Search

Objective: •To assess the impact of differences in ethnicity on clinico-pathological characteristics and outcomes of patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) in a large multi-center series of patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy (RNU)., Materials and Methods: •We retrospectively collected the data of 2163 patients treated with RNU at 20 academic centres in America, Asia, and Europe. •Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models addressed recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS)., Results: •In all, 1794 (83%) patients were Caucasian and 369 (17%) were Japanese. All the main clinical and pathological features were significantly different between the two ethnicities. •The median follow-up of the whole cohort was 36 months. At last follow-up, 554 patients (26%) developed disease recurrence and 461 (21%) were dead from UTUC. •The 5-year RFS and CSS estimates were 71.5% and 74.2%, respectively, for Caucasian patients compared with 68.8% and 75.4%, respectively, for Japanese patients. •On univariable Cox regression analyses, ethnicity was not significantly associated with either RFS (P= 0.231) or CSS (P= 0.752). •On multivariable Cox regression analyses that adjusted for the effects of age, gender, surgical type, T stage, grade, tumour architecture, presence of concomitant carcinoma in situ, lymphovascular invasion, tumour necrosis, and lymph node status, ethnicity was not associated with either RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.1; P= 0.447) or CSS (HR 1.0; P= 0.908)., Conclusions: •There were major differences in the clinico-pathological characteristics of Caucasian and Japanese patients. •However, RFS and CSS probabilities were not affected by ethnicity and race was not an independent predictor of either recurrence or cancer-related death., (© 2011 THE AUTHORS; BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Background: Prognostic factors after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) are inconclusive, because most data in the literature have been obtained from small series., Objective: To assess the association of tumour necrosis with cancer recurrence and survival in a large international series of patients treated with RNU., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were collected from 1425 patients treated with RNU at 13 centres and combined into a relational database. Pathologic slides were re-reviewed by genitourinary pathologists according to strict criteria. Extensive tumour necrosis was scored as >10% of the tumour area., Intervention: Patients underwent either open or laparoscopic RNU. Lymph node dissection was performed in the presence of enlarged nodes., Measurements: Recurrence was defined as tumour relapse in the operative field, lymph node (LN) metastasis, and/or distant metastases. Bladder recurrences were not considered. Associations of extensive tumour necrosis with recurrence-free survival and cancer-specific survival were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses., Results and Limitations: Extensive tumour necrosis was observed in 364 patients (25.5%) and was associated with advanced tumour stage, high tumour grade, sessile architecture, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), concomitant carcinoma in situ, and LN metastasis (p<0.0001 each). Extensive tumour necrosis was independently associated with disease recurrence and survival (p=0.037 and p=0.046, respectively) after adjusting for the effects of pathologic stage, grade, LVI, and LN status. The addition of extensive tumour necrosis to a base model comprising standard pathologic predictors marginally improved its predictive accuracy for both cancer-specific recurrence (1.5%) and survival (1.4%)., Conclusions: Extensive tumour necrosis is an independent predictor of clinical outcomes in patients who undergo RNU for UTUC. Assessment of tumour necrosis may help to identify patients who could benefit from multimodal therapy after RNU in the future. Evaluation of extensive tumour necrosis should be part of standard pathologic reporting., (Copyright © 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)