The implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy: can we be more selective?
Background & Objectives: Percutaneous nephrostomy (PN) for malignant ureteric obstruction (MUO) is increasingly accessible with high success rates. However, it is not without associated risks and morbidity, impacting quality of life, while not improving overall survival. In two UK hospitals, we...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | Therapeutic Advances in Urology |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231207729 |
| _version_ | 1797647955935625216 |
|---|---|
| author | Elizabeth Osinibi Hong Doan Alejandro Mercado-Campero Jayasimha Abbaraju Shikohe Masood Sanjeev Madaan |
| author_facet | Elizabeth Osinibi Hong Doan Alejandro Mercado-Campero Jayasimha Abbaraju Shikohe Masood Sanjeev Madaan |
| author_sort | Elizabeth Osinibi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background & Objectives: Percutaneous nephrostomy (PN) for malignant ureteric obstruction (MUO) is increasingly accessible with high success rates. However, it is not without associated risks and morbidity, impacting quality of life, while not improving overall survival. In two UK hospitals, we investigated the outcomes of undergoing PN for MUO, to inform future patient counselling and selection for this intervention. Methods: A retrospective audit of electronic records identified patients that received PN for bladder, and prostate cancer (PCa) between January 2015 and December 2018. Hospital 1 had a 24-h nephrostomy service, while Hospital 2 had a limited service; Group A: recurrent or treatment-resistant PCa, Group B: primary PCa, Group C: Bladder cancer. Results: A total of 261 patients (Hospital 1 = 186, Hospital 2 = 75), had PN insertion. Seventy-eight had prostate or bladder cancer. Group A n = 30, Group B n = 12, Group C n = 36. Median age = 79 [interquartile range (IQR) = 72–86]. Following PN insertion, 12-month mortality was significantly greater in Hospital 1 at 82%, versus 52% in Hospital 2 ( p = 0.015). Median survival: Group A: 177 days (IQR = 80–266), Group B: 209 days (IQR = 77–352), Group C: 145 days (IQR = 97–362). There was no significant difference in same-admission mortality, although group A had the greatest same-admission mortality at 17%. A total of 69% of all patients received bilateral nephrostomies. Patients with bilateral versus unilateral PN had no difference in mortality or nadir creatinine. Conclusion: Most patients with malignant obstruction secondary to prostate or bladder cancer lived less than 12 months after PN insertion. When offering PN, careful consideration of disease prognosis should be made, and frank discussion of the implications of a life-long nephrostomy with patients and relatives. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T15:25:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5eb03097c8cc492ab2734d396ea952b1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1756-2880 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T15:25:07Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | SAGE Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Therapeutic Advances in Urology |
| spelling | doaj.art-5eb03097c8cc492ab2734d396ea952b12023-10-27T21:03:39ZengSAGE PublishingTherapeutic Advances in Urology1756-28802023-10-011510.1177/17562872231207729The implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy: can we be more selective?Elizabeth OsinibiHong DoanAlejandro Mercado-CamperoJayasimha AbbarajuShikohe MasoodSanjeev MadaanBackground & Objectives: Percutaneous nephrostomy (PN) for malignant ureteric obstruction (MUO) is increasingly accessible with high success rates. However, it is not without associated risks and morbidity, impacting quality of life, while not improving overall survival. In two UK hospitals, we investigated the outcomes of undergoing PN for MUO, to inform future patient counselling and selection for this intervention. Methods: A retrospective audit of electronic records identified patients that received PN for bladder, and prostate cancer (PCa) between January 2015 and December 2018. Hospital 1 had a 24-h nephrostomy service, while Hospital 2 had a limited service; Group A: recurrent or treatment-resistant PCa, Group B: primary PCa, Group C: Bladder cancer. Results: A total of 261 patients (Hospital 1 = 186, Hospital 2 = 75), had PN insertion. Seventy-eight had prostate or bladder cancer. Group A n = 30, Group B n = 12, Group C n = 36. Median age = 79 [interquartile range (IQR) = 72–86]. Following PN insertion, 12-month mortality was significantly greater in Hospital 1 at 82%, versus 52% in Hospital 2 ( p = 0.015). Median survival: Group A: 177 days (IQR = 80–266), Group B: 209 days (IQR = 77–352), Group C: 145 days (IQR = 97–362). There was no significant difference in same-admission mortality, although group A had the greatest same-admission mortality at 17%. A total of 69% of all patients received bilateral nephrostomies. Patients with bilateral versus unilateral PN had no difference in mortality or nadir creatinine. Conclusion: Most patients with malignant obstruction secondary to prostate or bladder cancer lived less than 12 months after PN insertion. When offering PN, careful consideration of disease prognosis should be made, and frank discussion of the implications of a life-long nephrostomy with patients and relatives.https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231207729 |
| spellingShingle | Elizabeth Osinibi Hong Doan Alejandro Mercado-Campero Jayasimha Abbaraju Shikohe Masood Sanjeev Madaan The implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy: can we be more selective? Therapeutic Advances in Urology |
| title | The implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy: can we be more selective? |
| title_full | The implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy: can we be more selective? |
| title_fullStr | The implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy: can we be more selective? |
| title_full_unstemmed | The implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy: can we be more selective? |
| title_short | The implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy: can we be more selective? |
| title_sort | implications when offering percutaneous nephrostomy for the management of malignant obstructive uropathy secondary to urological malignancy can we be more selective |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231207729 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT elizabethosinibi theimplicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT hongdoan theimplicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT alejandromercadocampero theimplicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT jayasimhaabbaraju theimplicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT shikohemasood theimplicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT sanjeevmadaan theimplicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT elizabethosinibi implicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT hongdoan implicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT alejandromercadocampero implicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT jayasimhaabbaraju implicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT shikohemasood implicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective AT sanjeevmadaan implicationswhenofferingpercutaneousnephrostomyforthemanagementofmalignantobstructiveuropathysecondarytourologicalmalignancycanwebemoreselective |