Cancer Res Treat.  2019 Jul;51(3):963-972. 10.4143/crt.2018.465.

Laparoscopy versus Open Nephroureterectomy in Prognostic Outcome of Patients with Advanced Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Propensity-Score Matching Analysis

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Urology, Center for Prostate Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea. seohk@ncc.re.kr
  • 2Biometrics Research Branch, Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
  • 3Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 4Department of Urology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 5Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 6Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. bc2.jung@samsung.com

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes between open nephroureterectomy (ONU) and laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The medical records of consecutive ONU and LNU cases from five tertiary institutions were retrospectively analyzed between 2000 and 2012. The propensity-score matching methodology was used to compare the two surgical approaches in terms of age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor location, grade, pathologic T and N categories, the presence of lymphovascular invasion, and follow-up duration. The Kaplan-Meier with log-rank tests and clustered Cox regression were used to compare the estimated rates of survival for each surgical approach and to investigate the effect of the surgical approach on each prognostic outcome.
RESULTS
Six hundred thirty-eight propensity-score matching pairs (n=1,276) were compared; LNU was significantly better than ONU in all types of survival, including intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS), disease-free survival, overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) (p < 0.05). The 3-year OS and CSS rates were significantly higher with LNU than with ONU (p < 0.05). Compared with ONU, LNU had significantly better 3-year OS and CSS rates (82.9% and 86.2% vs. 78.3% and 81.8%); there were no differences at 5 years. In subgroup analysis of the early-staged group, advanced-stage group, lymph node-positive group, and lymph node-negative group, the two approaches did not significantly affect prognostic outcomes, except LNU improved the IVRFS in the lymph node-negative or no history of previous bladder cancer group.
CONCLUSION
LNU had a significantly better prognostic outcome than ONU after propensity-score matching.

Keyword

Urothelial carcinoma; Laparoscopy; Nephroureterectomy; Prognosis; Survival

MeSH Terms

Body Mass Index
Disease-Free Survival
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Laparoscopy*
Medical Records
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies*
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms

Reference

References

1. Liang C, Chi R, Huang L, Wang J, Liu H, Xu D, et al. Upper tract urothelial carcinomas accompanied by previous or synchronous nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer and preoperative hydronephrosis might have worse oncologic outcomes after radical nephroureterectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016; 14:e469–77.
Article
2. Raman JD, Scherr DS. Management of patients with upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007; 4:432–43.
Article
3. Ariane MM, Colin P, Ouzzane A, Pignot G, Audouin M, Cornu JN, et al. Assessment of oncologic control obtained after open versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UUT-UCs): results from a large French multicenter collaborative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19:301–8.
Article
4. Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Bruins HM, Yuan CY, Lam T, et al. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy versus open radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: an European Association of Urology guidelines systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2019; 5:205–23.
Article
5. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VR, Mostofi FK. The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Bladder Consensus Conference Committee. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998; 22:1435–48.
6. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:1471–4.
Article
7. Kim HS, Ku JH, Jeong CW, Kwak C, Kim HH. Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy is associated with worse survival outcomes than open radical nephroureterectomy in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma. World J Urol. 2016; 34:859–69.
Article
8. Kido K, Hatakeyama S, Fujita N, Yamamoto H, Tobisawa Y, Yoneyama T, et al. Oncologic outcomes for open and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018; 23:726–33.
Article
9. Liu JY, Dai YB, Zhou FJ, Long Z, Li YH, Xie D, et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy to treat localized and/or locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma: oncological outcomes from a multicenter study. BMC Surg. 2017; 17:8.
Article
10. Sung HH, Jeon HG, Han DH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Lee HM, et al. Diagnostic ureterorenoscopy is associated with increased intravesical recurrence following radical nephroureterectomy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0139976.
Article
11. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML. Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data. New York: Springer Science & Business Media;2005.
12. Hanna N, Sun M, Trinh QD, Hansen J, Bianchi M, Montorsi F, et al. Propensity-score-matched comparison of perioperative outcomes between open and laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: a national series. Eur Urol. 2012; 61:715–21.
Article
13. Ni S, Tao W, Chen Q, Liu L, Jiang H, Hu H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy for the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2012; 61:1142–53.
Article
14. Zhang S, Luo Y, Wang C, Fu SJ, Yang L. Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy versus open nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2016; 4:e2063.
Article
15. Simone G, Papalia R, Guaglianone S, Ferriero M, Leonardo C, Forastiere E, et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy: perioperative and oncologic outcomes from a randomised prospective study. Eur Urol. 2009; 56:520–6.
Article
16. Kim HS, Jeong CW, Kwak C, Kim HH, Ku JH. Association between demographic factors and prognosis in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017; 8:7464–76.
Article
17. Verhoest G, Shariat SF, Chromecki TF, Raman JD, Margulis V, Novara G, et al. Predictive factors of recurrence and survival of upper tract urothelial carcinomas. World J Urol. 2011; 29:495–501.
Article
18. Li CC, Chang TH, Wu WJ, Ke HL, Huang SP, Tsai PC, et al. Significant predictive factors for prognosis of primary upper urinary tract cancer after radical nephroureterectomy in Taiwanese patients. Eur Urol. 2008; 54:1127–34.
Article
19. Parsons JK, Varkarakis I, Rha KH, Jarrett TW, Pinto PA, Kavoussi LR. Complications of abdominal urologic laparoscopy: longitudinal five-year analysis. Urology. 2004; 63:27–32.
Article
20. Gum PA, Thamilarasan M, Watanabe J, Blackstone EH, Lauer MS. Aspirin use and all-cause mortality among patients being evaluated for known or suspected coronary artery disease: a propensity analysis. JAMA. 2001; 286:1187–94.
21. Rai BP, Shelley M, Coles B, Biyani CS, El-Mokadem I, Nabi G. Surgical management for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (4):CD007349.
Article
22. Jackson CL. Urologic laparoscopy. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2001; 10:571–8.
Article
Full Text Links
  • CRT
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr