Oncological outcomes after laparoscopic and open radical nephroureterectomy: results from an international cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Despite widespread adoption of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) for upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC), few studies have confirmed that it shares equivalent oncological outcomes with conventional open nephroureterectomy. This second large multicentre study confirms oncological equivalence for ONU and LNU in cohorts of both low and high risk patients. OBJECTIVE • To compare oncological outcomes in patients undergoing open radical nephroureterectomy (ONU) with those in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LNU). PATIENTS AND METHODS • A total of 773 patients underwent radical nephroureterectomy at nine centres worldwide; 703 patients underwent ONU and 70 underwent LNU. • Demographic, perioperative and oncological outcome data were collected retrospectively. • Statistical analysis of data was performed using chi‐squared, Mann–Whitney U ‐ and log‐rank tests, and Cox regression analyses. • The median (interquartile range) follow‐up for the cohort was 34 (15–65) months. RESULTS • The two groups were well matched for tumour stage, presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and concomitant carcinoma in situ (CIS). • There were more high‐grade tumours (77.1% vs. 56.3%; P < 0.001) but fewer lymph node positive patients (2.9% vs. 6.8%; P = 0.041) in the LNU group. • Estimated 5‐year recurrence‐free survival (RFS) was 73.7% and 63.4% for the ONU and LNU groups, respectively ( P = 0.124) and estimated 5‐year cancer‐specific survival (CSS) was 75.4% and 75.2% for the ONU and LNU groups, respectively ( P = 0.897). • On multivariable analyses, which included age, gender, race, previous endoscopic treatment for bladder cancer, technique for distal ureter management, tumour location, pathological stage, grade, lymph node status, LVI and concomitant CIS, the procedure type (LNU vs. ONU) was not predictive of RFS (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.80; P = 0.534) or CSS (HR 0.96; P = 0.907). CONCLUSION • The present study is the second large, independent, multicentre cohort to show oncological equivalence between ONU and LNU for well selected patients with upper urinary tract urothelial cancer, and the first to suggest parity for the techniques in patients with unfavourable disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".