Europe PMC
Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Abstract 


There is lack of consensus regarding the prognostic significance of primary tumor location of upper tract urothelial carcinoma(UTUC). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of primary tumor location on prognosis in patients with UTUC who had undergone radical nephroureterectomy(RNU). We included eligible studies that reported hazard ratios(HRs) estimates with 95% confidence intervals(CIs) for the association between tumor location and recurrence-free survival(RFS) and cancer-specific survival(CSS) of UTUC. The local advanced tumors(pT3/4) and nodal positive(pN+) tumors in patients stratified by tumor location were also estimated. The review contained 17 studies including a total of 12094 patients were identified. Although it was not significant in univariable analysis, meta-analysis demonstrated that ureteral tumors had a worse prognosis than renal pelvic tumors on RFS and CSS in multivariable analysis after adjusted for all covariates. Multifocal tumors also showed a significantly association with both disease progression and cancer-specific mortality in univariable and multivariable analyses. However, no statistically significant differences were found between renal pelvic and ureteral tumors in presentation of pT3/4 and pN+ tumors. Our meta-analysis indicated that ureteral and multifocal tumors are independent prognosticators of disease progression and cancer-specific survival in patients with UTUC treated with RNU.

Free full text 


Logo of scirepAboutEditorial BoardFor AuthorsScientific Reports
Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 6361.
Published online 2014 Sep 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06361
PMCID: PMC5376062
PMID: 25219390

The impact of tumor location and multifocality on prognosis for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Abstract

There is lack of consensus regarding the prognostic significance of primary tumor location of upper tract urothelial carcinoma(UTUC). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of primary tumor location on prognosis in patients with UTUC who had undergone radical nephroureterectomy(RNU). We included eligible studies that reported hazard ratios(HRs) estimates with 95% confidence intervals(CIs) for the association between tumor location and recurrence-free survival(RFS) and cancer-specific survival(CSS) of UTUC. The local advanced tumors(pT3/4) and nodal positive(pN+) tumors in patients stratified by tumor location were also estimated. The review contained 17 studies including a total of 12094 patients were identified. Although it was not significant in univariable analysis, meta-analysis demonstrated that ureteral tumors had a worse prognosis than renal pelvic tumors on RFS and CSS in multivariable analysis after adjusted for all covariates. Multifocal tumors also showed a significantly association with both disease progression and cancer-specific mortality in univariable and multivariable analyses. However, no statistically significant differences were found between renal pelvic and ureteral tumors in presentation of pT3/4 and pN+ tumors. Our meta-analysis indicated that ureteral and multifocal tumors are independent prognosticators of disease progression and cancer-specific survival in patients with UTUC treated with RNU.

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma(UTUC) is a rare and heterogeneous disease that accounts for approximately 5% of all urothelial tumors, with an estimated incidence of 2.08 cases per 100000 person-years in the United States1,2. The male to female ratio is of approximately 2:13. Amongst the known risk factors for the development of UTUC are cigarette smoking, abuse of analgetics, occupational factors, chronic infection and stone disease, as well as antineoplastic agents such as cyclophosphamide4. Usually UTUC is a multifocal disease. About 75% UTUC are located in the collecting system of the kidney, whilst 25% occur in the ureter5. For invasive, nonmetastatic UTUC radical nephroureterectomy(RNU) with bladder-cuff removal is considered the gold standard treatment of UTUC6,7.

Several prognostic factors for UTUC have been identified. Widely accepted risk factors consist of the pathological stage of the primary tumor, lymph node status, the presence of distant metastases, lymphovascular invasion and tumor grade8,9,10,11,12. However, several other putative factors have been proposed with sometimes conflicting results. The location of the primary tumor (renal pelvis vs ureter) also represents a controversial risk factor. Several investigators reported significantly higher progression and/or cancer specific mortality rates in patients with primary ureteral UTUC13,14,15. Converse results showed significantly higher cancer specific mortality rates in patients with renal pelvis and/or upper ureteral UTUC primaries16. Finally other researchers could not demonstrate that tumor location increased or decreased the risk of disease progression and/or mortality9,17. Accordingly, here we perform a meta-analysis to testify whether tumor location is a prognostic factor influencing the progression and survival of UTUC.

