根治性肾输尿管切除术后当前质量护理指标的外部验证

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY BJU International Pub Date : 2025-07-13 Epub Date: 2025-04-20 DOI:10.1111/bju.16741
Igor Duquesne, Pierre-Etienne Gabriel, Mohamad Abou Chakra, Mohamad Moussa, Raymond Mansour, Mihnea Bogdan Borz, Louise Duffaut, Benoit Mesnard, Said Ourfali, Jeremy Mercier, Michaël Peyromaure, Alexandre de la Taille, Jérôme Rigaud, Alain Ruffion, Frédéric Panthier, Evanguelos Xylinas, Alexandra Masson-Lecomte, Morgan Rouprêt, Thomas Seisen, Mathieu Roumiguié, the CCAFU
{"title":"根治性肾输尿管切除术后当前质量护理指标的外部验证","authors":"Igor Duquesne,&nbsp;Pierre-Etienne Gabriel,&nbsp;Mohamad Abou Chakra,&nbsp;Mohamad Moussa,&nbsp;Raymond Mansour,&nbsp;Mihnea Bogdan Borz,&nbsp;Louise Duffaut,&nbsp;Benoit Mesnard,&nbsp;Said Ourfali,&nbsp;Jeremy Mercier,&nbsp;Michaël Peyromaure,&nbsp;Alexandre de la Taille,&nbsp;Jérôme Rigaud,&nbsp;Alain Ruffion,&nbsp;Frédéric Panthier,&nbsp;Evanguelos Xylinas,&nbsp;Alexandra Masson-Lecomte,&nbsp;Morgan Rouprêt,&nbsp;Thomas Seisen,&nbsp;Mathieu Roumiguié,&nbsp;the CCAFU","doi":"10.1111/bju.16741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To externally validate the tetrafecta and pentafecta frameworks for assessing the quality of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) and their correlation with oncological outcomes in patients with localised upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study included 545 patients who underwent RNU for localised UTUC between 2012 and 2023 at eight French university hospitals and one Lebanese university hospital. Achievement of tetrafecta required four criteria to be met: negative surgical margins, complete bladder cuff excision, lymph node dissection (if indicated), and absence of recurrence within 12 months. Pentafecta consisted of the same criteria, plus no major complications or haematological events. Oncological outcomes assessed included intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Kaplan–Meier analyses, Cox regression, and calibration plots were used to evaluate the predictive performance of the frameworks for 3-year outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 29.5% of our cohort achieved tetrafecta and 34.5% achieved pentafecta. Patients meeting either of these quality care metrics demonstrated significantly improved oncological outcomes, with higher 3-year OS rates (tetrafecta: 90.1% vs 74.2%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001; pentafecta: 89.4% vs 73.4%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) and RFS rates (tetrafecta: 84.5% vs 57.6%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001; pentafecta: 83.5% vs 56%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Both metrics showed high predictive accuracy for OS (area under the curve [AUC] 0.92 for tetrafecta; 0.93 for pentafecta, <i>P</i> = 0.41) and CSS (AUC 0.944 for tetrafecta; 0.945 for pentafecta, <i>P</i> = 0.6018). Pentafecta achievement was independently associated with better OS and CSS in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.55, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001 and (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.54, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001, respectively).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Tetrafecta and pentafecta are reliable tools for assessing oncological outcomes after RNU in localised UTUC. Pentafecta demonstrated stronger prognostic value for OS, particularly in high-risk populations. These metrics offer a standardised framework to guide clinical decisions, evaluate surgical quality, and counsel patients about prognosis.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"136 2","pages":"261-270"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bju.16741","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External validation of current quality care metrics after radical nephroureterectomy\",\"authors\":\"Igor Duquesne,&nbsp;Pierre-Etienne Gabriel,&nbsp;Mohamad Abou Chakra,&nbsp;Mohamad Moussa,&nbsp;Raymond Mansour,&nbsp;Mihnea Bogdan Borz,&nbsp;Louise Duffaut,&nbsp;Benoit Mesnard,&nbsp;Said Ourfali,&nbsp;Jeremy Mercier,&nbsp;Michaël Peyromaure,&nbsp;Alexandre de la Taille,&nbsp;Jérôme Rigaud,&nbsp;Alain Ruffion,&nbsp;Frédéric Panthier,&nbsp;Evanguelos Xylinas,&nbsp;Alexandra Masson-Lecomte,&nbsp;Morgan Rouprêt,&nbsp;Thomas Seisen,&nbsp;Mathieu Roumiguié,&nbsp;the CCAFU\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bju.16741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To externally validate the tetrafecta and pentafecta frameworks for assessing the quality of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) and their correlation with oncological outcomes in patients with localised upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This retrospective study included 545 patients who underwent RNU for localised UTUC between 2012 and 2023 at eight French university hospitals and one Lebanese university hospital. Achievement of tetrafecta required four criteria to be met: negative surgical margins, complete bladder cuff excision, lymph node dissection (if indicated), and absence of recurrence within 12 months. Pentafecta consisted of the same criteria, plus no major complications or haematological events. Oncological outcomes assessed included intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Kaplan–Meier analyses, Cox regression, and calibration plots were used to evaluate the predictive performance of the frameworks for 3-year outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 29.5% of our cohort achieved tetrafecta and 34.5% achieved pentafecta. Patients meeting either of these quality care metrics demonstrated significantly improved oncological outcomes, with higher 3-year OS rates (tetrafecta: 90.1% vs 74.2%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001; pentafecta: 89.4% vs 73.4%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) and RFS rates (tetrafecta: 84.5% vs 57.6%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001; pentafecta: 83.5% vs 56%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Both metrics showed high predictive accuracy for OS (area under the curve [AUC] 0.92 for tetrafecta; 0.93 for pentafecta, <i>P</i> = 0.41) and CSS (AUC 0.944 for tetrafecta; 0.945 for pentafecta, <i>P</i> = 0.6018). Pentafecta achievement was independently associated with better OS and CSS in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.55, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001 and (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.54, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001, respectively).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Tetrafecta and pentafecta are reliable tools for assessing oncological outcomes after RNU in localised UTUC. Pentafecta demonstrated stronger prognostic value for OS, particularly in high-risk populations. These metrics offer a standardised framework to guide clinical decisions, evaluate surgical quality, and counsel patients about prognosis.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJU International\",\"volume\":\"136 2\",\"pages\":\"261-270\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bju.16741\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJU International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.16741\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJU International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.16741","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从外部验证用于评估根治性肾切除术(RNU)质量的四分法和五分法框架及其与局部上尿路上皮癌(UTUC)患者肿瘤预后的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
External validation of current quality care metrics after radical nephroureterectomy

