Premium
Impact of palliative urinary diversion by percutaneous nephrostomy drainage and ureteral stenting among patients with advanced cervical cancer and obstructive uropathy: A prospective cohort
Author(s) -
Lapitan Marie Carmela M.,
Buckley Brian S.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.597
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1447-0756
pISSN - 1341-8076
DOI - 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01486.x
Subject(s) - medicine , obstructive uropathy , percutaneous nephrostomy , urinary diversion , cohort , prospective cohort study , quality of life (healthcare) , cervical cancer , renal function , cohort study , nephrostomy , surgery , retrospective cohort study , urology , urinary system , bladder cancer , cancer , percutaneous , cystectomy , nursing
Aim: Obstructive uropathy is a recognized complication in advanced cervical cancer. Urinary diversion is commonly used to bypass the obstruction and improve renal function. The degree of survival benefit that diversion offers is not well established and its impact on quality of life (QoL) is uncertain. This study considered these factors in order to inform treatment decisions. Methods: This study examined a prospective cohort of patients with advanced cervical cancer and obstructive uropathy in Manila, Philippines. Age, cancer treatment status, comorbidities, serum creatinine level, degree of obstructive uropathy and QoL were recorded at baseline. Patients with creatinine values >150 µmol/L, or who were being considered for radiotherapy or nephrotoxic chemotherapy or manifesting uncontrolled or recurrent uropathy‐related urinary tract infection, were offered diversion. Follow‐up data collection was at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months from cohort entry. Results: Of the 230 patients invited, 205 patients joined the cohort. Complete data were available for 198, of whom 93 underwent diversion, 56 required diversion but elected not to receive it, and 49 did not require it. Although survival at 12 months among those who underwent diversion was no greater than among those who required but elected not to receive the procedure, diversion was associated with significantly improved chance of survival in the shorter term. There was no significant difference in the QoL between the groups throughout the study. Conclusion: With no evidence of an impact on QoL, the decision to offer diversionary surgery might be based solely on a survival benefit, which is modest but potentially important to patients.