EORTC风险量表对非肌层浸润性膀胱癌术后即刻灌注化疗预后判断的研究

许天源; 朱照伟; 钟山; 张小华; 王先进; 张敏光; 沈周俊

EORTC风险量表对非肌层浸润性膀胱癌术后即刻灌注化疗预后判断的研究

- 上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院泌尿外科(上海, 200032)

详细信息

通讯作者: 沈周俊,E-mail:shenzj6@sina.com

中图分类号: R737.14

收稿日期: 2013-02-07

Validation and analysis of the prognostic value of the EORTC risk tables in chinese patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer treated by immediate postoperative intravesical instillation of chemotherapy

- Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China

More Information

Corresponding author: SHEN Zhoujun, E-mail: shenzj6@sina.com

Received Date: 07 February 2013

摘要

摘要: 目的：验证和研究欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织（European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer， EORTC）风险量表对我国接受术后即刻膀胱灌注化疗的非肌层浸润性膀胱癌（nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer， NMIBC）患者预后判断的效果。方法：回顾性分析2003年5月~2010年12月期间297例接受经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切（transurethral resection of bladder cancer， TURBT）的NMIBC患者的临床病理资料，所有患者均在术后24小时内接受了首次膀胱灌注化疗。按照EORTC量表的评分原则计算出每位患者的复发和进展评分，并根据得分将所有患者进行风险分层。随访各危险组患者术后复发和进展情况，并将分析结果同量表参考值比较。结果：随访时间23~115个月，平均53个月。随访过程中共122例患者（41%）复发，多因素分析显示复发性肿瘤、G_2~3级肿瘤和未在TURBT后6小时内进行首次膀胱灌注化疗是复发的独立危险因素；19例患者（6%）术后进展，独立危险因素包括复发性肿瘤、T₁期肿瘤、G₃期肿瘤和同时存在原位癌。根据EORTC量表进行复发风险分层后，各组间实际复发率差异均有统计学意义（P<0.01）；与EORTC量表参考值相比，低危组（0分）1年及5年复发率均低于参考范围；中危患者（1~9分）的1年复发率低于参考范围，而5年复发率与参考范围相近；高危组（10~17分）1年及5年复发率可信区间均包含EORTC量表的参考范围。进展风险分层除低危组（0分）与中低危组（2~6分）间的实际进展率差异无统计学意义（P=0.10）外，其它各组间的差异均有统计学意义（P<0.01）；各风险组实际进展率均接近EORTC的参考范围。结论：EORTC量表对于接受术后即刻膀胱灌注化疗的中国NMIBC患者具有预后价值，但低危患者的实际复发率和中危患者的短期实际复发率低于该量表的参考值。
- 膀胱肿瘤 /
- 非肌层浸润性膀胱癌 /
- 膀胱灌注化疗 /
- 预后 /
- 欧洲癌症研究与治疗评分表
Abstract: Objective: To validate and analyze the prognostic value of the European Organization Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) risk tables in Chinese patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treated by immediate postoperative instillation of chemotherapy (IPOC).Method: Retrospective study was performed in 297 NMIBC patients treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in our hospital between May 2003 and December 2010. All of them received IPOC within 24 hours after TURBT. Scores for recurrence and progression were calculated based on the risk tables and then all patients were stratified into risk groups according to their scores. Recurrence and progression of each group were surveyed and then compared with the corresponding reference of the risk tables.Result: The mean follow-up duration was 53 months (range:23-115 months). Recurrence was observed in 122 (41%) patients; prior recurrence, G_2-3 tumors and receiving IPOC over 6 hours after TURBT were independent risk factors of recurrence according to the multivariate analysis. Nineteen (6%) patients developed into muscle-invasive disease and prior recurrence, T₁ tumors, G₃ tumors, and presence of concomitant Carcinoma in situ were independent predictor for shorter progression-free interval. The EORTC recurrence risk table stratified our patients into 4 groups with statistically different probabilities of recurrence (P<0.01); for low-risk group (score 0), recurrence probabilities at both 1 and 5 years were lower than the reference range; for patients with intermediate risk (score 1-9), the 1-year recurrence probability was lower than the reference range whereas the 5-year probability was similar to that; for high-risk group (score 10-17), recurrence probabilities at both 1 and 5 years were similar to the reference value. The progression risk table also stratified our patients into 4 different risk groups except no significant difference was observed between low-risk and intermediate-low-risk groups (P=0.10); the calculated progression probabilities of each group were all approximate to the reference range.Conclusion: The EORTC risk tables were effective in predicting the prognosis for Chinese NMIBC patients receiving IPOC; however, the recurrence table overestimated the recurrence risk for low-risk patients as well as short-term recurrence risk for intermediate-risk patients.
- bladder tumor /
- nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer /
- intravesical instillation of chemotherapy /
- prognosis /
- European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer risk tables

