Prognostic factors for urachal cancer: A bayesian model-averaging approach

29Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate prognostic factors and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in a cohort of 41 patients with urachal carcinoma by use of a Bayesian model-averaging approach. Materials and Methods: Our cohort included 41 patients with urachal carcinoma who underwent extended partial cystectomy, total cystectomy, transurethral resection, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy at a single institute. All patients were classified by both the Sheldon and the Mayo staging systems according to histopathologic reports and preoperative radiologic findings. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional- hazards regression models were carried out to investigate prognostic factors, and a Bayesian model-averaging approach was performed to confirm the significance of each variable by using posterior probabilities. Results: The mean age of the patients was 49.88±13.80 years and the male-to-female ratio was 24:17. The median follow-up was 5.42 years (interquartile range, 2.8–8.4 years). Five- and 10-year CSS rates were 55.9% and 43.4%, respectively. Lower Sheldon (p=0.004) and Mayo (p<0.001) stage, mucinous adenocarcinoma (p=0.005), and larger tumor size (p=0.023) were significant predictors of high survival probability on the basis of a log-rank test. By use of the Bayesian model-averaging approach, higher Mayo stage and larger tumor size were significant predictors of cancer-specific mortality in urachal carcinoma. Conclusions: The Mayo staging system might be more effective than the Sheldon staging system. In addition, the multivariate analyses suggested that tumor size may be a prognostic factor for urachal carcinoma.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, I. K., Lee, J. Y., Kwon, J. K., Park, J. J., Cho, K. S., Ham, W. S., … Choi, Y. D. (2014). Prognostic factors for urachal cancer: A bayesian model-averaging approach. Korean Journal of Urology, 55(9), 574–580. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.9.574

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free