Oncologic outcomes and prognostic impact of urothelial recurrences in patients undergoing segmental and total ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of urothelial recurrences in a cohort of patients undergoing segmental (SU) and total ureterectomy (TU) as an alternative to nephroureterectomy (NU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2012, patients who underwent SU, TU and NU for treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma were evaluated. Demographic, surgical, pathologic and oncologic data were collected. Recurrence-free (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox methods. RESULTS: A total 141 patients were evaluated, 35 underwent SU, 10 TU and 96 NU. Patients who underwent TU were more likely to have bilateral disease (p < 0.01), solitary kidney (p < 0.01), and multifocal disease (p = 0.01). Organ-confined (p < 0.01) and low-grade disease (p < 0.01) were more common in the TU and SU groups compared with NU. At a median follow-up of 56.9 months (range: 0.2-181.1) disease relapse occurred in 88 (55.3%) patients. Localized recurrence occurred in 31.1% of SU/TU group compared to 27.1% (p = 0.62) of the NU group. Neither total nor segmental ureterectomy demonstrated significantly worse RFS (p = 0.26 and p = 0.81), CSS (p = 0.96 and p = 0.52) or overall survival (p = 0.59 and p = 0.55) compared with complete NU. Localized urothelial recurrence did not confer increased risk of cancer-specific (p = 0.73) or overall mortality (p = 0.39). The paper's most important limitations include its retrospective nature and its relatively small number of patients. CONCLUSION: No significant survival differences were demonstrated between surgical approaches for upper tract urothelial cancer. Localized urothelial recurrence after surgical treatment for upper tract urothelial cancer does not affect mortality in this population. TU with ileal-substitution may provide an alternative option for patients with extensive ureteral disease and poor renal function.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".