Objective: Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) offers a superior morbidity profile compared with open nephroureterectomy (ONU) in treating upper urinary tract urothelial cell carcinoma. Evidence of oncological equivalence between LNU and ONU is limited. We compare operative and oncological outcomes for LNU and ONU using matched-pair analysis. Methods: Of 159 patients who underwent a nephroureterectomy at a single institution between April 1992 and April 2010, 13 pairs of ONU and LNU patients were matched for gender, age, tumour location, tumour grade and stage. Operative details, post-operative characteristics and recurrences were collated and survival rates analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: There was no significant difference in mean operation time between LNU (191 min) and ONU (194 min, p = 0.92). There was no significant difference in the 5-year survival rate between LNU and ONU (overall survival 59.1% vs. 73.5%, p = 0.18; progression-free survival 24.0% vs. 56.0%, p = 0.14; cancer-specific survival 60.9% vs. 73.5%, p = 0.56; bladder cancer recurrence-free survival 8.7% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.09). Conclusion: Amidst limited RCT and comparative studies, this study presents further evidence of oncological equivalence between LNU and ONU. There was a trend towards poorer outcomes following LNU though, which merits further study.

Keywords:
Ureter, Transitional cell carcinoma, Laparoscopy, Matched-pair analysis, Nephroureterectomy
1.
Oosterlinck W, Solsona E, van der Meijden AP, et al: EAU guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2004;46:147-154.
2.
Roupret M, Babjuk M, Comperat E, et al: European guidelines on upper tract urothelial carcinomas: 2013 update. Eur Urol 2013;63:1059-1071.
3.
Favaretto RL, Shariat SF, Chade DC, et al: Comparison between laparoscopic and open radical nephroureterectomy in a contemporary group of patients: are recurrence and disease-specific survival associated with surgical technique? Eur Urol 2010;58:645-651.
4.
Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:10-29.
5.
Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Grigor KM, et al: A comparison of the pathology of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and upper urinary tract. BJU Int 2005;95:791-793.
6.
Kuczyk MAS W, Stenzl A, Nagele U: Critical considerations regarding laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for the treatment of upper urinary tract carcinoma. Eur Urol Suppl 2007;6:555-559.
7.
Rai BP, Shelley M, Coles B, et al: Surgical management for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;4:CD007349.
8.
Rassweiler JJ, Schulze M, Marrero R, et al: Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: is it better than open surgery? Eur Urol 2004;46:690-697.
9.
Simone G, Papalia R, Guaglianone S, et al: Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy: perioperative and oncologic outcomes from a randomised prospective study. Eur Urol 2009;56:520-526.
10.
Stewart GD, Humphries KJ, Cutress ML, et al: Long-term comparative outcomes of open versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial-cell carcinoma after a median follow-up of 13 years. J Endourol 2011;25:1329-1335.
11.
Ni S, Tao W, Chen Q, et al: Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy for the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2012;61:1142-1153.
12.
Capitanio U, Shariat SF, Isbarn H, et al: Comparison of oncologic outcomes for open and laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: a multi-institutional analysis of 1,249 cases. Eur Urol 2009;56:1-9.
13.
Manabe D, Saika T, Ebara S, et al: Comparative study of oncologic outcome of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy and standard nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Urology 2007;69:457-461.
14.
Ambani SN, Weizer AZ, Wolf JS Jr, et al: Matched comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: an initial experience. Urology 2014;83:345-349.
15.
Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Moussa SA, et al: Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi. Int J Clin Pract 2007;61:784-788.
16.
Kim YS, Ji JH, Ko YH, et al: Matched-pair analysis comparing the outcomes of T cell/histiocyte-rich large B cell lymphoma and diffuse large B cell lymphoma in patients treated with rituximab-CHOP. Acta Haematol 2013;131:156-161.
17.
Rades D, Kronemann S, Meyners T, et al: Acute toxicity of three versus two courses of cisplatin for radiochemotherapy of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN): a matched pair analysis. Oral Oncol 2010;46:549-552.
18.
Morris LG, Patel SG, Shah JP, et al: Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue in the pediatric age group: a matched-pair analysis of survival. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:697-701.
19.
Gutenberg A, Bock HC, Reifenberger G, et al: Toxicity and survival in primary glioblastoma patients treated with concomitant plus adjuvant temozolomide versus adjuvant temozolomide: results of a single-institution, retrospective, matched-pair analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013;155:429-435.
20.
Guthoff R, Meigen T, Hennemann K, et al: Comparison of bevacizumab and triamcinolone for treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion in a pair-matched analysis. Ophthalmologica 2010;224:319-324.
21.
Stewart GD, Phipps S, Little B, et al: Description and validation of a modular training system for laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Endourol 2012;26:1512-1517.
22.
Hall MC, Womack S, Sagalowsky AI, et al: Prognostic factors, recurrence, and survival in transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a 30-year experience in 252 patients. Urology 1998;52:594-601.
23.
Lehmann J, Suttmann H, Kovac I, et al: Transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter: prognostic factors influencing progression and survival. Eur Urol 2007;51:1281-1288.
24.
Mallin K, David KA, Carroll PR, et al: Transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: racial and gender disparities in survival (1993-2002), stage and grade (1993-2007). J Urol 2011;185:1631-1636.
25.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
26.
Fairey AS, Jacobsen NE, Estey E, et al: Comorbidity status does not independently predict survival outcomes after radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol 2013;64:518-519.
27.
Kume H, Teramoto S, Tomita K, et al: Bladder recurrence of upper urinary tract cancer after laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Oncol 2006;93:318-322.
28.
Fairey AS, Kassouf W, Estey E, et al: Comparison of oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy: results from the Canadian Upper Tract Collaboration. BJU Int 2013;112:791-797.
29.
Length of Stay Post-Nephrectomy Data, 1993-2011. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). US Department of Health and Human Services. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.jsp (accessed 2014).
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.