Review| Volume 18, ISSUE 1, e10-e20, February 2020

Segmental Ureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

Published:October 16, 2019DOI:


      Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) represents the standard of care for high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). In selected patients with ureteral UTUC, a conservative approach such as segmental ureterectomy (SU) can be considered. However, this therapeutic option remains controversial. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the outcomes of SU versus RNU in patients with UTUC. Three search engines (Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) were queried up to May 2019. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement (PRISMA Statement) was used as a guideline for study selection. The clinical question was established as stated in the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) process. Patients in the SU group were more likely to have history of bladder cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-3.51; P = .02), but less likely to present with preoperative hydronephrosis (OR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.31-0.88; P = .02). A higher rate of ureteral tumor location was found in the SU group (OR, 7.54; 95% CI, 4.15-13.68; P < .00001). The SU group presented with a lower rate of higher (pT ≥ 2) stage (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.82; P = .0002), and high-grade tumors (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78; P < .0001). The SU group was found to have shorter 5-year relapse-free survival (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.95; P = .03), but higher postoperative estimated glomular filtration rate (weighted mean difference, 10.97 mL/min; 95% CI, 2.97-18.98; P = .007). Selected patients might benefit from SU as a therapeutic option for UTUC. In advanced high-risk disease, RNU still remains the standard of care.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Rouprêt M.
        • Babjuk M.
        • Compérat E.
        • et al.
        European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2017 Update.
        Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 111-122
        • Raman J.D.
        Kidney sparing surgery for upper-tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2016; 68: 359-371
        • Territo A.
        • Foerster B.
        • Shariat S.F.
        • et al.
        Diagnosis and kidney-sparing treatments for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: state of the art.
        Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018; 70: 242-251
        • Gakis G.
        • Schubert T.
        • Alemozaffar M.
        • et al.
        Update of the ICUD-SIU consultation on upper tract urothelial carcinoma 2016: treatment of localized high-risk disease.
        World J Urol. 2017; 35: 327-335
        • Seisen T.
        • Peyronnet B.
        • Dominguez-Escrig J.L.
        • et al.
        Oncologic outcomes of kidney-sparing surgery versus radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review by the EAU Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Guidelines Panel.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 1052-1068
        • Moher D.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Clarke M.
        • et al.
        • PRISMA-P Group
        Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
        Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 1
        • Richardson W.S.
        • Wilson M.C.
        • Nishikawa J.
        • Hayward R.S.
        The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions.
        ACP J Club. 1995; 123: A12-A13
        • Howick J.
        • Chalmers I.
        • Glasziou P.
        • et al.
        Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (background document). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
        (Available at:)
        Date accessed: July 23, 2019
        • Wells G.A.
        • Shea B.
        • O’Connell D.
        • et al.
        The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.
        Ottawa Hosp Res Inst. 2013; : 1
        • Armijo-Olivo S.
        • Stiles C.R.
        • Hagen N.A.
        • Biondo P.D.
        • Cummings G.G.
        Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research.
        J Eval Clin Pract. 2012; 18: 12-18
        • Ades A.E.
        • Lu G.
        • Higgins J.P.
        The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models.
        Med Decis Making. 2005; 25: 646-654
        • Hozo S.P.
        • Djulbegovic B.
        • Hozo I.
        Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5: 13
        • Giannarini G.
        • Schumacher M.C.
        • Thalmann G.N.
        • Bitton A.
        • Fleischmann A.
        • Studer U.E.
        Elective management of transitional cell carcinoma of the distal ureter: can kidney-sparing surgery be advised?.
        BJU Int. 2007; 100: 264-268
        • Jeldres C.
        • Lughezzani G.
        • Sun M.
        • et al.
        Segmental ureterectomy can safely be performed in patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter.
        J Urol. 2010; 183: 1324-1329
        • Silberstein J.L.
        • Power N.E.
        • Savage C.
        • et al.
        Renal function and oncologic outcomes of parenchymal sparing ureteral resection versus radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        J Urol. 2012; 187: 429-434
        • Colin P.
        • Ouzzane A.
        • Pignot G.
        • et al.
        • French Collaborative National Database on U.U.T.-U.C.
        Comparison of oncological outcomes after segmental ureterectomy or radical nephroureterectomy in urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract: results from a large French multicentre study.