Results

We identified 121 potentially relevant abstracts in our initial search. Of these, 86 were unrelated or not original research articles. Upon closer examination, 16 studies were excluded for the following reasons: one study was review; 11 studies did not provide sufficient information to estimate a summary HR and its 95% CI; three studies concerned about the effect of types of surgery; and one study just analysed different tumor location on the ureter, leaving 17 studies for reviewing11,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30.

Study characteristics

The 17 studies including 12094 participants were published in 2003–2012. The demographic characteristics of patients, adjusted variables and study quality of the included trials were summarized in Table 1. Of these 17 studies, four were global trials, six were conducted in Europe, two in north America, and four in Asia. Most studies met high quality criteria(8 to 9 stars) except two conducted in Serbia. All studies provided risk estimates that adjusted for age, gender, pT stage, pN stage and tumor grade; other risk estimates were provided to be adjusted for lymphovascular invasion(9 studies), adjuvant chemotherapy(7 studies), surgical approaches(5 studies), previous or synchronous bladder tumor(6 studies), race(3 studies), tumor architecture(4 studies) and region, marginal status, concomitant carcinoma in situ, smoking(3 studies respectively).

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies on tumor location and UTUC
StudyLocationStudy periodNo. of participantsTumor location and No. of casesMedian age (range), yrStudy qualityaAdjusted variables
Raman 2009globe1987–20071249U:426P:82368(27–97)8age, gender, surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic), prior endoscopic therapy, pT stage, grade, lymph node status
Yafi 2011globe1990–2010673U:215P:376M:4668(61–75)8age, gender, race, presence of lymphovascular invasion, concomitant carcinoma in situ, pathological stage, lymph node dissection and type of surgery (open vs laparoscopic)
Novara 2007Europe1989–2005269U:92P:101M:11367.78age, gender, history of previous bladder cancer, synchronous muscle-invasive bladder TCC, pT stage, tumor grade, lymph nodes, presence of lymphatic and/or vascular invasion, surgical margin status, tumor site
Isbarn 2009USA1988–20042824U:911P:1913NR8age, race, region, gender, types of surgery, pT stage, pN stage, tumor grade and year of surgery quartiles
Kobayashi 2010Japan2000–2004221U:111P:11072(46–92)8age, sex, pT stage, tumor grade, venous invasion, lymphatic invasion, surgical techniques
Dragicevic 2007Serbia1998–2005114U:30P:37M:3667(38–86)7age, sex, BEN or non-endemic area of residence, serum, creatinine levels, Hb, synchronous bladder tumor, tumor size, tumor grade, tumor stage and lymphovascular invasion
Favaretto 2010USA1995–2008253U:78P:17172(64–77)8age, gender, race, smoking history, previous non-muscle-invasive bladder tumor, pT stage, pN stage, tumor grade, concomitant carcinoma in situ
Akdogan 2005Turkey1987–200372U:21P:5158.98age, sex, T stage, grade, bladder tumor history
Park 2004Korea1991–200186U:41P:4559.59age, grade, T stage, N stage, grade,
Chromecki 2011globe1987–20072492U:640P:1262M:59069.2(54.1–84.2)8age, gender, T stage, N stage, tumor stage, tumor architecture, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node involvement, receiving adjuvant chemotherapy
Lehmann 2006Germany1975–2004145U:136M:1968(29–85)8age, sex, pT stage, tumor grade, N stage, tumor stage, treatinin, alkaline phosphatase, WBC count, blood urea nitrogen, platelet count
Milojevic 2011Serbia1999–2009133U:45P:88NR7age, sex, laterality, previous carcinoma not invading bladder muscle, tumor grade, tumor stage, N stage, lymphovascular invasion
Ouzzane 2011France1995–2010609U:185P:317M:10770(62–76)8age, sex, pT stage, tumor grade, N stage, lymphovascular invasion,
Zhang 2012China2000–2010217U:71P:14669(62–81)8gender, age, tumor stage, tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, and lymph node status, preoperative hydronephrosis, type of surgery, follow-up
Park 2009Korea1991–2005224U:102P:122639age, sex, T stage, N stage, grade, adjuvant chemotherapy
Mouracade 2011Canada1985–2005269U:108P:16166.78age, gender, pT stage, pN stage, tumor grade, surgical margin status, adjuvant chemotherapy, period of diagnosis
Cha 2012globe1987–20072244U:795P:144969.99age, gender, pT stage, pN stage, tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, sessile tumor architecture, concomitant CIS, previous bladder cancer

Abbreviation: M, multifocal; NR, not reported; P, pelvis; U, ureter.

a: Study quality was judged on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (1–9 stars).

