Sang Hun Song, Jaewon Lee, Young Hwii Ko, Jong Wook Kim, Seung Il Jung, Seok Ho Kang, Jinsung Park, Ho Kyung Seo, Hyung Joon Kim, Byong Chang Jeong, Tae-Hwan Kim, Se Young Choi, Jong Kil Nam, Ja Yoon Ku, Kwan Joong Joo, Won Sik Jang, Young Eun Yoon, Seok Joong Yun, Sung-Hoo Hong, Jong Jin Oh
Cancer Res Treat. 2023;55(4):1337-1345. Published online April 17, 2023
Purpose Outcome analysis of urachal cancer (UraC) is limited due to the scarcity of cases and different staging methods compared to urothelial bladder cancer (UroBC). We attempted to assess survival outcomes of UraC and compare to UroBC after stage-matched analyses.
Materials and Methods Total 203 UraC patients from a multicenter database and 373 UroBC patients in single institution from 2000 to 2018 were enrolled (median follow-up, 32 months). Sheldon stage conversion to corresponding TNM staging for UraC was conducted for head-to-head comparison to UroBC. Perioperative clinical variables and pathological results were recorded. Stage-matched analyses for survival by stage were conducted.
Results UraC patients were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001), with 163 patients (80.3%) receiving partial cystectomy and 23 patients (11.3%) radical cystectomy. UraC was more likely to harbor ≥ pT3a tumors (78.8% vs. 41.8%). While 5-year recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival were comparable between two groups (63.4%, 67%, and 62.1% in UraC and 61.5%, 75.9%, and 67.8% in UroBC, respectively), generally favorable prognosis for UraC in lower stages (pT1-2) but unfavorable outcomes in higher stages (pT4) compared to UroBC was observed, although only 5-year CSS in ≥ pT4 showed statistical significance (p=0.028). Body mass index (hazard ratio [HR], 0.929), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.921), pathologic T category (HR, 3.846), and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.993) were predictors of CSS for all patients.
Conclusion Despite differing histology, UraC has comparable prognosis to UroBC with relatively favorable outcome in low stages but worse prognosis in higher stages. The presented system may be useful for future grading and risk stratification of UraC.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Clinical Presentation and Targeted Interventions in Urachal Adenocarcinoma: A Single-Institution Case Series and Review of Emerging Therapies Akshay Mathavan, Akash Mathavan, Rodrigo Murillo-Alvarez, Kriti Gera, Urszula Krekora, Aaron J. Winer, Mohit Mathavan, Ellery Altshuler, Brian Hemendra Ramnaraign Clinical Genitourinary Cancer.2024; 22(1): 67. CrossRef
Robotic‐assisted approaches to urachal carcinoma: A comprehensive systematic review of the safety and efficacy outcomes Caio Vinícius Suartz, Lucas Motta Martinez, Pedro Henrique Brito, Carlos Victori Neto, Maurício Dener Cordeiro, Luiz Antonio Assan Botelho, Fábio Pescarmona Gallucci, José Maurício Mota, William Carlos Nahas, Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro‐Filho BJUI Compass.2024; 5(3): 327. CrossRef
Jae Heon Kim, So Young Kim, Seok-Joong Yun, Jae Il Chung, Hoon Choi, Ho Song Yu, Yun-Sok Ha, In-Chang Cho, Hyung Joon Kim, Hyun Chul Chung, Jun Sung Koh, Wun-Jae Kim, Jong-Hyock Park, Ji Youl Lee
Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(1):53-64. Published online February 20, 2018
Purpose
This study aims to investigate the trend in medical travel by non-Seoul residents to Seoul for treatment of prostate cancer and also to investigate the possible factors affecting the trend.
Materials and Methods
This study represents a retrospective cohort study using data from theKoreanNationalHealth Insurance System from 2002 to 2015. Annual trends were produced for proportions of patients who traveled according to the age group, economic status and types of treatment. Multiple logistic analysiswas used to determine factors affecting surgeries at medical facilities in Seoul among the non-Seoul residents.
