Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Felix K.H. Chun x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Marina Deuker, Giuseppe Rosiello, Lara Franziska Stolzenbach, Thomas Martin, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Luigi Nocera, Zhe Tian, Frederik C. Roos, Andreas Becker, Luis A. Kluth, Derya Tilki, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Fred Saad, Felix K.H. Chun and Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Background: The distribution of metastatic sites in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is not well-known. Consequently, the effects of sex and age on the location of metastases is also unknown. This study sought to investigate age- and sex-related differences in the distribution of metastases in patients with UTUC. Materials and Methods: Within the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2000–2015), we identified 1,340 patients with metastatic UTUC. Sites of metastasis were assessed according to age (≤63, 64–72, 73–79, and ≥80 years) and sex. Comparison was performed with trend and chi-square tests. Results: Of 1,340 patients with metastatic UTUC, 790 (59.0%) were men (median age, 71 years) and 550 (41.0%) were women (median age, 74 years). The lung was the most common site of metastases in men and women (28.2% and 26.4%, respectively), followed by bone in men (22.3% vs 18.0% of women) and liver in women (24.4% vs 20.5% of men). Increasing age was associated with decreasing rates of brain metastasis in men (from 6.5% to 2.9%; P=.03) and women (from 5.9% to 0.7%; P=.01). Moreover, increasing age in women, but not in men, was associated with decreasing rates of lung (from 33.3% to 24.3%; P=.02), lymph node (from 28.9% to 15.8%; P=.01), and bone metastases (from 22.2% to 10.5%; P=.02). Finally, rates of metastases in multiple organs did not vary with age or sex (65.2% in men vs 66.5% in women). Conclusions: Lung, bone, and liver metastases are the most common metastatic sites in both sexes. However, the distribution of metastases varies according to sex and age. These observations apply to everyday clinical practice and may be used, for example, to advocate for universal bone imaging in patients with UTUC. Moreover, our findings may also be used for design considerations of randomized trials.

Full access

Lara Franziska Stolzenbach, Giuseppe Rosiello, Angela Pecoraro, Carlotta Palumbo, Stefano Luzzago, Marina Deuker, Zhe Tian, Anne-Sophie Knipper, Raisa Pompe, Kevin C. Zorn, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Felix K.H. Chun, Markus Graefen, Fred Saad and Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Background: Misclassification rates defined as upgrading, upstaging, and upgrading and/or upstaging have not been tested in contemporary Black patients relative to White patients who fulfilled criteria for very-low-risk, low-risk, or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This study aimed to address this void. Methods: Within the SEER database (2010–2015), we focused on patients with very low, low, and favorable intermediate risk for prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and had available stage and grade information. Descriptive analyses, temporal trend analyses, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used. Results: Overall, 4,704 patients with very low risk (701 Black vs 4,003 White), 17,785 with low risk (2,696 Black vs 15,089 White), and 11,040 with favorable intermediate risk (1,693 Black vs 9,347 White) were identified. Rates of upgrading and/or upstaging in Black versus White patients were respectively 42.1% versus 37.7% (absolute Δ = +4.4%; P<.001) in those with very low risk, 48.6% versus 46.0% (absolute Δ = +2.6%; P<.001) in those with low risk, and 33.8% versus 35.3% (absolute Δ = –1.5%; P=.05) in those with favorable intermediate risk. Conclusions: Rates of misclassification were particularly elevated in patients with very low risk and low risk, regardless of race, and ranged from 33.8% to 48.6%. Recalibration of very-low-, low-, and, to a lesser extent, favorable intermediate-risk active surveillance criteria may be required. Finally, our data indicate that Black patients may be given the same consideration as White patients when active surveillance is an option. However, further validations should ideally follow.