Molecular profile of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: are pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors different?

Laura Maria Krabbe, Aditya Bagrodia, Mary E. Westerman, Bishoy A. Gayed, Ahmed Q. Haddad, Arthur I Sagalowsky, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Payal Kapur, Yair Lotan, Vitaly Margulis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the potential biologic impact of tumor location on oncological outcomes for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), we used prospectively collected molecular signatures of high-grade UTUC. Methods: Immunohistochemical staining for p21, p27, p53, cyclin E, and Ki-67 was prospectively performed on 96 UTUC specimens of patients with non-metastatic high-grade UTUC treated with extirpative surgery. Patients were grouped according to primary tumor location (pelvicalyceal vs. ureteral) where primary tumor was defined as the highest tumor stage and diameter. Primary outcome was assessment of differences in marker expression between groups. Secondary outcome was difference in survival according to marker status. Results: Pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors were found in 52.1 and 47.9 %, respectively, and 42.7 % of patients had non-organ-confined disease. Over a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 31.2 and 20.8 % of patients experienced disease recurrence and died of UTUC, respectively. The total number of altered markers stained for was 0–2 in 67.7 and 3–5 in 32.3 % of patients. The number of altered markers and alteration status of markers were not significantly different between patients with primary pelvicalyceal versus ureteral tumors when stratified by tumor stage and nodal status. There were no significant differences in survival outcomes between both groups when stratified by number of altered markers (0–2 and 3–5). Conclusions: The prospective assessment of selected cell cycle and proliferative markers suggests no molecular difference between UTUC of the pelvicalyceal system and that of the ureter. Our study is limited by its size and definition of location.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)105-112
Number of pages8
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
Volume34
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Urinary Tract
Carcinoma
Neoplasms
Cyclin E
Survival
Ureter
Cell Cycle
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Staining and Labeling
Recurrence

Keywords

  • Comparison
  • Molecular markers
  • Upper urinary tract
  • Urothelial carcinoma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Molecular profile of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract : are pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors different? / Krabbe, Laura Maria; Bagrodia, Aditya; Westerman, Mary E.; Gayed, Bishoy A.; Haddad, Ahmed Q.; Sagalowsky, Arthur I; Shariat, Shahrokh F.; Kapur, Payal; Lotan, Yair; Margulis, Vitaly.

In: World Journal of Urology, Vol. 34, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 105-112.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{26fbdfd142994712a8c9131178ee2735,
title = "Molecular profile of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: are pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors different?",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the potential biologic impact of tumor location on oncological outcomes for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), we used prospectively collected molecular signatures of high-grade UTUC. Methods: Immunohistochemical staining for p21, p27, p53, cyclin E, and Ki-67 was prospectively performed on 96 UTUC specimens of patients with non-metastatic high-grade UTUC treated with extirpative surgery. Patients were grouped according to primary tumor location (pelvicalyceal vs. ureteral) where primary tumor was defined as the highest tumor stage and diameter. Primary outcome was assessment of differences in marker expression between groups. Secondary outcome was difference in survival according to marker status. Results: Pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors were found in 52.1 and 47.9 {\%}, respectively, and 42.7 {\%} of patients had non-organ-confined disease. Over a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 31.2 and 20.8 {\%} of patients experienced disease recurrence and died of UTUC, respectively. The total number of altered markers stained for was 0–2 in 67.7 and 3–5 in 32.3 {\%} of patients. The number of altered markers and alteration status of markers were not significantly different between patients with primary pelvicalyceal versus ureteral tumors when stratified by tumor stage and nodal status. There were no significant differences in survival outcomes between both groups when stratified by number of altered markers (0–2 and 3–5). Conclusions: The prospective assessment of selected cell cycle and proliferative markers suggests no molecular difference between UTUC of the pelvicalyceal system and that of the ureter. Our study is limited by its size and definition of location.",
keywords = "Comparison, Molecular markers, Upper urinary tract, Urothelial carcinoma",
author = "Krabbe, {Laura Maria} and Aditya Bagrodia and Westerman, {Mary E.} and Gayed, {Bishoy A.} and Haddad, {Ahmed Q.} and Sagalowsky, {Arthur I} and Shariat, {Shahrokh F.} and Payal Kapur and Yair Lotan and Vitaly Margulis",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00345-015-1584-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "105--112",
journal = "World Journal of Urology",
issn = "0724-4983",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Molecular profile of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract

T2 - are pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors different?