Clinicopathologic characteristics

Table 2 summarized the pooled results of local advanced(pT3/4) tumors and nodal positive(pN+) tumors in patients stratified by tumor location. It revealed that there were no statistically significant differences were found between renal pelvic tumors and ureteral tumors in presentation of pT3/4 tumors and pN+ tumors. There was a significant heterogeneity(I2 = 82.9%) between individual trials in the comparison of different tumor location at pT3/4 tumors. Sensitivity analysis showed that the significant heterogeneity of outcome among reported trials could be attributed mainly to the trial reported by Isbarn and colleagues19.

Table 2

Summary of pooled results of UTUC by pT/pN status and tumor location
 Pooled RR95%CIPI2(%)
Ureter vs RP    
pT3/40.8450.692–1.0330.10182.9
pN+0.9060.675–1.2150.50838.7
 Univariable analysisMultivariable analysis
Pooled HR95%CIPI2(%)Pooled HR95%CIPI2(%) 
Ureter vs RP        
RFS1.2070.977–1.4910.08146.51.4731.185–1.831<0.00161.7
CSS1.1990.955–1.5050.11874.61.4561.212–1.750<0.00153.7
Multifocal tumor vs unifocal tumor       
RFS1.9321.336–2.793<0.00162.01.5971.004–2.5400.04885.2
CSS1.5950.972–2.6190.06562.42.0461.194–3.5060.00984.9

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval; CSS, cancer specific survival; HR, hazard ratio; RFS, recurrence free survival; RP, renal pelvis; RR, risk ratio.

Ureteral versus renal pelvic tumors

The univariable- and multivariable-adjusted HRs for each study and combination of all studies for the effect of ureteral and renal pelvic tumors on RFS were shown in Figure 1. In univariable analysis, the pooled estimates revealed that tumor location(p = 0.081) were not associated with recurrence. However, after adjusted for all covariates, tumor location(p < 0.001) revealed obviously associated with disease recurrence in multivariable analysis (Table 2). The combined results indicated that ureteral urothelial carcinoma was significantly with a higher tumor recurrence than renal pelvic urothelial carcinoma. A statistically significant heterogeneity was detected among studies of effects on RFS stratifying according to tumor location in multivariable analysis. We also performed sensitivity analysis by sequentially excluding one study in each turn to examine the influence of a single study on the overall estimate or in any strata. The results showed that none of the study could considerably affect the summary of risk estimates in our meta-analysis (data not shown). It confirmed the stability of our results.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is srep06361-f1.jpg
Meta-analysis of the effect of tumor location on RFS in univariable analysis and in multivariable analysis.

The lower and upper confidence interval (CI) values refer to 95% CIs. RFS recurrence-free survival.

For the impact of tumor location on CSS of patients with UTUC, no significant differences were found in CSS between ureteral and renal pelvic tumors(p = 0.118) in univariable analysis. However, the combined results of multivariable analysis revealed that tumor location(p < 0.001) was independently associated with CSS. The pooled HR was 1.456 for ureteral tumors versus renal pelvic tumors (Figure 2), the tumors originated from the ureter were associated with worse CSS (Table 2). From the results of sensitivity analysis, we concluded the source of heterogeneity among all the included studies probably also came from Isbarn and colleagues19.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is srep06361-f2.jpg
Meta-analysis of the effect of tumor location on CSS in univariable analysis and in multivariable analysis.

The lower and upper confidence interval (CI) values refer to 95% CIs. CSS cancer-specific survival.

