4.5 Article

Gender-dependent cancer-specific survival following radical cystectomy

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 707-713

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0773-1

关键词

Urothelial cancer of the bladder; Radical cystectomy; Gender; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the impact of detailed clinical and histopathological criteria on gender-dependent cancer-specific survival (CSS) in a large consecutive series of patients following radical cystectomy (RCE) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Patients and methods Between 1992 and 2007, 388 men and 133 women (25.5%) underwent RCE for MIBC. A prospectively maintained database was analysed retrospectively. Uni- and multivariable Cox-regression analyses calculated the impact of detailed clinical and histopathological criteria on CSS. Median follow-up was 59 months (2-162). Results Among clinical and histopathological parameters, only type of urinary diversion differed between men and women. In univariable analysis, CSS did not differ between genders. In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, advanced pT-stage (HR = 2.12; P < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (HR = 3.47; P < 0.001), time interval between diagnosis of MIBC and RCE exceeding 90 days (HR = 2.07; P < 0.001) and female gender (HR = 1.35; P = 0.048) were related to reduced CSS. In separate multivariable Cox-models for time period of surgery between 1992 an 1999 (HR = 1.52; P = 0.050), age <= 55 years (HR = 3.00; P = 0.022), presence of LVI (HR = 1.45; P = 0.031) and female gender were associated with independent reduced CSS. Conclusion Established clinical and histopathological parameters do not differ significantly between both genders in the present series. Reduced CSS in women is present in historic cohorts possibly suggesting improvement in management over the last years. In particular, female gender has a significant negative impact on CSS in patients younger of age and with positive LVI status possibly suggesting different clinical phenotypes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据