4.4 Article

The impact of squamous histology on survival in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.020

关键词

Invasive bladder cancer; Squamous cell carcinoma; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bladder cancer is the ninth most common noncutaneous malignancy worldwide, though a fraction (2%-5%) are diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in the Western world. Current understanding is based on small, single-institution studies and SEER-database reviews with conflicting results. We used the National Cancer Database to explore clinical characteristics and outcomes from a large cohort of invasive bladder SCC. Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database for diagnoses of urothelial carcinoma (UC) or SCC using International Classification of Disease-O-3 morphologic codes from cases reported between 2004 and 2015. Primary outcome was overall survival in cT2-4N0M0 bladder cancer. Statistical analysis performed using chi-squared test, Kaplan-Meier survival, binomial logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards. Results: The final cohort included 394,979 bladder cancer patients, of which 4,783 (1.2%) were classified as SCC histology. In comparison to UC, patients with SCC were more likely female (49% vs. 24%; P < 0.01) and African American (11% vs. 5%; P < 0.01). Patients with SCC presented at a higher stage than UC with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) present at diagnosis in 70% vs. 19%. On multivariate analysis, SCC independently predicted poorer prognosis (hazard-ratio [HR] 1.79, P < 0.01) when controlling for patient characteristics and treatment modality. Unlike UC, there was no benefit with the use of NAC over radical cystectomy alone (HR 0.93, P = 0.69) for patients with SCC. Conclusions: Invasive SCC of the bladder carries a worse prognosis as compared to UC histology, both overall and on a stage-for-stage basis. As opposed to UC, we did not observe a survival benefit for NAC among SCC patients treated with cystectomy. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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