Multifocal versus unifocal tumors

When we stratified the analysis according to multifocal and unifocal upper tract urothelial carcinoma, the pooled HR of FRS(Figure 3) indicated that multifocality was with a higher frequency of tumor recurrence than unifocal tumors either in univariable analysis(p < 0.001) or in multivariable analysis(p = 0.048) (Table 2). Sensitivity analysis showed that the significant heterogeneity of outcome among reported trials could be attributed mainly to the trial reported by Chromecki and colleagues23.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is srep06361-f3.jpg
Meta-analysis of the effect of multifocal tumors on RFS in univariable analysis and in multivariable analysis.

The lower and upper confidence interval (CI) values refer to 95% CIs. RFS recurrence-free survival.

As Figure 4 showed us, the multifocal tumors were associated with increased risk of cancer-specific death. Although the univariable analysis revealed that multifocal tumors were not statistically associated with CSS(p = 0.065), after adjustment for all covariates the combined HR indicated that multifocality was an independent predictor of CSS(p = 0.009). Sensitivity analysis identified the study reported by Chromecki and colleagues23 as the main source of heterogeneity for CSS in multifocal tumors versus unifocal tumors.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is srep06361-f4.jpg
Meta-analysis of the effect of multifocal tumors on CSS in univariable analysis and in multivariable analysis.

The lower and upper confidence interval (CI) values refer to 95% CIs. CSS cancer-specific survival.

Discussion

The impact of tumor location (ureter compared with renal pelvis) on the prognosis of patients with UTUC has been a matter of debate for a long time. Because of lacking of prospective studies, a definitive conclusion regarding the impact of tumor location on UTUC prognosis can not be permitted. In this systematic review we reported evidence from 17 currently retrospective studies about the effect of tumor location on the progression and survival of UTUC tested in a total of 12094 patients. The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated the independent predictor status of tumor location on RFS and CSS, with ureteral tumors showing a worse prognosis than renal pelvic tumors after adjustment for several pathologic variables15. In addition, tumor multifocality was also approved to be an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with UTUC.

Several interesting differences in pathologic characteristics were noted depending on tumor location. We estimated the local advanced tumors and nodal positive tumors in patients stratified by tumor location respectively. Somewhat surprisingly, renal pelvic tumors presented at a more advanced tumor stage than ureteral disease when considering pT3/4 and pN+ cancers in several studies11,14,18,19,22,25,26,27,28,29. One explanation for this discrepancy could be that ureteral tumors become symptomatic earlier because of obstruction at lower stages and grades and hence become detectable by endoscopy earlier compared with renal pelvic tumors that may progress before any symptomatic manifestation of disease or obstruction2. However, the pooled results of this meta-analysis failed to confirm the interesting findings. The combined RRs showed no statistical differences were detected. In some ways, it could be due to lack of regional lymphadenectomy in most cases. Regional lymphadenectomy was generally performed in patients with enlarged lymph nodes on preoperative axial imaging or with adenopathy detected during intraoperative examination. As such, most of patients in this cohort did not undergo a lymphadenectomy (pNx).

The literature evaluating the impact of tumor location on UTUC outcomes was conflicting. Our researches approved that ureteral tumors were with a worse prognosis compared with renal pelvic tumors. One postulated hypothesis to explain the worse outcome with ureteral tumors is that the presence of a thinner layer of adventitia containing an extensive plexus of blood vessels and lymphatics surrounding the ureter facilitates tumor lymphatic and haematogenous spread. Furthermore, the smooth muscle layer of the ureter is thinner, allowing for higher stage when minimal tumor invasion occurs. Comparatively, the renal pelvis displays a thicker adventitial layer with associated abundant renal parenchyma and perihilar adipose tissue that allows for wider surgical resection margins, which may provide a protective role28.

Bladder tumors were the most common urothelial cancers. Previous studies showed that 15–50% of patients operated for UTUC had cancer development in the bladder during the follow-up5,9,31,32,33. Zigeuner et al analysed 191 consecutive patients with no history of bladder cancer and operated for UTUC. Bladder tumor development was noted in 39 of 123 (32%), including 18 of 76 (24%) with renal pelvic, 16 of 34 (47%) with ureter and five of 13 with multifocal tumors (P = 0.02 for renal pelvic vs ureter). Zigeuner's research showed that patients with ureteral tumors were more likely to develop subsequent Bladder cancers34. van der Poel HG et al investigated the prognostic information of anatomical location of ureter in patients with UTUC. Distally located tumors had a significantly better survival than proximally located cancers (median survival 53 months versus 16 months for tumors in the proximal ureter). In a multivariable analysis both tumor stage and location in the upper tract were predictive of disease specific survival after UTUC diagnosis16.