Objectives

To externally validate the tetrafecta and pentafecta frameworks for assessing the quality of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) and their correlation with oncological outcomes in patients with localised upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).

Patients and Methods

This retrospective study included 545 patients who underwent RNU for localised UTUC between 2012 and 2023 at eight French university hospitals and one Lebanese university hospital. Achievement of tetrafecta required four criteria to be met: negative surgical margins, complete bladder cuff excision, lymph node dissection (if indicated), and absence of recurrence within 12 months. Pentafecta consisted of the same criteria, plus no major complications or haematological events. Oncological outcomes assessed included intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Kaplan–Meier analyses, Cox regression, and calibration plots were used to evaluate the predictive performance of the frameworks for 3-year outcomes.

Results

A total of 29.5% of our cohort achieved tetrafecta and 34.5% achieved pentafecta. Patients meeting either of these quality care metrics demonstrated significantly improved oncological outcomes, with higher 3-year OS rates (tetrafecta: 90.1% vs 74.2%, P < 0.001; pentafecta: 89.4% vs 73.4%, P < 0.001) and RFS rates (tetrafecta: 84.5% vs 57.6%, P < 0.001; pentafecta: 83.5% vs 56%, P < 0.001). Both metrics showed high predictive accuracy for OS (area under the curve [AUC] 0.92 for tetrafecta; 0.93 for pentafecta, P = 0.41) and CSS (AUC 0.944 for tetrafecta; 0.945 for pentafecta, P = 0.6018). Pentafecta achievement was independently associated with better OS and CSS in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.55, P < 0.001 and (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.54, P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

Tetrafecta and pentafecta are reliable tools for assessing oncological outcomes after RNU in localised UTUC. Pentafecta demonstrated stronger prognostic value for OS, particularly in high-risk populations. These metrics offer a standardised framework to guide clinical decisions, evaluate surgical quality, and counsel patients about prognosis.

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
BJU International
BJU International 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.40%
发文量
262
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BJUI is one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world, with a truly international range of published papers and appeal. Every issue gives invaluable practical information in the form of original articles, reviews, comments, surgical education articles, and translational science articles in the field of urology. BJUI employs topical sections, and is in full colour, making it easier to browse or search for something specific.
期刊最新文献
Correction to "A deep-learning model using automatedperformance metrics and clinical features topredict urinary continence recovery afterrobot-assisted radical prostatectomy". Unsampled large cribriform and intraductal carcinoma and the limits of risk stratification by prostate biopsy. Endoscopic visual cues of intrarenal pressure during ureteroscopy: in vivo porcine studies. Spontaneous miscarriage after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with frozen sperm of patients with testicular germ cell tumour. Proficiency-based training and evidence-based methodology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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