        BJU Int. 2012; 110: 1134-1141
        • Bin X.
        • Roy O.P.
        • Ghiraldi E.
        • et al.
        Impact of tumour location and surgical approach on recurrence-free and cancer-specific survival analysis in patients with ureteric tumours.
        BJU Int. 2012; 110: E514-E519
        • Bagrodia A.
        • Kuehhas F.E.
        • Gayed B.A.
        • et al.
        Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes of partial ureterectomy vs radical nephroureterectomy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Urology. 2013; 81: 972-977
        • Dalpiaz O.
        • Ehrlich G.
        • Quehenberger F.
        • Pummer K.
        • Zigeuner R.
        Distal ureterectomy is a safe surgical option in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter.
        Urol Oncol. 2014; 32: 34.e1-34.e8
        • Hung S.Y.
        • Yang W.C.
        • Luo H.L.
        • Hsu C.C.
        • Chen Y.T.
        • Chuang Y.C.
        Segmental ureterectomy does not compromise the oncologic outcome compared with nephroureterectomy for pure ureter cancer.
        Int Urol Nephrol. 2014; 46: 921-926
        • Fukushima H.
        • Saito K.
        • Ishioka J.
        • et al.
        Equivalent survival and improved preservation of renal function after distal ureterectomy compared with nephroureterectomy in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter: a propensity score-matched multicenter study.
        Int J Urol. 2014; 21: 1098-1104
        • Pedrosa J.A.
        • Masterson T.A.
        • Rice K.R.
        • et al.
        Oncologic outcomes and prognostic impact of urothelial recurrences in patients undergoing segmental and total ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2015; 9: E187-E192
        • Singla N.
        • Gayed B.A.
        • Bagrodia A.
        • et al.
        Multi-institutional analysis of renal function outcomes following radical nephroureterectomy and partial ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Urol Oncol. 2015; 33: 268.e1-268.e7
        • Seisen T.
        • Nison L.
        • Remzi M.
        • et al.
        Oncologic outcomes of kidney sparing surgery versus radical nephroureterectomy for the elective treatment of clinically organ confined upper tract urothelial carcinoma of the distal ureter.
        J Urol. 2016; 195: 1354-1361
        • Fang C.
        • Xie X.
        • Xu T.
        • et al.
        Segmental ureterectomy is not inferior to radical nephroureterectomy for either middle or distal ureter urothelial cell carcinomas within 3.5 cm.
        Int Urol Nephrol. 2017; 49: 1177-1182
        • Huang Z.
        • Zhang X.
        • Zhang X.
        • et al.
        Segmental ureterectomy is acceptable for high-risk ureteral carcinoma comparing to radical nephroureterectomy.
        J Invest Surg. 2018; 25: 1-8
        • Zhang J.
        • Yang F.
        • Wang M.
        • Niu Y.
        • Chen W.
        • Xing N.
        Comparison of radical nephroureterectomy and partial ureterectomy for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018: 2793172
        • Kato T.
        • Nakayama R.
        • Haba T.
        • Kawaguchi M.
        • Komiya A.
        • Koike H.
        Oncological and renal outcomes of segmental ureterectomy vs. radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Oncol Lett. 2018; 16: 6861-6867
        • Jia Z.
        • Gong Y.
        • Zhang C.
        • et al.
        Segmental ureterectomy can be performed safely in patients with urothelial carcinoma of distal ureter.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2018; 20: E202-E209
        • Campi R.
        • Cotte J.
        • Sessa F.
        • et al.
        Robotic radical nephroureterectomy and segmental ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a multi-institutional experience [e-pub ahead of print].
        (World J Urol. 2019.)
        • Fang D.
        • Seisen T.
        • Yang K.
        • et al.
        A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and renal function outcomes obtained after segmental ureterectomy versus radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016; 42: 1625-1635
        • Kohada Y.
        • Hayashi T.
        • Goto K.
        • et al.
        Preoperative risk classification using neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and hydronephrosis for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018; 48: 841-850
        • Xylinas E.
        • Kluth L.
        • Passoni N.
        • et al.
        • UTUC Collaboration
        Prediction of intravesical recurrence after radical nephroureterectomy: development of a clinical decision-making tool.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 650-658
        • Lim D.J.
        • Shattuck M.C.
        • Cook W.A.
        Pyelovenous lymphatic migration of transitional cell carcinoma following flexible ureterorenoscopy.
        J Urol. 1993; 149: 109-111
        • Marchioni M.
        • Primiceri G.
        • Cindolo L.
        • et al.
        Impact of diagnostic ureteroscopy on intravesical recurrence in patients undergoing radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BJU Int. 2017; 120: 313-319
        • Kaag M.G.
        • O’Malley R.L.
        • O’Malley P.
        • et al.
        Changes in renal function following nephroureterectomy may affect the use of perioperative chemotherapy.
        Eur Urol. 2010; 58: 581-587
        • Hosogoe S.
        • Hatakeyama S.
        • Kusaka A.
        • et al.
        Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves oncological outcomes in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 4: 946-953