Assessing the safety of bladder-preserving therapy as an alternative to surgical intervention in elderly patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer.

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urologia Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1177/03915603241265828
Christopher R Koller, Jacob W Greenberg, Caleb Natale, L Spencer Krane
{"title":"Assessing the safety of bladder-preserving therapy as an alternative to surgical intervention in elderly patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer.","authors":"Christopher R Koller, Jacob W Greenberg, Caleb Natale, L Spencer Krane","doi":"10.1177/03915603241265828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is interest in using bladder-preserving therapy as an alternative definitive therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer in certain high-risk groups such as the elderly.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine if bladder-preserving therapy represents a safer alternative to surgical intervention in elderly patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (SEER) for cases of non-metastasized malignant bladder cancer in patients aged 80+. Survival outcomes with radical cystectomy (RC) with or without chemotherapy were compared to those after chemotherapy and radiation without cystectomy. We performed log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier and cox regression and hazard analyses before and after propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2995 patients were identified, with 49.98% treated with RC only, 8.65% treated with RC/chemotherapy, and 41.37% treated with chemotherapy and radiation without RC. Median overall survival for the RC only, RC/chemotherapy and chemotherapy/radiation groups were 31.4, 44.1, and 24.6 months, respectively. On multivariate analysis, hazard ratios (reference: RC/chemotherapy group) were RC Only (HR = 1.408 (95% CI 1.188-1.669), <i>p</i> < 0.0001) and chemotherapy/radiation (HR = 1.650 (95% CI 1.390-1.959), <i>p</i> < 0.0001). After matching the chemotherapy/radiation and RC/chemotherapy groups, the former continued to show survival hazard (HR = 1.744 (95% CI 1.414-2.155), <i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Octogenarians should be offered definitive local therapy for their localized bladder cancer including RC and chemotherapy. Bladder-sparing alternatives should be reserved for patients unfit for surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":23574,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Journal","volume":" ","pages":"701-708"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603241265828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is interest in using bladder-preserving therapy as an alternative definitive therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer in certain high-risk groups such as the elderly.

Objective: To determine if bladder-preserving therapy represents a safer alternative to surgical intervention in elderly patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Methods: We surveyed the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (SEER) for cases of non-metastasized malignant bladder cancer in patients aged 80+. Survival outcomes with radical cystectomy (RC) with or without chemotherapy were compared to those after chemotherapy and radiation without cystectomy. We performed log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier and cox regression and hazard analyses before and after propensity score matching.

Results: A total of 2995 patients were identified, with 49.98% treated with RC only, 8.65% treated with RC/chemotherapy, and 41.37% treated with chemotherapy and radiation without RC. Median overall survival for the RC only, RC/chemotherapy and chemotherapy/radiation groups were 31.4, 44.1, and 24.6 months, respectively. On multivariate analysis, hazard ratios (reference: RC/chemotherapy group) were RC Only (HR = 1.408 (95% CI 1.188-1.669), p < 0.0001) and chemotherapy/radiation (HR = 1.650 (95% CI 1.390-1.959), p < 0.0001). After matching the chemotherapy/radiation and RC/chemotherapy groups, the former continued to show survival hazard (HR = 1.744 (95% CI 1.414-2.155), p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Octogenarians should be offered definitive local therapy for their localized bladder cancer including RC and chemotherapy. Bladder-sparing alternatives should be reserved for patients unfit for surgery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估肌肉浸润性膀胱癌老年患者采用膀胱保留疗法替代手术治疗的安全性。
背景:在某些高危人群(如老年人)中,使用膀胱保留疗法作为肌层浸润性膀胱癌的替代性最终疗法受到关注:目的:确定对老年肌层浸润性膀胱癌患者而言,膀胱保留疗法是否是一种更安全的手术干预替代疗法:我们调查了监测、流行病学和最终结果数据库(SEER)中80岁以上非转移性恶性膀胱癌患者的病例。比较了根治性膀胱切除术(RC)加或不加化疗与化疗和放疗后不进行膀胱切除术的生存结果。我们对倾向评分匹配前后的结果进行了对数秩检验、卡普兰-梅耶(Kaplan-Meier)分析、cox回归分析和危险分析:共有 2995 例患者接受了治疗,其中 49.98% 的患者仅接受了 RC 治疗,8.65% 的患者接受了 RC/化疗,41.37% 的患者接受了化疗和放疗,但未接受 RC 治疗。仅接受 RC 治疗组、RC/化疗组和化疗/放疗组的中位总生存期分别为 31.4 个月、44.1 个月和 24.6 个月。经多变量分析,危险比(参考:RC/化疗组)为仅 RC(HR = 1.408 (95% CI 1.188-1.669), p p p 结论:八旬老人的局部膀胱癌应接受明确的局部治疗,包括RC和化疗。对于不适合手术的患者,应保留保留膀胱的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urologia Journal
Urologia Journal UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
66
期刊最新文献
Investigating the clinical significance of E2F5 expression in circulating extracellular vesicles in prostate carcinoma. Evaluation of concomitant treatment for Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse, a case-control study in a tertiary hospital in Iran. Determinants of health-related quality of life in patients undergoing medical expulsion therapy for acute renal colic. Short-term effect of mirabegron on female sexual function in women with overactive bladder.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1