4.1 Article

Late Recurrence of Bladder Cancer following Radical Cystectomy: Characteristics and Outcomes

期刊

UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 291-296

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000502656

关键词

Urinary bladder; Carcinoma; Late recurrence; Survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: There are only a few studies on characteristics and outcomes of late recurrence (LR) of urothelial carcinoma of bladder (UCB) after radical cystectomy (RC). The objective of this study was to assess characteristics and oncological outcomes of such LR that developed 5 years after RC. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 570 patients who underwent RC and bilateral regional lymphadenectomy for UCB at our institution. Comparisons of post-recurrence disease-specific survival (DSS) according to the timing of recurrence and the site of recurrence were performed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank test. Cox regression model was fitted to assess factors for post-recurrence DSS. Results: Disease recurrence occurred in 214 (37.5%) patients, including 20 (9.3%) who had LRs. Median time from RC to recurrence was 13.0 (interquartile range 6.0-32.0) months. There were no significant differences in clinicopathological factors between early- and late-recurrence groups. Post-recurrence 5-year DSS was not significantly different (21.6 vs. 14.1%, p = 0.344) between early- and late-recurrence groups. However, it was worse in the nonurothelial recurrence group compared to that in the urothelial recurrence group (14.0 vs. 19.4%, p = 0.056). Older age (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p = 0.001), nonorgan-confined disease at RC (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15-2.61, p = 0.008), and lymph node invasion (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.01-2.45, p = 0.043) were significant predictors for post-recurrence 5-year DSS. Conclusions: LR after RC with lymphadenectomy is not common. However, it cannot be overlooked. LR had similar characteristics to early recurrence. Interestingly, the time to recurrence did not affect post-recurrence survival.

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

4.1
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