4.3 Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinicopathologic Factors Predicting Upper Urinary Tract Recurrence After Radical Cystectomy for Urothelial Bladder Cancer

期刊

CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 317-323

出版社

CIG MEDIA GROUP, LP
DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.11.002

关键词

Urothelial carcinoma; Relapse; Survellance; Transitional cell carcinoma; Ureteral margin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying risk factors for upper urinary tract recurrence (UUTR) in patients treated with radical cystectomy (RC) for urothelial bladder carcinoma (UBC). Surgical margin, preoperative hydronephrosis, ureteral margin, and pT stage were identified as risk factors for UUTR.
To identify risk factors for upper urinary tract recurrence (UUTR) in patients treated with radical cystectomy (RC) for urothelial bladder carcinoma (UBC). The PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched on March 2022 to identify relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) statement. We included studies that provided multivariate logistic regression analyses. The pooled UUTR rate was calculated using a fixed effect model. We identified 235 papers, of which seven and 6 articles, comprising a total of 8981 and 8404 UBC patients, were selected for qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. Overall, 418 (4.65%) patients were diagnosed with UUTR within a median time of 1.4 to 3.1 years after RC. Risk factors for UUTR were surgical margin (hazard ratio [HR] 3.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.59-4.49, P < .00001), preoperative hydronephrosis (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.25-2.43, P = .001), ureteral margin (HR: 4.34, 95% CI: 2.75-6.85, P < .00001), and pT stage (HR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.37-5.27, P < .004). Incorporation of established risk factors into a clinical prediction model might aid in the decision-making process regarding the intensit y and t ype of surveillance protocols after RC as well as help determine the pretest probability of UUTR.

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

4.3
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