AU - Krabbe, Laura Maria

AU - Bagrodia, Aditya

AU - Westerman, Mary E.

AU - Gayed, Bishoy A.

AU - Haddad, Ahmed Q.

AU - Sagalowsky, Arthur I

AU - Shariat, Shahrokh F.

AU - Kapur, Payal

AU - Lotan, Yair

AU - Margulis, Vitaly

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To assess the potential biologic impact of tumor location on oncological outcomes for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), we used prospectively collected molecular signatures of high-grade UTUC. Methods: Immunohistochemical staining for p21, p27, p53, cyclin E, and Ki-67 was prospectively performed on 96 UTUC specimens of patients with non-metastatic high-grade UTUC treated with extirpative surgery. Patients were grouped according to primary tumor location (pelvicalyceal vs. ureteral) where primary tumor was defined as the highest tumor stage and diameter. Primary outcome was assessment of differences in marker expression between groups. Secondary outcome was difference in survival according to marker status. Results: Pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors were found in 52.1 and 47.9 %, respectively, and 42.7 % of patients had non-organ-confined disease. Over a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 31.2 and 20.8 % of patients experienced disease recurrence and died of UTUC, respectively. The total number of altered markers stained for was 0–2 in 67.7 and 3–5 in 32.3 % of patients. The number of altered markers and alteration status of markers were not significantly different between patients with primary pelvicalyceal versus ureteral tumors when stratified by tumor stage and nodal status. There were no significant differences in survival outcomes between both groups when stratified by number of altered markers (0–2 and 3–5). Conclusions: The prospective assessment of selected cell cycle and proliferative markers suggests no molecular difference between UTUC of the pelvicalyceal system and that of the ureter. Our study is limited by its size and definition of location.

AB - Purpose: To assess the potential biologic impact of tumor location on oncological outcomes for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), we used prospectively collected molecular signatures of high-grade UTUC. Methods: Immunohistochemical staining for p21, p27, p53, cyclin E, and Ki-67 was prospectively performed on 96 UTUC specimens of patients with non-metastatic high-grade UTUC treated with extirpative surgery. Patients were grouped according to primary tumor location (pelvicalyceal vs. ureteral) where primary tumor was defined as the highest tumor stage and diameter. Primary outcome was assessment of differences in marker expression between groups. Secondary outcome was difference in survival according to marker status. Results: Pelvicalyceal and ureteral tumors were found in 52.1 and 47.9 %, respectively, and 42.7 % of patients had non-organ-confined disease. Over a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 31.2 and 20.8 % of patients experienced disease recurrence and died of UTUC, respectively. The total number of altered markers stained for was 0–2 in 67.7 and 3–5 in 32.3 % of patients. The number of altered markers and alteration status of markers were not significantly different between patients with primary pelvicalyceal versus ureteral tumors when stratified by tumor stage and nodal status. There were no significant differences in survival outcomes between both groups when stratified by number of altered markers (0–2 and 3–5). Conclusions: The prospective assessment of selected cell cycle and proliferative markers suggests no molecular difference between UTUC of the pelvicalyceal system and that of the ureter. Our study is limited by its size and definition of location.

KW - Comparison

KW - Molecular markers

KW - Upper urinary tract

KW - Urothelial carcinoma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84954388569&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84954388569&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00345-015-1584-6

DO - 10.1007/s00345-015-1584-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 25991599

AN - SCOPUS:84954388569

VL - 34

SP - 105

EP - 112

JO - World Journal of Urology

JF - World Journal of Urology

SN - 0724-4983

IS - 1

ER -