4.5 Article

Gender-dependent cancer-specific survival following radical cystectomy

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 5, Pages 707-713

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0773-1

Keywords

Urothelial cancer of the bladder; Radical cystectomy; Gender; Prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To assess the impact of detailed clinical and histopathological criteria on gender-dependent cancer-specific survival (CSS) in a large consecutive series of patients following radical cystectomy (RCE) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Patients and methods Between 1992 and 2007, 388 men and 133 women (25.5%) underwent RCE for MIBC. A prospectively maintained database was analysed retrospectively. Uni- and multivariable Cox-regression analyses calculated the impact of detailed clinical and histopathological criteria on CSS. Median follow-up was 59 months (2-162). Results Among clinical and histopathological parameters, only type of urinary diversion differed between men and women. In univariable analysis, CSS did not differ between genders. In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, advanced pT-stage (HR = 2.12; P < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (HR = 3.47; P < 0.001), time interval between diagnosis of MIBC and RCE exceeding 90 days (HR = 2.07; P < 0.001) and female gender (HR = 1.35; P = 0.048) were related to reduced CSS. In separate multivariable Cox-models for time period of surgery between 1992 an 1999 (HR = 1.52; P = 0.050), age <= 55 years (HR = 3.00; P = 0.022), presence of LVI (HR = 1.45; P = 0.031) and female gender were associated with independent reduced CSS. Conclusion Established clinical and histopathological parameters do not differ significantly between both genders in the present series. Reduced CSS in women is present in historic cohorts possibly suggesting improvement in management over the last years. In particular, female gender has a significant negative impact on CSS in patients younger of age and with positive LVI status possibly suggesting different clinical phenotypes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available