上尿路上皮癌长期肾脏预后的比较分析:局部消融与根治性肾输尿管切除术。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Blake R Baer, Meghan V Matheny, Raidizon H Mercedes, Jay D Raman
{"title":"上尿路上皮癌长期肾脏预后的比较分析:局部消融与根治性肾输尿管切除术。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

(1) 背景:上尿路上皮癌(UTUC)通常通过根治性肾切除术(RNU)或局部消融术(LA)进行治疗。与根治性肾切除术相比,局部消融术可为部分患者带来保留肾脏的益处,但可能会增加复发风险。本研究主要比较 LA 和 RNU 在慢性肾病(CKD)进展、估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR)下降、全因死亡率和透析需求方面的长期差异。(2)方法:利用 TriNetX 数据库开展了一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象为接受 RNU(n = 2007)或 LA(n = 4172)治疗的 UTUC 患者。倾向评分匹配平衡了两个队列(每组 n = 1965)。计算了10年间的风险比和危险比及95%置信区间。(3)结果:10 年后,LA 保持了较高的平均 eGFR(53.49 对 46.72;p < 0.001)和较低的平均肌酐(1.56 对 1.66;p = 0.017)。然而,LA 的终末期肾病 (ESRD) 发生率(3.6% vs. 2.2%,p = 0.008)和全因死亡率(26.7% vs. 23.5%,p = 0.016)较高。透析率没有明显差异(p = 0.79)。(4) 结论:与 LA 相比,RNU 不会增加 ESRD、CKD 晚期、肾透析需求或总死亡率的风险。与 RNU 相比,LA 可延缓但不能完全避免肾功能障碍的发生,而且时间上更为渐进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Renal Outcomes in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Local Ablation Versus Radical Nephroureterectomy.

(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.

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
Current oncology
Current oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
664
审稿时长
1 months
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信