Blake R Baer, Meghan V Matheny, Raidizon H Mercedes, Jay D Raman
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Renal Outcomes in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Local Ablation Versus Radical Nephroureterectomy.","authors":"Blake R Baer, Meghan V Matheny, Raidizon H Mercedes, Jay D Raman","doi":"10.3390/curroncol32030125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>(1) Background</b>: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is typically managed through radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) or local ablation (LA). Compared to RNU, LA offers nephron-sparing benefit for select patients but may present increased recurrence risk. This study primarily compares long-term differences between LA and RNU in chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, all-cause mortality, and need for dialysis. <b>(2) Methods</b>: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX database, examining patients with UTUC treated with RNU (<i>n</i> = 2007) or LA (<i>n</i> = 4172). Propensity score matching balanced both cohorts (<i>n</i> = 1965 per group). Risk ratios and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated over 10 years. <b>(3) Results</b>: At 10 years, LA preserved higher mean eGFR (53.49 vs. 46.72; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and lower mean creatinine (1.56 vs. 1.66; <i>p</i> = 0.017). However, LA held a higher incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (3.6% vs. 2.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.008) and all-cause mortality (26.7% vs. 23.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.016). There was no significant difference in rates of dialysis (<i>p</i> = 0.79). <b>(4) Conclusions</b>: RNU did not carry an increased risk of ESRD, advanced stages of CKD, need for renal dialysis, or overall mortality compared with LA. LA may delay but not totally prevent renal dysfunction when compared to RNU, and exhibits a more gradual timeline.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"32 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11940996/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32030125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
(1) Background: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is typically managed through radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) or local ablation (LA). Compared to RNU, LA offers nephron-sparing benefit for select patients but may present increased recurrence risk. This study primarily compares long-term differences between LA and RNU in chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, all-cause mortality, and need for dialysis. (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX database, examining patients with UTUC treated with RNU (n = 2007) or LA (n = 4172). Propensity score matching balanced both cohorts (n = 1965 per group). Risk ratios and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated over 10 years. (3) Results: At 10 years, LA preserved higher mean eGFR (53.49 vs. 46.72; p < 0.001) and lower mean creatinine (1.56 vs. 1.66; p = 0.017). However, LA held a higher incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (3.6% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.008) and all-cause mortality (26.7% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.016). There was no significant difference in rates of dialysis (p = 0.79). (4) Conclusions: RNU did not carry an increased risk of ESRD, advanced stages of CKD, need for renal dialysis, or overall mortality compared with LA. LA may delay but not totally prevent renal dysfunction when compared to RNU, and exhibits a more gradual timeline.
期刊介绍:
Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease.
We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.