Haagensenmcfarland0567

One may conclude that multimodal therapy is desirable for oncologic control, but the best means of providing such therapy requires further study.Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) accounts for roughly 5% of urothelial carcinomas. Historically, the gold standard for high-risk or bulky low-risk UTUC was an open radical nephroureterectomy with formal bladder cuff excision (BCE). The development of novel endoscopic, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques has transformed this operation, yet no level I evidence exists at present that demonstrates the superiority of one strategy over another. While new approaches to nephroureterectomy in the last decade have shifted the management paradigm to decrease the morbidity of surgery, controversy continues to surround the approach to the distal ureter and bladder cuff. Debate continues within the urologic community over which surgical approach is best when managing UTUC and how various approaches impact clinical outcomes such as intravesical recurrence, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific mortality (DSM). When focusing on the existing treatment algorithm, key metrics of quality include (I) removal of the entire specimen en bloc, (II) minimizing the risk of tumor and urine spillage, (III) R0 resection, and (IV) water-tight closure allowing for early use of prophylactic intravesical chemotherapy. In the absence of robust evidence demonstrating a single superior approach, the urologic surgeon should base decisions on technical comfort and each patient's particular clinical circumstance.The role of lymphadenectomy (LND) at the time of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is controversial. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend performing a template-based LND for high-risk primary tumors while the European guidelines state that it is not feasible to determine indication or extent of LND at the time of surgery for UTUC. Herein, we review the anatomic rationale for template-based LND, examine when a LND should be considered, and discuss the impact of LND on staging and survival outcomes.Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) has long been considered the standard of care for treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Despite providing oncologic control, RNU is associated with measurable morbidity and mortality. Glesatinib High quality data is lacking as a result of low disease incidence and very few randomized studies. In this article we will review preoperative nomograms that assist with patient counseling, summarize current knowledge about perioperative complications, and discuss adverse sequelae that may result after surgery.Radical nephroureterectomy is the mainstay of surgical treatment for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), a disease which comprises approximately 5% of urothelial malignancies. Minimally-invasive and nephron-sparing interventions have been explored, although thus far have not shown comparable oncologic outcomes except in a relatively narrow set of patients. Due to the relative rarity of the disease, it has taken decades and multi-disciplinary efforts to sufficiently identify prognostic factors of oncologic outcomes. Despite these efforts, however, oncologic outcomes of nephroureterectomy have remained remarkably stable over the past 30 years. New techniques, such as laparoscopic and robotic surgery, have been applied to this procedure. High level evidence regarding equivalent oncologic outcomes is lacking and open surgery remains the standard of care for high-stage disease, although there is a role for laparoscopic and robotic nephroureterectomy. The importance of bladder cuff removal in improving oncolog and medical approaches to UTUC and multi-institutional collaboration is critical to this progress.Though radical nephroureterectomy remains the gold standard treatment for high grade or invasive disease in upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC), kidney-sparing surgery has become preferred for low risk disease, in order to minimize morbidity and preserve renal function. Many methods exist for endoscopic management, whether via an antegrade percutaneous or retrograde ureteroscopic approach, including electroresection, laser ablation, and fulguration. There has been an increase in use of adjuvant intracavitary therapy, predominantly using mitomycin and bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), to reduce recurrence after primary endoscopic management for noninvasive tumors, although efficacy remains questionable. Intraluminal BCG has additionally been used for primary treatment of CIS in the upper tract, with around 50% success. Newer investigations include use of narrow band imaging or photodynamic diagnosis with ureteroscopy to improve visualization during diagnosis and treatment. Genomic characterization may improve selection for kidney-sparing surgery as well as identify actionable mutations for systemic therapy. The evolution in adjuvant management has seen strategies to increase the dwell time and the urothelial contact of intraluminal agents. Lastly, chemoablation using a hydrogel for sustained effect of mitomycin is under investigation with promising early results. Continued expansion of the armamentarium available and better identification and characterization of tumors ideal for organ-sparing treatment will further improve kidney preservation in UTUC.While radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) remains the gold-standard treatment for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), a growing volume of literature surrounding endoscopic, organ-sparing procedures has developed over the past few decades. Based on this, endoscopic management of UTUC has gained acceptance as a standard of care approach, particularly among those with low-risk disease or with imperative indications for organ preservation. As a rare disease, however, data is mostly restricted to retrospective single institution series with relatively small numbers. Therefore, comparative outcomes of endoscopic management to RNU remain incompletely defined. Furthermore, the comparative utility of endoscopic approaches (ureteroscopy versus percutaneous resection) and topical therapy following resection lacks prospective analysis. In this article we review the available literature on endoscopic management of UTUC.