Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026
Patient-derived Orthotopic Xenograft Models for Human Urothelial Cell Carcinoma and Colorectal Cancer Tumor Growth and Spontaneous Metastasis
Published on: May 12, 2019
Regional differences in upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients across the United States
Simone Morra1, Lukas Scheipner2, Andrea Baudo3
1Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Background:
It is unknown whether regional differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients exist and may potentially result in regional overall mortality (OM) differences. We tested for inter-regional differences, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries.
Methods:
Using SEER database 2000 to 2016, patient (age, sex, race/ethnicity), tumor (location, grade) and treatment (nephroureterectomy, systemic therapy [ST]) characteristics of UTUC patients of all-stages were tabulated and graphically depicted in a stage-specific fashion (T1-2N0M0 vs. T3-4N0M0 vs. TanyN1-2M0/TanyNanyM1). Multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models tested for inter-regional differences in OM.
Results:
Regarding T1-2N0M0 patients, statistically significant differences existed for race/ethnicity (Caucasian 71 vs. 98%), location (renal pelvis: 55 vs. 67%), grade (high 60 vs. 83%) and ST (5.5 vs. 13.9%). In MCR models, registries 3 (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.39; P < 0.001) and 4 (HR:1.31; P = 0.01) independently predicted higher OM and Registry 8 (HR:0.64; P = 0.001) lower OM. Regarding T3-4N0M0 patients, statistically significant differences existed for race/ethnicity (Caucasian 70 vs. 98%), location (renal pelvis: 67 vs. 76%), grade (high 84 vs. 94%) and ST (18.7 vs. 29.5%). In MCR models, registries 3 (HR:1.42; P < 0.001) and 4 (HR:1.31; P = 0.009) independently predicted higher OM. Regarding TanyN1-2M0/TanyNanyM1 patients, statistically significant differences existed for location (renal pelvis: 63 vs. 82%), grade (high 92 vs. 98%) and ST (53.4 vs. 58.8%). In MCR models, Registry 3 (HR:1.37; P = 0.004) independently predicted higher OM and Registry 2, (HR:0.78; P = 0.02) lower OM.
Conclusions:
Inter-regional differences were recorded in patients, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Even after adjustment for these characteristics, OM differences persisted which may be indicative of regional differences in quality of care or expertise in UTUC management.
