三模式治疗与根治性膀胱切除术治疗cT2N0M0尿路上皮肌浸润性膀胱癌:单中心经验

IF 0.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urology Annals Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/ua.ua_50_23
Moayid Fallatah, Ali S. Alkahtani, Majed Alrumayyan, Mohammed F. Alotaibi, Sultan Alkhateeb, Alaa Ahmed Mokhtar, Waleed Altaweel
{"title":"三模式治疗与根治性膀胱切除术治疗cT2N0M0尿路上皮肌浸润性膀胱癌:单中心经验","authors":"Moayid Fallatah, Ali S. Alkahtani, Majed Alrumayyan, Mohammed F. Alotaibi, Sultan Alkhateeb, Alaa Ahmed Mokhtar, Waleed Altaweel","doi":"10.4103/ua.ua_50_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Bladder cancer is ranked the ninth most common cancer in the world. Locally, the incidence of bladder cancer has increased tenfold over the past 26 years. Radical cystectomy (RC) is considered a gold standard management option for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but trimodal therapy (TMT) has shown comparable oncological outcomes in selected patients. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study in which we reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with MIBC without nodal disease or distant metastasis (cT2N0M0) who underwent either RC or TMT. Demographic data, comorbidities, histopathological and clinical staging, neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy, and follow-up were analyzed. Results: We included a total of 31 patients in the study, with 10 patients in the TMT group and 21 patients in the RC group. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the TMT and RC groups ( P = 0.58). The TMT group had a higher percentage of local recurrence (40% vs. RC 5.2%, P = 0.018) but no significant difference in metastasis (0% vs. 10%, P = 0.420). The difference in overall survival between the TMT and RC groups was not significant ( P = 0.25). Conclusion: TMT may be considered an alternative option for patients unwilling to undergo RC due to related complications and prioritize a better quality of life. However, the decision should be made after considering the cost of extensive follow-ups and patient compliance with surveillance.","PeriodicalId":23633,"journal":{"name":"Urology Annals","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trimodal therapy versus radical cystectomy for cT2N0M0 urothelial muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Single-center experience\",\"authors\":\"Moayid Fallatah, Ali S. Alkahtani, Majed Alrumayyan, Mohammed F. Alotaibi, Sultan Alkhateeb, Alaa Ahmed Mokhtar, Waleed Altaweel\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ua.ua_50_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background: Bladder cancer is ranked the ninth most common cancer in the world. Locally, the incidence of bladder cancer has increased tenfold over the past 26 years. Radical cystectomy (RC) is considered a gold standard management option for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but trimodal therapy (TMT) has shown comparable oncological outcomes in selected patients. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study in which we reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with MIBC without nodal disease or distant metastasis (cT2N0M0) who underwent either RC or TMT. Demographic data, comorbidities, histopathological and clinical staging, neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy, and follow-up were analyzed. Results: We included a total of 31 patients in the study, with 10 patients in the TMT group and 21 patients in the RC group. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the TMT and RC groups ( P = 0.58). The TMT group had a higher percentage of local recurrence (40% vs. RC 5.2%, P = 0.018) but no significant difference in metastasis (0% vs. 10%, P = 0.420). The difference in overall survival between the TMT and RC groups was not significant ( P = 0.25). Conclusion: TMT may be considered an alternative option for patients unwilling to undergo RC due to related complications and prioritize a better quality of life. However, the decision should be made after considering the cost of extensive follow-ups and patient compliance with surveillance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology Annals\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology Annals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_50_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_50_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要背景:膀胱癌是世界上第九大常见癌症。在本地,膀胱癌的发病率在过去26年中增加了10倍。根治性膀胱切除术(RC)被认为是肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(MIBC)的金标准治疗选择,但三模式治疗(TMT)在选定的患者中显示出类似的肿瘤结果。材料和方法:这是一项回顾性研究,我们回顾了诊断为无淋巴结疾病或远处转移(cT2N0M0)的MIBC患者的医疗记录,这些患者接受了RC或TMT。统计资料,合并症,组织病理学和临床分期,新辅助/辅助治疗和随访进行了分析。结果:我们共纳入31例患者,其中TMT组10例,RC组21例。TMT组与RC组复发率差异无统计学意义(P = 0.58)。TMT组局部复发率较高(40% vs. RC 5.2%, P = 0.018),但转移率无显著差异(0% vs. 10%, P = 0.420)。TMT组与RC组总生存率差异无统计学意义(P = 0.25)。结论:TMT可以被认为是由于相关并发症而不愿接受RC的患者的另一种选择,优先考虑更好的生活质量。然而,应在考虑广泛随访的费用和患者对监测的遵守情况后作出决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Trimodal therapy versus radical cystectomy for cT2N0M0 urothelial muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Single-center experience
Abstract Background: Bladder cancer is ranked the ninth most common cancer in the world. Locally, the incidence of bladder cancer has increased tenfold over the past 26 years. Radical cystectomy (RC) is considered a gold standard management option for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but trimodal therapy (TMT) has shown comparable oncological outcomes in selected patients. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study in which we reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with MIBC without nodal disease or distant metastasis (cT2N0M0) who underwent either RC or TMT. Demographic data, comorbidities, histopathological and clinical staging, neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy, and follow-up were analyzed. Results: We included a total of 31 patients in the study, with 10 patients in the TMT group and 21 patients in the RC group. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the TMT and RC groups ( P = 0.58). The TMT group had a higher percentage of local recurrence (40% vs. RC 5.2%, P = 0.018) but no significant difference in metastasis (0% vs. 10%, P = 0.420). The difference in overall survival between the TMT and RC groups was not significant ( P = 0.25). Conclusion: TMT may be considered an alternative option for patients unwilling to undergo RC due to related complications and prioritize a better quality of life. However, the decision should be made after considering the cost of extensive follow-ups and patient compliance with surveillance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urology Annals
Urology Annals UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊最新文献
Renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava thrombus: Survival and prognostic factors in surgically treated patients. Survival rate comparisons of angioembolization and neoadjuvant targeted therapy on unresectable renal cell carcinoma patients: A systematic review. Does tilt-retrograde intrarenal surgery enhance stone clearance and offer better surgical ergonomics in patients with renal calculi? A prospective randomized control study. Factor associated with postoperative complications of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer Test. Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery in <1-year age group: A single-center experience.
×
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