Comparison of oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy: results from the Canadian Upper Tract Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?Open radical nephroureterectomy (ORNU) with excision of the ipsilateral bladder cuff is a standard treatment for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). However, over the past decade laparoscopic RNU (LRNU) has emerged as a minimally invasive surgical alternative. Data comparing the oncological efficacy of ORNU and LRNU have reported mixed results and the equivalence of these surgical techniques have not yet been established. We found that surgical approach was not independently associated with overall or disease-specific survival; however, there was a trend toward an independent association between LRNU and poorer recurrence-free survival (RFS). To our knowledge, this is the first large, multi-institutional analysis to show a trend toward inferior RFS in patients with UTUC treated with LRNU. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between surgical approach for radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) and clinical outcomes in a large, multi-institutional cohort, as there are limited data comparing the oncological efficacy of open RNU (ORNU) and laparoscopic RNU (LRNU) for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Institutional RNU databases containing detailed information on patients with UTUC treated between 1994 and 2009 were obtained from 10 academic centres in Canada. Data were collected on 1029 patients and combined into a relational database formatted with patient characteristics, pathological characteristics, and survival status. Surgical approach was classified as ORNU (n = 403) or LRNU (n = 446). The clinical outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional regression analysis were used to analyse survival data. RESULTS: Data were evaluable for 849 of 1029 (82.5%) patients. The median (interquartile range) follow-up duration was 2.2 (0.6-5.0) years. The predicted 5-year OS (67% vs 68%, log-rank P = 0.19) and DSS (73% vs 76%, log-rank P = 0.32) rates did not differ between the ORNU and LRNU groups; however, there was a trend toward an improved predicted 5-year RFS rate in the ORNU group (43% vs 33%, log-rank P = 0.06). Multivariable Cox proportional regression analysis showed that surgical approach was not significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.27, P = 0.52) or DSS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60-1.37, P = 0.64); however, there was a trend toward an independent association between surgical approach and RFS (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.57, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Surgical approach was not independently associated with OS or DSS but there was a trend toward an independent association between LRNU and poorer RFS. Further prospective evaluation is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".