Results
A total of 68,543 patients were defined as newly diagnosed prostate cancer cohorts from 2005 to 2014. The proportion of patients who traveled to Seoul for treatment, estimated from cases with prostate cancer-related claims, decreased slightly over 9 years (28.0 at 2005 and 27.0 at 2014, p=0.02). The average proportion of medical travelers seeking radical prostatectomy increased slightly but the increase was not statistically significant (43.1 at 2005 and 45.4 at 2014, p=0.26). Income level and performance ofrobot-assisted radical prostatectomy were significant positive factors for medical travel to medical facilities in Seoul. Combined comorbidity diseases and year undergoing surgery were significant negative factors for medical travel to medical facilities in Seoul.
Conclusion
The general trend of patients travelling from outside Seoul for prostate cancer treatment decreased from 2005 to 2014. However, a large proportion of traveling remained irrespective of direct distance from Seoul.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Relationship between patient outcomes and patterns of fragmented cancer care in older adults with gastric cancer: A nationwide cohort study in South Korea Dong-Woo Choi, Seungju Kim, Sun Jung Kim, Dong Wook Kim, Kwang Sun Ryu, Jae Ho Kim, Yoon-Jung Chang, Kyu-Tae Han Journal of Geriatric Oncology.2024; 15(2): 101685. CrossRef
Analysis of trend in the role of national and regional hubs in prostatectomy after prostate cancer diagnosis in the past 5 years: A nationwide population-based study Seong Cheol Kim, Seungbong Han, Ji Hyung Yoon, Sungchan Park, Kyung Hyun Moon, Sang Hyeon Cheon, Gyung-Min Park, Taekmin Kwon Investigative and Clinical Urology.2024; 65(2): 124. CrossRef
Domestic medical travel from non-Seoul regions to Seoul for initial breast cancer treatment: a nationwide cohort study Jae Ho Jeong, Jinhong Jung, Hee Jeong Kim, Jong Won Lee, Beom-Seok Ko, Byung Ho Son, Kyung Hae Jung, Il Yong Chung Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2023; 104(2): 71. CrossRef
Symptom Experiences before Medical Help-Seeking and Psychosocial Responses of Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Qualitative Study Hui Ge, Liang Zhang, Xuanxuan Ma, Wen Li, Shuwen Li, Pranshu Sahgal European Journal of Cancer Care.2023; 2023: 1. CrossRef
Cancer care patterns in South Korea: Types of hospital where patients receive care and outcomes using national health insurance claims data Dong‐Woo Choi, Sun Jung Kim, Seungju Kim, Dong Wook Kim, Wonjeong Jeong, Kyu‐Tae Han Cancer Medicine.2023; 12(13): 14707. CrossRef
Regional disparities in the availability of cancer clinical trials in Korea Jieun Jang, Wonyoung Choi, Sung Hoon Sim, Sokbom Kang Epidemiology and Health.2023; 46: e2024006. CrossRef
Do Patients Residing in Provincial Areas Transport and Spend More on Cancer Treatment in Korea? Woorim Kim, Kyu-Tae Han, Seungju Kim International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(17): 9247. CrossRef
Time Trends for Prostate Cancer Incidence from 2003 to 2013 in South Korea: An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis Hyun Young Lee, Do Kyoung Kim, Seung Whan Doo, Won Jae Yang, Yun Seob Song, Bora Lee, Jae Heon Kim Cancer Research and Treatment.2020; 52(1): 301. CrossRef
Trends in Prostate Cancer Prevalence and Radical Prostatectomy Rate according to Age Structural Changes in South Korea between 2005 and 2015 Hyun Young Lee, Suyeon Park, Seung Whan Doo, Won Jae Yang, Yun Seob Song, Jae Heon Kim Yonsei Medical Journal.2019; 60(3): 257. CrossRef
Why is Life Expectancy in Busan Shorter than in Seoul? Age and Cause-Specific Contributions to the Difference in Life Expectancy between Two Cities Young-Ho Khang, Jinwook Bahk Yonsei Medical Journal.2019; 60(7): 687. CrossRef