Regional differences in upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients across the United States

Simone Morra,Lukas Scheipner,Andrea Baudo,Letizia Maria Ippolita Jannello,Mario de Angelis,Carolin Siech,Jordan A Goyal,Nawar Touma,Zhe Tian,Fred Saad,Gianluigi Califano,Roberto la Rocca,Marco Capece,Shahrokh F Shariat,Sascha Ahyai,Luca Carmignani,Ottavio de Cobelli,Gennaro Musi,Alberto Briganti,Felix K H Chun,Nicola Longo,Pierre I Karakiewicz,Jordan A. Goyal,Shahrokh F. Shariat,Felix K.H. Chun,Pierre I. Karakiewicz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.01.034
2024-02-01
Abstract:BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether regional differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients exist and may potentially result in regional overall mortality (OM) differences. We tested for inter-regional differences, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries.METHODS: Using SEER database 2000 to 2016, patient (age, sex, race/ethnicity), tumor (location, grade) and treatment (nephroureterectomy, systemic therapy [ST]) characteristics of UTUC patients of all-stages were tabulated and graphically depicted in a stage-specific fashion (T<sub>1-2</sub>N<sub>0</sub>M<sub>0</sub> vs. T<sub>3-4</sub>N<sub>0</sub>M<sub>0</sub> vs. T<sub>any</sub>N<sub>1-2</sub>M<sub>0</sub>/T<sub>any</sub>N<sub>any</sub>M<sub>1</sub>). Multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models tested for inter-regional differences in OM.RESULTS: Regarding T<sub>1-2</sub>N<sub>0</sub>M<sub>0</sub> patients, statistically significant differences existed for race/ethnicity (Caucasian 71 vs. 98%), location (renal pelvis: 55 vs. 67%), grade (high 60 vs. 83%) and ST (5.5 vs. 13.9%). In MCR models, registries 3 (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.39; P &lt; 0.001) and 4 (HR:1.31; P = 0.01) independently predicted higher OM and Registry 8 (HR:0.64; P = 0.001) lower OM. Regarding T<sub>3-4</sub>N<sub>0</sub>M<sub>0</sub> patients, statistically significant differences existed for race/ethnicity (Caucasian 70 vs. 98%), location (renal pelvis: 67 vs. 76%), grade (high 84 vs. 94%) and ST (18.7 vs. 29.5%). In MCR models, registries 3 (HR:1.42; P &lt; 0.001) and 4 (HR:1.31; P = 0.009) independently predicted higher OM. Regarding T<sub>any</sub>N<sub>1-2</sub>M<sub>0</sub>/T<sub>any</sub>N<sub>any</sub>M<sub>1</sub> patients, statistically significant differences existed for location (renal pelvis: 63 vs. 82%), grade (high 92 vs. 98%) and ST (53.4 vs. 58.8%). In MCR models, Registry 3 (HR:1.37; P = 0.004) independently predicted higher OM and Registry 2, (HR:0.78; P = 0.02) lower OM.CONCLUSIONS: Inter-regional differences were recorded in patients, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Even after adjustment for these characteristics, OM differences persisted which may be indicative of regional differences in quality of care or expertise in UTUC management.
oncology,urology & nephrology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?