every patient with suspected Upper Tract Urothelial Tumor Scott G. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
every patient with suspected
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

every patient with suspected Upper Tract Urothelial Tumor Scott G. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 26, 2023 123 likes •343 views

Ureteroscopy Is Indicated in every patient with suspected Upper Tract Urothelial Tumor Scott G. Hubosky, MD The Demetrius H. Bagley Jr., MD Associate Professor of Urology Director of Endourology Vice Chair of Quality and Safety Thomas

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Ureteroscopy Is Indicated in every patient with suspected Upper Tract Urothelial Tumor

Scott G. Hubosky, MD

The Demetrius H. Bagley Jr., MD Associate Professor of Urology Director of Endourology Vice Chair of Quality and Safety Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Philadelphia, PA, USA

slide-2
SLIDE 2

DISCLOSURES

  • I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTERESTS OR RELATIONSHIPS TO

DISCLOSE

slide-3
SLIDE 3

MULTIPLE FILLING DEFECTS AND GROSS HEMATURIA!

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Ureteral Filling Defect with Gross Hematuria and Flank Pain!!!

slide-5
SLIDE 5

FIBROEPITHELIAL POLYPS

slide-6
SLIDE 6

FIBROEPITHELIAL POLYPS

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Benign Pathology Found after Laparoscopic Radical NU

  • 7/244 (2.9%) found to have Benign Pathology (Presumed UTUC)
  • 5 did not have URS evaluation
  • 2 incomplete URS evaluation (unable to access pathology)
  • 5 with Ureteral Lesions

CT Finding

  • Polypoid ureteritis / ureteral stone

PeriUreteral Wall Thickening

  • Urothelial hyperplasia / ureteral stone

Enhancing Ureteral Soft Tissue Mass

  • Inflammatory Pseudotumor

1.5 cm Enhancing Mass in Mid Ureter

  • Submucosal Hemorrhage

Enhancing Mass Distal Ureter

  • TB

Multifocal Ureteral Wall Thickening

  • 2 with Renal Pelvic Lesions
  • Inflammatory Pseudotumor

4cm Enhancing UTUC renal pelvis

  • Fibroepithelial Polyp

1.6 cm Enhancing mass renal pelvis

Hong et al 2014 JSLS (18) 1-17

slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Potretzke et al 2016 Urology (88) 43-8

slide-10
SLIDE 10

What is the best treatment choice?

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Reasons NOT to do Ureteroscopy in UTUC

  • Increased Pyelovenous Backflow = Local Tumor Spread or

Promotion of Metastatic Disease / Cancer Specific Mortality

  • Delays time to definitive Surgery (NU)
  • Leads to Bladder Tumor Development
  • URS does not really add anything
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Does Flexible Ureteroscopy Promote Local Recurrence of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma?

  • ? Migration of malignant cells from Increased Intrarenal Pressure?
  • Evaluated 13 patients who had URS prior to ultimate NU (all with UTUC)
  • Surgical (NU) specimens examined for vascular/lymphatic invasion
  • No Tumor cells seen in Vascular/Lymphatic spaces
  • No tumor seen outside of or penetrating renal capsule
  • Direct extension of tumor into renal parenchyma (1)
  • Suspected prior to URS being performed
  • Patients followed with CT (mean 34 months)
  • Only one patient with eventual metastatic disease

Kulp & Bagley 1994 J Endourol (8) 111-3

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Impact of Diagnostic Ureteroscopy on Long-Term Survival in UTUC patients after NU

  • Retrospective review of 48

patients in each group.

  • Demographics statistically

equivalent including preop grade

  • Mean follow up (42-50 months)
  • Rate of Metastatic Disease same
  • 12% URS group
  • 19% Control group
  • Overall Survival same (p=0.75)
  • 87% URS group
  • 76% Control group

Hendin et al 1999 J Urol (161) 783-5

slide-14
SLIDE 14

What does URS do in terms of bladder tumor development in those without prior BT hx?

  • Sankin et al
  • Median follow-up of 5.4 years
  • Intravesical Recurrence Rate (IRR) higher in those with URS (58% vs. 29%)
  • No difference in Cancer Specific Survival
  • Luo et al
  • Mean follow-up 40.7 months
  • IRR higher in those with URS (40.9% vs. 27.8%)
  • No difference in Metastasis Free Survival and Cancer Specific Survival
  • Ishikawa et al
  • Median follow-up 44 months
  • IRR similar: With URS 60%, Without URS 58.7%
  • No difference in Cancer Specific Survival
  • 1. Sankin et al 2016 Urology (94) 148-53
  • 2. Luo et al 2013 Ann Surg Oncol DOI 10.1245/s10434-013-3000-z
  • 3. Ishikawa et al 2010 J Urol (184) 883-7
slide-15
SLIDE 15

MD ANDERSON: Higher Stage UTUC “The treatment paradigm needed to change”

  • Surgical Series of NU from 1986 – 2004

(N = 184)

  • Group 1

N = 42 1986-1994

  • Group 2

N = 50 1995-1999

  • Group 3

N = 92 2000-2004

  • No difference in DSS among 3 groups
  • ver 20 years!!!
  • Pts with high risk features continued to

do poorly

Brown et al. BJUI 2006 (98) 1176-80

slide-16
SLIDE 16

REDUCTION IN ELIGIBLE PATIENTS FOR CISPLATIN-BASED CHEMO AFTER NU

  • Multi-institutional Retrospective

Review of NU patients for UTUC

  • Mean age 70 yrs (62 – 76)
  • If cutoff for cisplatin-based

chemotherapy is GFR > 60

  • 49% eligible PREOP
  • 19% eligible POSTOP
  • Strengthened the argument for

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Kaag et al. Eur Urol 2010 (58) 581-7

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Porten et al 2014 Cancer (120) 1794-9

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Porten et al 2014 Cancer (120) 1794-9

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Observations

  • The stakes are getting

higher for UTUC treatment

  • NEOADJUVANT

CHEMOTHERAPY

  • Better Options for Nephron

Sparing Therapies

  • Endoscopic Treatments
  • MITOGEL
  • Local Bladder recurrences

are increased modestly

  • Post-op MMC after URS?
slide-20
SLIDE 20