Multifocal tumors are defined as those tumors with two or more distinct locations within the urinary tract. Keeley et al first reported multifocality as a prognostic factor with a negative impact on RFS35. Subsequent studies by Novara et al and Brown et al confirmed the prognostic role of tumor multifocality in UTUC patients17,36. Specifically, individuals with a multifocal UTUC showed a threefold higher risk of cancer-specific mortality relative to patients without tumor multifocality. Similar to our research, we found that tumor multifocality was associated with increased risks of disease progression and cancer-specific mortality, and was an independent predictor of both RFS and CSS. Tumor multifocality is a feature of biologically aggressive disease in patients with UTUC. Potential reasons underlying the worse outcomes in patients with tumor multifocality could result from a more aggressive biologic potential of tumors in patients with tumor multifocality or a delay in diagnosis or treatment resulting in more advanced disease. Taken together, it seems that tumor multifocality could help refine clinical decision-making regarding therapy and follow-up of UTUC23, therefore it should be routinely determined and reported by pathologists.

The heterogeneity of some variables in this study is worthy of comment. Four of ten variables exhibited significant heterogeneity (I2 more than 70%). Explanations may include the following. First and foremost are the limitations inherent to the biases associated with the retrospective studies included, because of no prospective studies were identified. Second, the studies in our review were done in 3 regions, including Asia, Europe and North America, and some are international multi-institutional studies. The differences in outcomes observed might reflect genetic, environmental or cultural differences among populations. Third, some other risk factors were involved in this meta-analysis which may bring bias. For instance, the surgical approaches were different. Most RNUs were open surgeries, but some were done by laparoscopic approaches. Thus, the performance bias generated. Some studies included patients who had receipt adjuvant chemotherapy, but some studies didn't; similarly some patients with previous or synchronous bladder tumor were included but excluded by other studies. Besides, the definition of RFS was not all the same within the included studies. Most studies defined RFS as local failure in the tumor bed, regional lymph nodes, or distant metastasis11,14,15,18,23,28,30. But some studies considered pathologically proven failure in the bladder as disease recurrence22,25,26,27, which made some additional patients included. The different inclusion–exclusion criteria and sample sizes brought selection bias. A final source of heterogeneity is that the incorrect classification of multifocality. The multifocal tumor is defined as a tumor with two distinct locations within the upper urinary tract (ie, involving both the renal pelvis and ureter)26. Nevertheless, some studies classified the tumors involving both the renal pelvis and the ureter (multifocal) according to the dominant tumor site (based on tumor stage, grade, or size) as renal pelvic or ureteral. Therefore, some multifocal tumors were missed in some studies, and didn't include in our review, which would produce the selection bias.

With this meta-analysis of articles from the medical literature, we demonstrate that ureteral and multifocal tumors are independent predictors of disease progression and cancer-specific survival in patients with UTUC managed by RNU. Ureteral and multifocal tumors have worse prognoses than renal pelvic tumors. And we postulate that multifocal tumors should be analysed as a distinct entity to avoid misclassification. However, available data are still sparse, and in-depth analyses of the assessed associations in the context of additional longitudinal studies are highly desirable to enable more-precise estimates and a better understanding of the prognostic role of tumor location. Future research should include more high quality, rigorous randomized trials with more stringent uniformity in data reporting to draw firm conclusions.

