RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The current standard surgical treatment for non-metastatic upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with bladder cuff excision (BCE). Typically, BCE techniques are classified in one of the following three categories: An open technique described as intrasvesical incision of the bladder cuff, a transurethral incision of the bladder cuff (TUBC), and an extravesical incision of the bladder cuff (EVBC) method. Even though each of these management techniques are widely used, there is no consensus about which surgical intervention is superior, with the best oncologic outcomes. AIM: To investigate the oncological outcomes of three BCE methods during RNU for primary UTUC patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 248 primary UTUC patients, who underwent RNU with BCE between January 2004 to December 2018. Patients were analyzed according to each BCE method. Data extracted included patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and oncological outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and log-rank tests. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was utilized to identify independent predictors. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 248 participants, 39.9% (n = 99) underwent intrasvesical incision of the bladder cuff, 38.7% (n = 96) EVBC, and 21.4% (n = 53) TUBC. At a median follow-up of 44.2 mo, bladder recurrence developed in 17.2%, 12.5%, and 13.2% of the cases, respectively. Cancer-specific deaths occurred in 11.1%, 5.2%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with a log-rank test highlighted no significant differences in intravesical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival among these approaches with P values of 0.987, 0.825, and 0.497, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the lower ureter location appears to have inferior intravesical recurrence-free survival (P = 0.042). However, cancer-specific survival and overall survival were independently influenced by tumor stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.439; 95% conï¬dence interval: 2.424-29.377; P = 0.001) and lymph node status (HR = 14.343; 95%CI: 5.176-39.745; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: All three techniques had comparable outcomes; although, EVBC and TUBC are minimally invasive. While based upon rather limited data, these findings will support urologists in blending experience with evidence to inform patient choices. However, larger, rigorously designed, multicenter studies with long term outcomes are still required.
