1
|
Yu CC, Chang CH, Fang JK, Huang SK, Tseng WH, Lee HY, Yeh HC, Chen IHA, Lin JT, Chen PC, Cheong IS, Hsueh TY, Jiang YH, Lee YK, Chen WC, Lo SH, Lin PH, Wang SS, Huang CY, Wu CC, Tseng JS, Wu SY, Tsai YC. Impact of pathological response on oncological outcomes in patients with upper tract urothelial cancer receiving neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. J Formos Med Assoc 2023; 122:1274-1281. [PMID: 37400294 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2023.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Revised: 03/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 07/05/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rates of pathological complete response (ypT0N0/X) and pathological response (ypT1N0/X or less) in patients with upper tract urothelial cancer who were treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and to examine their impact on oncological outcomes. METHODS This study is a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of patients with high-risk upper tract urothelial cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical nephroureterectomy between 2002 and 2021. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate all clinical parameters for response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the effect of the response on the oncological outcomes. RESULTS A total of 84 patients with UTUC who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy were identified. Among them, 44 (52.4%) patients received cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and 22 (26.2%) patients had a carboplatin-based regimen. The pathological complete response rate was 11.6% (n = 10), and the pathological response rate was 42.9% (n = 36). Multifocal tumors or tumors larger than 3 cm significantly reduced the odds of pathological response. In the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, pathological response was independently associated with better overall survival (HR 0.38, p = 0.024), cancer-specific survival (HR 0.24, p = 0.033), and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.17, p = 0.001), but it was not associated with bladder recurrence-free survival (HR 0.84, p = 0.69). CONCLUSION Pathological response after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radical nephroureterectomy is strongly associated with patient survival and recurrence, and it might be a good surrogate for evaluating the efficacy of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chih-Chin Yu
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan; School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Chao-Hsiang Chang
- Department of Urology, China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Jen-Kai Fang
- Department of Urology, China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Steven K Huang
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Chi Mei Medical Center, Taiwan; Department of Medical Science Industries, College of Health Sciences, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan City, Taiwan; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Taiwan
| | - Wen-Hsin Tseng
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Chi Mei Medical Center, Taiwan
| | - Hsiang-Ying Lee
- School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | - Hsin-Chih Yeh
- School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | - I-Hsuan Alan Chen
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan
| | - Jen-Tai Lin
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan
| | - Pi-Che Chen
- Department of Urology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan
| | - Ian-Seng Cheong
- Department of Urology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan
| | - Thomas Y Hsueh
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei City Hospital Renai Branch, Taiwan; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yuan-Hong Jiang
- Department of Urology, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation and Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Khun Lee
- Department of Urology, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation and Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Wei-Chieh Chen
- Department of Urology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Shih-Hsiu Lo
- Department of Urology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Po-Hung Lin
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Science, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Shian-Shiang Wang
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; Department of Applied Chemistry, National Chi Nan University, Nantou, Taiwan
| | - Chao-Yuan Huang
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chia-Chang Wu
- Department of Urology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Jen-Shu Tseng
- Department of Urology, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Mackay Medical College, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Biomedical Informatics, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Shu-Yu Wu
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan; School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Yao-Chou Tsai
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan; School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wu Z, Li M, Wang L, Paul A, Raman JD, Necchi A, Psutka SP, Buonerba C, Zargar H, Black PC, Derweesh IH, Mir MC, Uzzo RG, Pandolfo SD, Autorino R, DI Lorenzo G. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in patients undergoing nephroureterectomy for urothelial cancer: a multidisciplinary systematic review and critical analysis. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2022; 74:518-527. [PMID: 35383431 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-6051.22.04659-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhenjie Wu
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Mingmin Li
- Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Linhui Wang
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China -
