 64.2%, respectively, in the NAC+RNU group, which were higher than those in the RNU+AC group (68.6% and 48.2%, respectively, P = 0.016).
CONCLUSION: For node-positive UTUC patients, NAC followed by RNU was more clinically beneficial than RNU followed by AC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 966 UTUC patients, we identified 89 with clinical nodal involvement who received either NAC before RNU nor AC after upfront RNU. Cox proportional hazard models were employed to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy modality on the oncological outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the patient cohort, 36 (40.4%) received NAC followed by RNU, whereas 53 (59.6%) underwent RNU followed by AC. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor size ≥3 cm, clinical T4, and gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen were independent risk factors for disease recurrence, whereas NAC followed by RNU was an independent factor for favorable RFS. Furthermore, regarding cancer-specific survival (CSS), NAC followed by RNU remained an independent factor for favorable CSS. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 1-year and 2-year RFS were 67.9% and 47.0%, respectively, in the NAC+RNU group, which were significantly higher than those in the RNU+AC group (43.9% and 24.6%, respectively, P = 0.006). Moreover, the 1-year and 2-year CSS were 80.5% and 64.2%, respectively, in the NAC+RNU group, which were higher than those in the RNU+AC group (68.6% and 48.2%, respectively, P = 0.016).
CONCLUSION: For node-positive UTUC patients, NAC followed by RNU was more clinically beneficial than RNU followed by AC.