Segmental Resection with Ureteral Reimplantation vs Radical Nephroureterectomy with Bladder Cuff Removal for Urothelial Carcinoma of Distal Ureter: A Propensity Score Matching Study in a Large Chinese Center

Le résumé fourni par la source

Purpose: We aim to compare the clinical outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff removal (RNU) and segmental resection with ureteral reimplantation (RR) in Chinese patients with distal ureteral urothelial carcinoma. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical records was performed for 922 patients found to have distal ureteral cancer, defined as below the level of the iliac vessels, with 747 patients who underwent RNU and 175 who underwent RR included in the final analysis. The primary endpoints included clinical outcomes and changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan–Meier method, and propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to mitigate selection bias between the two surgical approaches. Results: After PSM, the Kaplan–Meier survival curves demonstrated significant associations between surgical approach and both local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and bladder recurrence-free survival (BRFS), but no significant differences were found in cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). There were no significant differences in metastasis-free survival and contralateral recurrence-free survival between the two groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified RR as an independent predictor of poorer outcomes for LRFS and BRFS. In addition, a significant increase in eGFR was observed following RR, whereas a significant decrease was noted after RNU. Conclusion: RR is associated with equivalent CSS and OS compared with RNU, even in the context of high-risk distal ureteral cancer, and results in improved postoperative eGFR, whereas the potential of RR to increase the risk of local tumor recurrence and intravesical recurrence requires clinical consideration.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.