Methods

Search strategy

The literature search was conducted before March 2014 in the Medline and Embase and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of urology textbooks and review articles, and abstracts of conference proceedings. All the potential articles were required to include the following terms in their titles, abstracts, or key word lists: “urothelial carcinoma”, “tumor location”, “multifocality”, “prognosis” or any combinations of the four words. References in the retrieved publications, as well as those in previous systematic review, were checked for any other pertinent studies. This search strategy was performed iteratively until no new potential citations could be found on review of the reference lists of retrieved articles.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: case-control or cohort study published as an original article; papers reported in English between 1980 and February 2014; papers providing hazard ratio(HR) estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals(CIs) or sufficient information allowing us to calculate them. Any study with inconsistent or erroneous data was excluded. Meeting abstracts with insufficient data or unpublished reports were not considered.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two reviewers (Y.J.W. and Q.D.) independently extracted data and assessed study quality from all potential relevant studies with a predefined data extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and arbitration by a third party if necessary. The following variables were recorded: authors, year of publication, geographical region, number of patients, the number of patients with locally advanced pathological stage(pT3/pT4) and positive lymph nodes, and univariate and multivariate models examined the effect of tumor location on recurrence-free survival(RFS) and cancer-specific survival(CSS) rates. When important data were not reported, we tried to contact the authors. Study quality was independently scored by two reviewers using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale37. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale is frequently used for nonrandom studies such as case-control and cohort studies. The maximum scores of case-control and cohort studies are 9 and 13 respectively. Quality scores of the 17 studies ranged from 7 to 9. All were considered adequate for meta-analysis. We performed all statistical analyses utilizing Stata/SE 12.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA) commercial software with the most recent updates for meta-analysis commands. Relative risk(RR) values calculated for dichotomous data and study-specific HR estimates were combined using a random-effects model, which considers both within-study and between-study variation38. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was evaluated with Q and I2 statistics. I2 is a statistic for quantifying inconsistency, it describes the percentage of the variability in effect estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error39. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the stability of the results. Each study involved in the meta-analysis was deleted each time to reflect the influence of the individual data set on the pooled HRs. Heterogeneity was considered statistically significant when a two-sided P < 0.05.

Acknowledgments

This work was collectively supported by grant (National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81370855, No. 30901484 and No. 81270841), and Science & Technology Pillar Program from Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province (2013SZ0006, 2013SZ0034). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Footnotes

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Author Contributions Q.W. and P.H. have contributed to the conception and design of the study, and the critical revision of the article. Y.J.W. and Q.D. searched and selected the studies, analyzed the data, prepared figures and drafted the article. P.H. and L.R.L. participated in the acquisition of data and statistical analysis. Q.D. and Y.J.W. participated in the interpretation of data.