HTML全文

参考文献(19)

[1]	van Rhijn B W, Burger M, Lotan Y, et al. Recurrence and progression of disease in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer:from epidemiology to treatment strategy[J]. Eur Urol, 2009,56:430-442.
[2]	Babjuk M, Oosterlinck W, Sylvester R, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, the 2011 update[J]. Eur Urol, 2011,59:997-1008.
[3]	Sylvester R J, van der Meijden A P, Oosterlinck W, et al. Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables:a combined analysis of 2 596 patients from seven EORTC trials[J]. Eur Urol, 2006,49:466-465; discussion 475-477.
[4]	Matsuda T, Katanoda K. Comparison of time trends in bladder cancer incidence (1973-1997) in East Asia, Europe and USA, from Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Vol. Ⅳ-Ⅷ[J]. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2008,38:85-86.
[5]	Hernández V, De La Peña E, Martin M D, et al. External validation and applicability of the EORTC risk tables for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer[J]. World J Urol, 2011,29:409-414.
[6]	Sakano S, Matsuyama H, Takai K, et al. Risk group stratification to predict recurrence after transurethral resection in Japanese patients with stage Ta and T1 bladder tumours:validation study on the European Association of Urology guidelines[J]. BJU Int, 2011,107:1598-1604.
[7]	刘硕, 孙光, 苗文隆, 等. 欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织风险评分表对国人非肌层浸润性膀胱癌预后判断的意义[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2011,32:232-235.
[8]	张心如, 乔勇, 谷宝军, 等. 肿瘤危险因素评分对非肌层浸润性膀胱肿瘤预后判断的价值(附248例报告)[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2011,26:930-933,960.
[9]	Shi B, Zhang K, Zhang J, et al. Relationship between patient age and superficial transitional cell carcinoma characteristics[J]. Urology, 2008,71:1186-1190.
[10]	陈俊星, 邓楠, 陈凌武, 等. 非肌层浸润性膀胱尿路上皮癌复发风险的多因素分析[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2010,90:1992-1994.
[11]	Fernandez-Gomez J, Madero R, Solsona E, et al.The EORTC tables overestimate the risk of recurrence and progression in patients with non-muscle-invasivebladder cancer treated with bacillus Calmette-Guérin:external validation of the EORTC risk tables[J]. Eur Urol, 2011,60:423-430.
[12]	Sylvester R J, Oosterlinck W, van der Meijden A P. A single immediate postoperative instillation of chemotherapy decreases the risk of recurrence in patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer:a meta-analysis of published results of randomized clinical trials[J]. J Urol, 2004,171:2186-2190, quiz 2435.[ZK)]
[13]	Pawinski A, Sylvester R, Kurth K H, et al. A combined analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, and Medical Research Council randomized clinical trials for the prophylactic treatment of stage TaT1 bladder cancer. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group and the Medical Research Council Working Party on Superficial Bladder Cancer[J]. J Urol, 1996,156:1934-1940, discussion 1940-1941.
[14]	Oosterlinck W, Sylvester R, Babjuk M, et al. Should all patients receive an immediate chemotherapeutic drug instillation after resection of papillary bladder tumors[J]. Eur Urol, 2011,59:374-376.
[15]	Brausi M, Witjes J A, Lamm D, et al. A review of current guidelines and best practice recommendations for the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer by the International Bladder Cancer Group[J]. J Urol, 2011,186:2158-2167.
[16]	Lee C T, Barocas D, Globe D R, et al. Economic and humanistic consequences of preventable bladder tumor recurrences in nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer cases[J]. J Urol, 2012,188:2114-2119.
[17]	Pan J S, Slocum H K, Rustum Y M, et al. Inhibition of implantation of murine bladder tumor by thiotepa in cauterized bladder[J]. J Urol, 1989,142:1589-1593.
[18]	Kaasinen E, Rintala E, Hellström P, et al. Factors explaining recurrence in patients undergoing chemoimmunotherapy regimens for frequently recurring superficial bladder carcinoma[J]. Eur Urol, 2002,42:167-174.
[19]	Hendricksen K, Witjes W P, Idema J G, et al. Comparison of three schedules of intravesical epirubicin in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer[J]. Eur Urol. 2008. 53:984-991.