4.6 Article

Stage pT0 at Radical Cystectomy Confers Improved Survival: An International Study of 4,430 Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 184, 期 3, 页码 888-894

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.04.081

关键词

urinary bladder; urothelium; carcinoma; cystectomy; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We describe the cancer related outcome in patients with pT0 bladder urothelial carcinoma at radical cystectomy who did not receive preoperative chemotherapy in a large multicenter series. We also compared outcomes in patients with pT0 bladder urothelial carcinoma to those in patients with other stages and assessed the effect of clinical stage on outcome. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the records of 4,430 patients treated with radical cystectomy for bladder urothelial carcinoma without neoadjuvant chemotherapy at 12 centers in the United States, Canada and Europe. Results: Of the patients 228 (5.1%) had pT0 disease at radical cystectomy. Clinical stage was cTa or cTis in 13.6% and cT1 in 29.8% of these patients, and disease was muscle invasive (cT2-4a) in 56.2%. Metastasis developed to regional lymph nodes in 17 cases (7.5%). At a median 48.2-month followup 15 patients (6.6%) had died of bladder cancer. Five-year recurrence-free and cancer specific survival estimates were 89.7% (95% CI 85.3-93.1) and 93.1% (95% CI 88.9-95.6), respectively. Disease-free and cancer specific survival in pT0 cases was similar to that in pTa/pTis cases but significantly better than in pT1 or pT2 cases. On multivariate analysis increased disease recurrence and cancer specific mortality risks were significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (each p <0.001) and female gender (p <0.001 and 0.013, respectively). Conclusions: Although stage pT0 at radical cystectomy confers a benefit in survival, some patients experience disease recurrence and eventual death. Identifying these patients may help tailor postoperative decision making in patients with pT0.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据