Purpose: Guidelines recommend endoscopic ablation in select upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients. To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) in localized non-invasive low-grade UTUC with tumor size < 2 cm treated with endoscopic ablation vs. radical nephroureterectomy. Methods: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2000–2020), we identified UTUC patients treated with either endoscopic ablation or radical nephroureterectomy. After propensity score matching (ratio 1:1), cumulative incidence plots, and competing risks regression models addressed CSM and OCM. Results: Of 249 included UTUC patients, 66 (27%) were treated with endoscopic ablation vs. 183 (73%) with radical nephroureterectomy. Over the study period, endoscopic ablation use increased from 10 to 45% (p = 0.01). After 1:1 propensity score matching, 66 of 66 (100%) endoscopic ablation and 66 of 183 (36%) radical nephroureterectomy patients were included. Ten-year CSM rates were 15.7% after endoscopic ablation vs. 13.9% after radical nephroureterectomy (p = 0.9). Ten-year OCM rates were 46.3% after endoscopic ablation vs. 57.9% after radical nephroureterectomy (p = 0.5). In multivariable competing risks regression models, CSM (hazard ratio 1.10; p = 0.9) and OCM (hazard ratio 0.83; p = 0.5) did not differ according to use of endoscopic ablation vs. radical nephroureterectomy. Conclusion: Endoscopic ablation of localized non-invasive low-grade UTUC with tumor size < 2 cm results in absence of cancer-control outcome differences relative to radical nephroureterectomy. This observation validates the current guideline recommendations.
Endoscopic ablation versus nephroureterectomy in localized low-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comparison in terms of cancer-specific and other-cause mortality / Siech, C., Jannello, L.M.I., de Angelis, M., Di Bello, F., Rodriquez Peñaranda, N., Goyal, J.A., Tian, Z., Saad, F., Shariat, S.F., Micali, S., Longo, N., de Cobelli, O., Briganti, A., Hoeh, B., Mandel, P., Kluth, L.A., Chun, F.K.H., Karakiewicz, P.I.. - In: WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY. - ISSN 1433-8726. - 43:1(2025). [10.1007/s00345-025-05626-0]
Endoscopic ablation versus nephroureterectomy in localized low-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comparison in terms of cancer-specific and other-cause mortality
Longo, Nicola;
2025
Abstract
Purpose: Guidelines recommend endoscopic ablation in select upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients. To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) in localized non-invasive low-grade UTUC with tumor size < 2 cm treated with endoscopic ablation vs. radical nephroureterectomy. Methods: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2000–2020), we identified UTUC patients treated with either endoscopic ablation or radical nephroureterectomy. After propensity score matching (ratio 1:1), cumulative incidence plots, and competing risks regression models addressed CSM and OCM. Results: Of 249 included UTUC patients, 66 (27%) were treated with endoscopic ablation vs. 183 (73%) with radical nephroureterectomy. Over the study period, endoscopic ablation use increased from 10 to 45% (p = 0.01). After 1:1 propensity score matching, 66 of 66 (100%) endoscopic ablation and 66 of 183 (36%) radical nephroureterectomy patients were included. Ten-year CSM rates were 15.7% after endoscopic ablation vs. 13.9% after radical nephroureterectomy (p = 0.9). Ten-year OCM rates were 46.3% after endoscopic ablation vs. 57.9% after radical nephroureterectomy (p = 0.5). In multivariable competing risks regression models, CSM (hazard ratio 1.10; p = 0.9) and OCM (hazard ratio 0.83; p = 0.5) did not differ according to use of endoscopic ablation vs. radical nephroureterectomy. Conclusion: Endoscopic ablation of localized non-invasive low-grade UTUC with tumor size < 2 cm results in absence of cancer-control outcome differences relative to radical nephroureterectomy. This observation validates the current guideline recommendations.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
