Purpose To report the outcomes of patients with pathologic T4 UTUC and investigate the potential impact of peri-operative chemotherapy combined with radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) and regional lymph node dissection (LND) on oncologic outcomes. Materials and Methods Patients with pathologic T4 UTUC were identified from the cohort of 1464 patients treated with RNU at 13 academic centers between 1987 and 2007. Oncologic outcomes were stratified according to utilization of perioperative systemic chemotherapy and regional LND as an adjunct to RNU. Results The study included 69 patients, 42 males (61%) with median age 73 (range 43-98). Median follow-up was 17 months (range: 6-88). Lymphovascular invasion was found in 47 (68%) and regional lymph node metastases were found in 31 (45%). Peri-operative chemotherapy was utilized in 29 (42%) patients. Patients treated with peri-operative chemotherapy and RNU with LND demonstrated superior oncologic outcomes compared to those not treated by chemotherapy and/or LND during RNU (3Y-DFS: 35% vs. 10%; P = 0.02 and 3Y-CSS: 28% vs. 14%; P = 0.08). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, administration of peri-operative chemotherapy and utilization of LND during RNU was associated with lower probability of recurrence (HR: 0.4, P = 0.01), and cancer specific mortality (HR: 0.5, P = 0.06). Conclusions Pathological T4 UTUC is associated with poor prognosis. Peri-operative chemotherapy combined with aggressive surgery, including lymph node dissection, may improve oncological outcomes. Our findings support the use of aggressive multimodal treatment in patients with advanced UTUC.

OBJECTIVES: Urine based tumor markers have uncertain utility in diagnosis or surveillance of patients with bladder cancer while cytology is commonly used. We evaluated whether cytology provides additional diagnostic information in patients with a negative NMP22® BladderChek® test (BladderChek) and negative cystoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed subset analyses of 2 large prospective multi-center databases evaluating BladderChek for UCB detection and surveillance. These cohorts were analyzed for presence of cancer and result of urine cytology in setting of a negative cystoscopy and negative BladderChek. Subsequently, we prospectively performed cystoscopy, cytology and BladderChek on 434 patients at our institution being evaluated for UCB. RESULTS: In the detection database (n = 1331), 1065 patients had a negative cystoscopy and BladderChek. There were 3 cancers (stages Ta, Tis and T1) and cytology was atypical in one and reactive in two. In the surveillance cohort (n = 668) patients, 437 patients had negative cystoscopy and BladderChek. Cancer was found in 2 patients (stages Tis and Ta). The patient with Tis has dysplastic cytology and Ta tumor had reactive cytology. In our cohort of 434 patients, 288 pts had negative cystoscopy and BladderChek. One cancer was missed, a Ta ureteral urothelial carcinoma with a reactive cytology. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with negative cystoscopy and BladderChek, very few cancers are missed and cytology was not effective in detection. Use of a point-of-care test in conjunction with cystoscopy in lieu of cytology could decrease cost, provide immediate results, improve negative predictive value and reduce the uncertainty that results from inconclusive cytologic results.