[Secondary malignancies in urinary diversions].

  • T Kälble
  • I Hofmann
  • J W Thüroff
  • R Stein
  • R Hautmann
  • H Riedmiller
  • D Vergho
  • L Hertle
  • C Wülfing
  • M Truß
  • S Roth
  • F C von Rundstedt
  • P Albers
  • J Gschwend
  • K Herkommer
  • U Humke
  • M Spahn
  • P Bader
  • J Steffens
  • R Harzmann
  • C G Stief
  • A Karl
  • S C Müller
  • M Waldner
  • J Noldus
  • K Kleinschmidt
  • P Alken
  • B Kopper
  • Margit Fisch
  • A Lampel
  • A Stenzel
  • J Fichtner
  • B Flath
  • H Rübben
  • K P Juenemann
  • S Hautmann
  • A Knipper
  • D Leusmann
  • W Strohmaier
  • W F Thon
  • S Miller
  • K Weingärtner
  • A Schilling
  • H Piechota
  • J E Becht
  • H Schwaibold
  • P Bub
  • S Conrad
  • U Wenderoth
  • W Merkle
  • W Rösch
  • T Otto
  • B Ulshöfer
  • M Westenfelder

Related Research units

Abstract

In contrast to ureterosigmoidostomy no reliable clinical data exist for tumor risk in different forms of urinary diversion using isolated intestinal segments.In 44 German urological departments, operation frequencies, indications, patient age, and operation dates of the different forms of urinary diversion, operated between 1970 and 2007, could be registered. The secondary tumors up to 2009 were registered as well and related to the numbers of the different forms of urinary diversions resulting in tumor prevalences.In 17,758 urinary diversions 32 secondary tumors occurred. The tumor risk in ureterosigmoidostomy (22-fold) and cystoplasty (13-fold) is significantly higher than in other continent forms of urinary diversion such as neobladders or pouches (p

Bibliographical data

Original languageGerman
Article number4
ISSN0340-2592
Publication statusPublished - 2012
pubmed 22476801