Next Article in Journal
Pharmacodynamic and Toxicity Studies of 6-Isopropyldithio-2′-guanosine Analogs in Acute T-Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Previous Article in Journal
How Do Quality of Life (QoL) and Symptom Burden Evolve in Inpatient Palliative Care (PC) Patients following One Week of Care in a Specialized Palliative Care Unit (PCU)? A Comparison of Two Groups, with One Receiving Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care Prior to Admission
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reply to Jue et al. Overcoming Understaging and Undergrading in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Comment on “Ghoreifi et al. Modern Kidney-Sparing Management of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Cancers 2023, 15, 4495”
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

A Comprehensive Review on Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An Update in 2023

Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2024, 16(9), 1613; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16091613
Submission received: 10 April 2024 / Accepted: 18 April 2024 / Published: 23 April 2024
It is our pleasure to serve as the guest editors for the Cancers journal for this Special Issue, titled “Comprehensive Review on Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An Update in 2023”. This Special Issue comprises nine manuscripts authored by experts in the field, covering various aspects of the diagnosis and management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).
UTUC is a relatively uncommon type of cancer, which shares similarities with urothelial bladder cancer. Nevertheless, significant differences exist between these two cancer types in terms of epidemiological, clinical, pathological, and biological features. In a review article, Lefort et al. extensively explored these differences and their clinical implications [1]. The key steps in the management of patients with UTUC include precise diagnosis and risk stratification. Tsikitas et al. presented the latest advancements in imaging for UTUC [2]. The authors reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of conventional imaging techniques, including CT urography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as other promising modalities, such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and positron emission tomography (PET). They also highlighted the role of artificial intelligence and multiomics in the classification and prognostication of UTUC. In another paper, Bitaraf et al. reviewed other diagnostic tools (i.e., urine cytology and ureteroscopy), as well as patient- and disease-related prognostic factors that affect the outcomes of patients with UTUC [3]. They emphasized the substantial role of preoperative risk stratification tools and nomograms, which have been developed to guide surgical management and perioperative systemic therapy in UTUC. A real-world study in this context was presented by Huang et al., who reviewed the outcomes of 476 patients with pT2N0M0 UTUC undergoing radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) or ureterectomy [4]. They found that age >60 years, previous bladder cancer history, ureteral involvement, and positive surgical margins were independently associated with negative oncological outcomes.
The gold standard for the management of UTUC is RNU with bladder cuff excision. During the recent two decades, there has been a major shift from open RNU towards minimally invasive techniques. Franco et al. presented the latest evidence regarding surgical techniques and outcomes of minimally invasive RNU, focusing on robotic RNU [5]. The authors reviewed novel robotic techniques, including single-stage transperitoneal, retroperitoneal, and single-port RNUs. Another evolution in the management of UTUC has been kidney-sparing surgery, which emerged as the preferred option for select patients, particularly those with a low-risk disease. Ghoreifi et al. reviewed the outcomes of these techniques, including endoscopic ablation and segmental ureterectomy [6]. Several retrospective comparative studies have confirmed the feasibility and efficacy of kidney-sparing management approaches for UTUC, yet the only level I evidence so far in this setting is mitomycin gel therapy in low-risk patients.
Despite the technical advancements in the management of UTUC, oncologic outcomes are still not optimal. A multidisciplinary approach, incorporating perioperative intravesical and systemic therapy, has shown to improve these outcomes. Wang et al. comprehensively reviewed the medications, dosage, and timing of intravesical therapy for UTUC, and reported a reduced risk of intravesical recurrence and improved patient survival among those receiving this type of therapy [7]. In another study, Kolawa et al. reviewed the importance of perioperative systemic therapy in these patients and emphasized that neoadjuvant cisplatin-based therapy is preferred by clinicians over adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients, due to the potential decline in renal function following RNU [8]. The results of the ongoing trials have the potential to establish adjuvant immunotherapy as a potential new standard of care of UTUC.
All patients with UTUC require a close follow-up after a surgical intervention with curative intent. Klemm et al. presented surveillance protocols following definitive therapy for UTUC [9]. The surveillance modalities included urine cytology, cystoscopy, and CT/MR urography, and ureteroscopy (in kidney-sparing surgeries), with intervals varying according to risk stratification and the surgical approach used.
The management of UTUC has seen notable advancements in the recent decade. Nonetheless, this area is undergoing rapid evolution, and future studies will provide insights into the optimal approach for managing these patients.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lefort, F.; Rhanine, Y.; Larroquette, M.; Domblides, C.; Heraudet, L.; Sionneau, B.; Lambert, S.; Lasserre, M.; Robert, G.; Ravaud, A.; et al. Clinical and Biological Differences between Upper Tract Carcinoma and Bladder Urothelial Cancer, Including Implications for Clinical Practice. Cancers 2023, 15, 5558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tsikitas, L.A.; Hopstone, M.D.; Raman, A.; Duddalwar, V. Imaging in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Review. Cancers 2023, 15, 5040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bitaraf, M.; Ghafoori Yazdi, M.; Amini, E. Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma (UTUC) Diagnosis and Risk Stratification: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers 2023, 15, 4987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Huang, Y.-C.; Liu, J.-M.; Liu, H.-Y.; Chang, Y.-L.; Chen, C.-S.; Ho, D.-R.; Wu, C.-T.; Chen, M.-F.; Wang, H.-J.; Luo, H.-L. Clinical Determinants of Extraurinary Tract Recurrence and Survival after Radical Surgery for pT2 Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Cancers 2023, 15, 1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Franco, A.; Ditonno, F.; Feng, C.; Manfredi, C.; Sturgis, M.R.; Farooqi, M.; Del Giudice, F.; Coogan, C.; Ferro, M.; Zhang, C.; et al. Minimally Invasive Radical Nephroureterectomy: 5-Year Update of Techniques and Outcomes. Cancers 2023, 15, 4585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ghoreifi, A.; Sari Motlagh, R.; Fuchs, G. Modern Kidney-Sparing Management of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Cancers 2023, 15, 4495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wang, Z.; Shi, H.; Xu, Y.; Fang, Y.; Song, J.; Jiang, W.; Xia, D.; Wu, Z.; Wang, L. Intravesical Therapy for Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers 2023, 15, 5020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kolawa, A.; D’Souza, A.; Tulpule, V. Overview, Diagnosis, and Perioperative Systemic Therapy of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Cancers 2023, 5, 4813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Klemm, J.; Bekku, K.; Abufaraj, M.; Laukhtina, E.; Matsukawa, A.; Parizi, M.K.; Karakiewicz, P.I.; Shariat, S.F. Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Narrative Review of Current Surveillance Strategies for Non-Metastatic Disease. Cancers 2023, 16, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ghoreifi, A.; Djaladat, H. A Comprehensive Review on Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An Update in 2023. Cancers 2024, 16, 1613. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16091613

AMA Style

Ghoreifi A, Djaladat H. A Comprehensive Review on Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An Update in 2023. Cancers. 2024; 16(9):1613. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16091613

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ghoreifi, Alireza, and Hooman Djaladat. 2024. "A Comprehensive Review on Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An Update in 2023" Cancers 16, no. 9: 1613. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16091613

APA Style

Ghoreifi, A., & Djaladat, H. (2024). A Comprehensive Review on Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An Update in 2023. Cancers, 16(9), 1613. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16091613

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop