Upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Paradigm shift towards nephron sparing management

Table 2 Outcomes of percutaneous management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Ref.	n	Grade on biopsy (G1/G2/G3 vs LG/HG)	F/U (mo)	Outcomes (%)
Tasca et al[58] (1992)	10	1/5/0	19	50 UTR, 90 OS, 100 CSS
Fuglsig et al[59] (1995)	26	NA	21	31 UTR, 96 OS, 100 CSS
Plancke et al[60] (1995)	10	6/3/11	28	10 UTR, 10 IVR, 90 OS, 100 CSS
Patel et al[61] (1996)	26	11/11/1	45	35 UTR, 42 IVR, 75 OS, 91 CSS
Clark et al[62] (1999)	17	6/7/4	24	33 UTR, 75 OS, 82 CSS
Goel et al[63] (2003)	20	15LG/5HG	64	65 UTR, 15 IVR, 75 CSS
Palou et al[66] (2004)	34	7/21/5	51	44 UTR, 74 OS, 94 CSS
Rouprêt et al[64] (2007)	24	17LG/7HG	62	13 UTR, 17 IVR, 79 OS, 83 CSS
Rastinehead et al[65] (2009)	89	50LG/39HG	61	33 UTR, 68 OS
Fiuk (current study)	65	34LG/33HG	28	55 OS, 87 CSS

G1: Grade 1; G2: Grade 2; G3: Grade 3; LG: Low grade; HG: High grade; F/U: Follow up; UTR: Upper tract recurrence; IVR: Intra-vesical recurrence; OS: Overall survival; CSS: Cancer specific survival; NA: Not available.