The impact of method of distal ureter management during radical nephroureterectomy on tumour recurrence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTON: Radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) must include some form of distal ureter management to avoid high rates of tumour recurrence. It is uncertain which distal ureter management technique has the best oncologic outcomes. To determine which distal ureter management technique resulted in the lowest tumour recurrence rate, we analyzed a multi-institutional Canadian radical nephroureterectomy database. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent radical nephroureterectomy with distal ureter management for UTUC between January 1990 and June 2010 at 10 Canadian tertiary hospitals. Distal ureter management approaches were divided into 3 categories: (1) extravesical tenting for ureteric excision without cystotomy (EXTRAVESICAL); (2) open cystotomy with intravesical bladder cuff excision (INTRAVESICAL); and (3) extravesical excision with endoscopic management of ureteric orifice (ENDOSCOPIC). Data available for each patient included demographic details, distal ureter management approach, pathology and operative details, as well as the presence and location of local or distant recurrence. Clinical outcomes included overall recurrence-free survival and intravesical recurrence-free survival. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 820 patients underwent radical nephroureterectomy with a specified distal ureter management approach at 10 Canadian academic institutions. The mean patient age was 69.6 years and the median follow-up was 24.6 months. Of the 820 patients, 406 (49.5%) underwent INTRAVESICAL, 316 (38.5%) underwent EXTRAVESICAL, and 98 (11.9%) underwent ENDOSOPIC distal ureter management. Groups differed significantly in their proportion of females, proportion of laparoscopic cases, presence of carcinoma in situ and pathological tumour stage (p < 0.05). Recurrence-free survival at 5 years was 46.3%, 35.6%, and 30.1% for INTRAVESICAL, EXTRAVESICAL and ENDOSCOPIC, respectively (p < 0.05). Multivariable Cox regression analysis confirmed that INTRAVESICAL resulted in a lower hazard of recurrence compared to EXTRAVESICAL and ENDOSCOPIC. When looking only at intravesical recurrence-free survival (iRFS), a similar trend held up with INTRAVESICAL having the highest iRFS, followed by ENDOSCOPIC and then EXTRAVESICAL management (p < 0.05). At last follow-up, 406 (49.5%) patients were alive and free of disease. CONCLUSION: Open intravesical excision of the distal ureter (INTRAVESICAL) during radical nephroureterectomy was associated with improved overall and intravesical recurrence-free survival compared with extravesical and endoscopic approaches. These findings suggest that INTRAVESICAL should be considered the gold standard oncologic approach to distal ureter management during radical nephroureterectomy. Limitations of this study include its retrospective design, heterogeneous cohort, and limited follow-up.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».