References

  • Raman J. D., Messer J., Sielatycki J. A. & Hollenbeak C. S. Incidence and survival of patients with carcinoma of the ureter and renal pelvis in the USA, 1973–2005. BJU Int 107, 1059–1064 (2011). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Babaian R. J. & Johnson D. E. Primary carcinoma of the ureter. J Urol 123, 357–359 (1980). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Jemal A. et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55, 10–30 (2005). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Oosterlinck W. et al. EAU guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 46, 147–154 (2004). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Krogh J., Kvist E. & Rye B. Transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: prognostic variables and post operative recurrences. Br J Urol 67, 32–36 (1991). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Roupret M. et al. European guidelines for the diagnosis and management of upper urinary tract urothelial cell carcinomas: 2011 update. Eur Urol 59, 584–594 (2011). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Clark P. E. et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: bladder cancer, version 1.2014. (2014) Date of access: 12/01/2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp.
  • Huben R. P., Mounzer A. M. & Murphy G. P. Tumor grade and stage as prognostic variables in upper tract urothelial tumors. Cancer 62, 2016–2020 (1988). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Hall M. C. et al. Prognostic factors, recurrence, and survival in transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a 30-year experience in 252 patients. Urology 52, 594–601 (1998). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Roscigno M. et al. Prognostic value of lymph node dissection in patients with muscle-invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Eur Urol 53, 794–802 (2008). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Raman J. D. et al. Impact of tumor location on prognosis for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma managed by radical nephroureterectomy. Eur Urol 57, 1072–1079 (2010). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Kikuchi E. et al. Lymphovascular invasion predicts clinical outcomes in patients with node-negative upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 27, 612–618 (2009). [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Ozsahin M. et al. Prognostic factors in urothelial renal pelvis and ureter tumors: a multicentre Rare Cancer Network study. Eur J Cancer 35, 738–743 (1999). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Park S., Hong B., Kim C. S. & Ahn H. The impact of tumor location on prognosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. J Urol 171, 621–625 (2004). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Akdogan B. et al. Prognostic significance of bladder tumor history and tumor location in upper tract transitional cell carcinoma. J Urol 176, 48–52 (2006). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • van der Poel H. G., Antonini N., van Tinteren H. & Horenblas S. Upper urinary tract cancer: location is correlated with prognosis. Eur Urol 48, 438–444 (2005). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Novara G. et al. Independent predictors of cancer-specific survival in transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: multi-institutional dataset from 3 European centers. Cancer 110, 1715–1722 (2007). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Yafi F. A. et al. Impact of tumor location versus multifocality in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma treated with nephroureterectomy and bladder cuff excision: a homogeneous series without perioperative chemotherapy. BJU Int 110, E7–13 (2011). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Isbarn H. et al. Location of the primary tumor is not an independent predictor of cancer specific mortality in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 182, 2177–2181 (2009). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Kobayashi Y., Saika T., Manabe D., Nasu Y. & Kumon H. Prognostic factors influencing survival after nephroureterectomy for transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Acta Med Okayama 64, 27–31 (2010). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Dragicevic D. et al. Survival of patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter and renal pelvis in Balkan endemic nephropathy and non-endemic areas of Serbia. BJU Int 99, 1357–1562 (2007). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Favaretto F. L. et al. The effect of tumor location on prognosis in patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Eur Urol 58, 574–580 (2010). [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Chromecki T. F. et al. The impact of tumor multifocality on outcomes in patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy. Eur Urol 61, 245–253 (2012). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Lehmann J. et al. Transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter: prognostic factors influencing progression and survival. Eur Urol 51, 1281–1288 (2007). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Milojevic B. et al. Upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: location is not correlated with prognosis. BJU Int 109, 1037–1042 (2012). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Ouzzane A. et al. Ureteral and multifocal tumors have worse prognosis than renal pelvic tumors in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract treated by nephroureterectomy. Eur Urol 60, 1258–1265 (2011). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang X. H., Zhu Z. W., Zhong S., Xu T. & Shen Z. Ureteral tumors showing a worse prognosis than renal pelvis tumors may be attributed to ureteral tumors more likely to have hydronephrosis and less likely to have haematuria. World J Urol 31, 155–160 (2013). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Park J. et al. The protective role of renal parenchyma as a barrier to local tumor spread of upper tract transitional cell carcinoma and its impact on patient survival. J Urol 182, 894–899 (2009). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Mouracade P. et al. Factors impacting survival in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma undergoing radical nephroureterectomy. Can J Urol 19, 6105–6110 (2012). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Cha E. K. et al. Predicting clinical outcomes after radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol 61, 818–825 (2012). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Kirkali Z. & Tuzel E. Transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter and renal pelvis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 47, 155–169 (2003). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Mukamel E. et al. Metachronous bladder tumors in patients with upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 57, 187–190 (1994). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Raman J. D. et al. Bladder cancer after managing upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: predictive factors and pathology. BJU Int 96, 1031–1035 (2005). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Zigeuner R. E., Hutterer G., Chromecki T., Rehak P. & Langner C. Bladder tumor development after urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract is related to primary tumor location. BJU Int 98, 1181–1186 (2006). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Keeley Jr F. X., Kulp D. A., Bibbo M., McCue P. A. & Bagley D. H. Diagnostic accuracy of ureteroscopic biopsy in upper tract transitional cell carcinoma. J Urol 157, 33–37 (1997). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Brown G. A. et al. Nephroureterectomy for treating upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: time to change the treatment paradigm? BJU Int 98, 1176–1180 (2006). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25, 603–605 (2010). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • DerSimonian R. & Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7, 177–188 (1986). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins J. P. & Thompson S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21, 1539–1558 (2002). [Abstract] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

Citations & impact 


Impact metrics

Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/2684119
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/2684119

Smart citations by scite.ai
Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by EuropePMC if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles.
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1038/srep06361

Supporting
Mentioning
Contrasting
1
29
2

Article citations


Go to all (24) article citations

Similar Articles 


To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.