Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Smoking’s Negative Effect on Pathological Grade and Stage in Patients with Primary, Single, < 3cm Bladder Cancer

Version 1 : Received: 9 July 2018 / Approved: 10 July 2018 / Online: 10 July 2018 (10:00:46 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Journal reference: African Journal of Urology 2018, 24
DOI: 10.1016/j.afju.2018.07.003

Abstract

Introduction: We investigated the potential effect of smoking on pathological staging in clinically low-risk patients. Material-Methods: Data of 59 patients who were diagnosed with a bladder tumor for the first time and had a single lesion radiologically and endoscopically smaller than 3 cm were investigated, retrospectively. A total of 33 patients who currently smoke or smoked were classified as ever smokers group and 26 patients who did not ever smoke were classified as never smokers group. Pathological diagnoses of the patients in both groups were compared. Results: A total of 9 patients (27.3%) in ever smokers group and 18 patients (69.2%) in never smokers group had Ta disease (p<0.05). Morover, 19 patients (57.6%) in ever smokers group and 5 patients (19.2%) in never smokers group had T1 disease (p<0.05). The number of patients with low grade (LG) tumor were 8 (24.2%) and 19 (73.1%) in ever smoking and never smoking groups, respectively (p<0.05). The number of patients with high grade (HG) tumor were 25 (75.8%) and 7 (26.9%) in ever smoking and never smoking groups, respectively (p<0.05). Ta HG was detected in 9 (27.3%) patients in ever smoking group. In contrast, no patients in never smoking group had Ta HG disease (p<0.05). The number of patients with T1 HG was 17 (51.5%) in ever smoking group and 2 (7.69%) in never smoking group (p<0.05). Conclusion:Smoking seems to associate with pathologically worse stage and grade in patients with primary, single, < 3cm bladder cancer.

Subject Areas

smoking; pathologic stage; pathologic grade; low risk

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.