skip to main content

Title: Clinical–Pathologic Stage Discrepancy in Bladder Cancer Patients Treated With Radical Cystectomy: Results From the National Cancer Data Base

Purpose: To examine the accuracy of clinical staging and its effects on outcome in bladder cancer (BC) patients treated with radical cystectomy (RC), using a large national database. Methods and Materials: A total of 16,953 patients with BC without distant metastases treated with RC from 1998 to 2009 were analyzed. Factors associated with clinical–pathologic stage discrepancy were assessed by multivariate generalized estimating equation models. Survival analysis was conducted for patients treated between 1998 and 2004 (n=7270) using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: At RC 41.9% of patients were upstaged, whereas 5.9% were downstaged. Upstaging was more common in females, the elderly, and in patients who underwent a more extensive lymphadenectomy. Downstaging was less common in patients treated at community centers, in the elderly, and in Hispanics. Receipt of preoperative chemotherapy was highly associated with downstaging. Five-year overall survival rates for patients with clinical stages 0, I, II, III, and IV were 67.2%, 62.9%, 50.4%, 36.9%, and 27.2%, respectively, whereas those for the same pathologic stages were 70.8%, 75.8%, 63.7%, 41.5%, and 24.7%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, upstaging was associated with increased 5-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, P<.001), but downstaging was not associated with survival (HRmore » 0.88, P=.160). In contrast, more extensive lymphadenectomy was associated with decreased 5-year mortality (HR 0.76 for ≥10 lymph nodes examined, P<.001), as was treatment at an National Cancer Institute–designated cancer center (HR 0.90, P=.042). Conclusions: Clinical–pathologic stage discrepancy in BC patients is remarkably common across the United States. These findings should be considered when selecting patients for preoperative or nonoperative management strategies and when comparing the outcomes of bladder sparing approaches to RC.« less
Authors:
 [1] ;  [2] ; ;  [3] ;  [1] ;  [3] ;  [4] ;  [5] ;  [6] ;  [7] ;  [8] ;  [1] ;  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Surveillance and Health Services Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia (United States)
  4. Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
  5. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (United States)
  6. Division of Surgery, Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
  7. Department of Health Policy and Management, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (United States)
  8. Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22416518
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 88; Journal Issue: 5; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2014 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BLADDER; CHEMOTHERAPY; COMMUNITIES; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; HAZARDS; LYMPH NODES; METASTASES; MORTALITY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS