title: Oncologic outcomes and prognostic impact of urothelial recurrences in patients undergoing segmental and total ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  We evaluated the impact of urothelial recurrences in a cohort of patients undergoing segmental (SU) and total ureterectomy (TU) as an alternative to nephroureterectomy (NU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between 1999 and 2012, patients who underwent SU, TU and NU for treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma were evaluated. Demographic, surgical, pathologic and oncologic data were collected. Recurrence-free (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox methods.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total 141 patients were evaluated, 35 underwent SU, 10 TU and 96 NU. Patients who underwent TU were more likely to have bilateral disease (p < 0.01), solitary kidney (p < 0.01), and multifocal disease (p = 0.01). Organ-confined (p < 0.01) and low-grade disease (p < 0.01) were more common in the TU and SU groups compared with NU. At a median follow-up of 56.9 months (range: 0.2-181.1) disease relapse occurred in 88 (55.3%) patients. Localized recurrence occurred in 31.1% of SU/TU group compared to 27.1% (p = 0.62) of the NU group. Neither total nor segmental ureterectomy demonstrated significantly worse RFS (p = 0.26 and p = 0.81), CSS (p = 0.96 and p = 0.52) or overall survival (p = 0.59 and p = 0.55) compared with complete NU. Localized urothelial recurrence did not confer increased risk of cancer-specific (p = 0.73) or overall mortality (p = 0.39). The paper's most important limitations include its retrospective nature and its relatively small number of patients.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  No significant survival differences were demonstrated between surgical approaches for upper tract urothelial cancer. Localized urothelial recurrence after surgical treatment for upper tract urothelial cancer does not affect mortality in this population. TU with ileal-substitution may provide an alternative option for patients with extensive ureteral disease and poor renal function.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
authors.forename: Jose A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Pedrosa
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
authors.forename: Timothy A
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: Masterson
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
authors.forename: Kevin R
authors.initials: KR
authors.lastname: Rice
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
authors.forename: Hristos Z
authors.initials: HZ
authors.lastname: Kaimakliotis
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
authors.forename: M Francesca
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Monn
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Bihrle
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
authors.forename: Michael O
authors.initials: MO
authors.lastname: Koch
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
authors.forename: Ronald S
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: Boris