| | - Asit Paul
- Division of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Department of Internal Medicine, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Jay D Raman
- Department of Urology, Penn State Health, Hershey, PA, USA
| | - Andrea Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Sarah P Psutka
- Department of Urology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Carlo Buonerba
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, Regional Reference Center for Rare Tumors, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Homayoun Zargar
- Unit of Surgery, Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Peter C Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Ithaar H Derweesh
- Department of Urology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Maria C Mir
- Department of Urology, Valencian Oncology Institute Foundation, FIVO, Valencia, Spain
| | - Robert G Uzzo
- Division of Urological Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | | | - Giuseppe DI Lorenzo
- Unit Oncology, Andrea Tortora Hospital, ASL Salerno, Pagani, Salerno, Italy.,Vincenzo Tiberio Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pallauf M, König F, D’Andrea D, Laukhtina E, Mostafaei H, Motlagh RS, Quhal F, Aydh A, Yanagisawa T, Kawada T, Rajwa P, Lusuardi L, Soria F, Karakiewicz PI, Rouprêt M, Rink M, Lotan Y, Margulis V, Singla N, Xylinas E, Shariat SF, Pradere B. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Nomograms After UTUC Surgery. Front Oncol 2022; 12:907975. [PMID: 35847838 PMCID: PMC9283688 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.907975] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Current guidelines recommend assessing the prognosis in high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients (UTUC) after surgery. However, no specific method is endorsed. Among the various prognostic models, nomograms represent an easy and accurate tool to predict the individual probability for a specific event. Therefore, identifying the best-suited nomogram for each setting seems of great interest to the patient and provider. Objectives To identify, summarize and compare postoperative UTUC nomograms predicting oncologic outcomes. To estimate the overall performance of the nomograms and identify the most reliable predictors. To create a reference tool for postoperative UTUC nomograms, physicians can use in clinical practice. Design A systematic review was conducted following the recommendations of Cochrane’s Prognosis Methods Group. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published before December 2021. Nomograms were grouped according to outcome measurements, the purpose of use, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate nomogram group performance and predictor reliability. Reference tables summarizing the nomograms’ important characteristics were created. Results The systematic review identified 26 nomograms. Only four were externally validated. Study heterogeneity was significant, and the overall Risk of Bias (RoB) was high. Nomogram groups predicting overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and intravesical recurrence (IVR) had moderate discrimination accuracy (c-Index summary estimate with 95% confidence interval [95% CI] and prediction interval [PI] > 0.6). Nomogram groups predicting cancer-specific survival (CSS) had good discrimination accuracy (c-Index summary estimate with 95% CI and PI > 0.7). Advanced pathological tumor stage (≥ pT3) was the most reliable predictor of OS. Pathological tumor stage (≥ pT2), age, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were the most reliable predictors of CSS. LVI was the most reliable predictor of RFS. Conclusions Despite a moderate to good discrimination accuracy, severe heterogeneity discourages the uninformed use of postoperative prognostic UTUC nomograms. For nomograms to become of value in a generalizable population, future research must invest in external validation and assessment of clinical utility. Meanwhile, this systematic review serves as a reference tool for physicians choosing nomograms based on individual needs. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282596, identifier PROSPERO [CRD42021282596].
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maximilian Pallauf
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Frederik König
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - David D’Andrea
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ekaterina Laukhtina
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Hadi Mostafaei
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
| | - Reza Sari Motlagh
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Men’s Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Fahad Quhal
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Abdulmajeed Aydh
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, King Faisal Medical City, Abha, Saudi Arabia
| | - Takafumi Yanagisawa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tatsushi Kawada
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
| | - Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Lukas Lusuardi
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Francesco Soria
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Pitié Salpétrière Hospital, Oncotype-Uro, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Michael Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Yair Lotan
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Vitaly Margulis
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Nirmish Singla
- Departments of Urology and Oncology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | | | - Shahrokh F. Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, United States
- Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States
- Karl Landsteiner Insitute of Urology and Andrology, Karl Landsteiner Society, Vienna, Austria
| | - Benjamin Pradere
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France
- *Correspondence: Benjamin Pradere,
| |
Collapse
|