Annals of surgical oncology · 2021
Clinical Outcomes After Urinary Diversion for Malignant Ureteral Obstruction Secondary to Non-urologic Cancer: An Analysis of 778 Cases.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Heo Ji Eun, Jeon Dae Young, Lee Jongsoo, Ham Won Sik, Choi Young Deuk, Jang Won Sik
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study investigated patient outcomes after urinary diversion in order to manage malignant ureteral obstruction caused by non-urologic cancers and to evaluate predictive factors for overall survival.
METHODS: The study retrospectively reviewed patients with non-urologic malignancies who underwent ureteral stenting or percutaneous nephrostomy for ureteral obstruction between 2006 and 2014. The variables for predicting overall survival were identified by Cox regression analysis.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 778 patients, including 522 patients who underwent ureteral stenting and 256 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrostomy. Renal function was assessed immediately and then 2 weeks after urinary diversion. The median survival period was 5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 2-12 months). A total of 708 patients died. The patients who received chemotherapy after urinary diversion had a survival gain of 7 months compared with the patients who did not receive subsequent chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The survival rate did not differ between the various types of urinary diversion (p = 0.451). In the multivariate analysis, lower survival rates were significantly associated with male sex; previous chemotherapy without radiotherapy; an increasing number of events related to malignant dissemination; low preoperative hemoglobin (< 10 mg/dL), albumin (< 3 g/dL), and estimated glomerular filtration (< 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) rates; and no subsequent chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: In cases of ureteral obstruction caused by non-urologic malignancies, the overall survival was poor. However, the patients who received chemotherapy after urinary diversion had a survival gain of 7 months. Therefore, urinary diversion could be considered to preserve renal function for subsequent chemotherapy, whereas patients with the poor prognostic factors should be presented with the option of no intervention.
METHODS: The study retrospectively reviewed patients with non-urologic malignancies who underwent ureteral stenting or percutaneous nephrostomy for ureteral obstruction between 2006 and 2014. The variables for predicting overall survival were identified by Cox regression analysis.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 778 patients, including 522 patients who underwent ureteral stenting and 256 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrostomy. Renal function was assessed immediately and then 2 weeks after urinary diversion. The median survival period was 5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 2-12 months). A total of 708 patients died. The patients who received chemotherapy after urinary diversion had a survival gain of 7 months compared with the patients who did not receive subsequent chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The survival rate did not differ between the various types of urinary diversion (p = 0.451). In the multivariate analysis, lower survival rates were significantly associated with male sex; previous chemotherapy without radiotherapy; an increasing number of events related to malignant dissemination; low preoperative hemoglobin (< 10 mg/dL), albumin (< 3 g/dL), and estimated glomerular filtration (< 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) rates; and no subsequent chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: In cases of ureteral obstruction caused by non-urologic malignancies, the overall survival was poor. However, the patients who received chemotherapy after urinary diversion had a survival gain of 7 months. Therefore, urinary diversion could be considered to preserve renal function for subsequent chemotherapy, whereas patients with the poor prognostic factors should be presented with the option of no intervention.