National trends in clinical and pathologic staging for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Implications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of systemic immune-inflammation index in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis of 3911 patients

Background

Systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), a novel prognostic indicator, is being more commonly utilized in different types of cancer. This research project involved combining information from previously published studies to examine how pre-treatment SII can predict outcomes in individuals with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Further examination of the correlation between SII and clinical and pathological features in UTUC.

Methods

We thoroughly chose pertinent articles from various databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang database, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) until March 10, 2022.The data collected was analyzed using Stata 17.0 software (Stat Corp, College Station, TX). Subsequently, the impact of SII on the survival outcomes of UTUC patients was evaluated by combining HRs with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Six included studies were finally confirmed, including 3911 UTUC patients in seven cohorts. The results showed that high SII before treatment predicted poor overall survival (HR =1.87, 95%CI 1.20-2.92, p=0.005), cancer specific survival (HR=2.70, 95%CI 1.47-4.96, P=0.001), and recurrence-free survival (HR =1.52, 95%CI 1.12-2.07, P=0.007). And the elevated SII may be related to LVI (present vs. absent) (OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.71-0.97, p=0.018), pT stage (pT ≥3 vs. < 3) (OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.21-2.72, p=0.004), and pN stage (N+ vs. N0) (OR=3.27, 95% CI=1.60-6.71, p=0.001).

Conclusion

A comprehensive analysis of all included articles in this study showed that higher pretreatment SII was related to poorer survival outcomes and adverse pathological features independently.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022316333.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in patients undergoing nephroureterectomy for urothelial cancer: a multidisciplinary systematic review and critical analysis

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) is not yet supported by randomized controlled trials in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), but the evidence is increasing. This narrative systematic review was conducted to evaluate the available evidence on the role of NAST in patients undergoing radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for UTUC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched for all relevant articles or conference abstracts published and indexed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus on July 19, 2021. The study was reported according to the PRISMA criteria and designed within the PICOS framework. We included studies comparing patients with non-metastatic UTUC who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or immunotherapy (NAI) with patients who underwent definitive surgery alone or surgery plus adjuvant systemic therapy. Prospective uncontrolled studies were also included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 27 reports (NAC, N.=24 and NAI, N.=3) published between 2010 and 2021. Twenty of the 24 studies on NAC were retrospective comparative analyses, whereas the remaining four were prospective single-arm studies. One of the three NAI studies exclusively enrolled patients with UTUC. NAC was associated with improved survival and better pathological response relative to surgery alone, but there was no clear advantage when compared to surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall, the drug-induced toxicity and risk of disease progression were acceptable but the inherent bias across study designs, inadequate reporting and heterogeneous definition of primary outcomes render it difficult to synthesize results, compare centers, and inform practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The current level of evidence supporting NAST for UTUC is relatively low and the inability to predict responsiveness and thereby pinpoint the optimal candidates remains a major challenge. There is a need to compare NAST to adjuvant therapies using clearly defined primary endpoints as minimum reporting standards developed by a multidisciplinary team.