Daniel A.Urbina 1
, Luis M. Becerra 2
, Alejandro Lora 3
, Diana L. Garzón 4
, David A. Cortés 1
, Iván Ortiz 1
, Sthepani Gómez 4, Laura S. Jurado 5, Michelle A. Bejarano 5, Sofía Muñoz-Medina 6 
1 Servicio de Urología, Facultad de Medicina, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá, Colombia; 2 Servicio de Urología Oncológica, Clínica Universitaria Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; 3 Servicio de Cirugía General, Grupo Pared Abdominal, Clínicas Colsanitas, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá, Colombia; 4 Grupo de Investigación en Urología, Clínica Universitaria Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; 5 Facultad de Medicina, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá, Colombia; 6 Oficina de Investigación, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá, Colombia
*Correspondence: Diana L. Garzón. Email: lore.garzon9211@gmail.com
Objective: Determine oncological outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy. Method: This is a descriptive, observational study of patients from a university hospital in Bogotá, Colombia, between 2016 and 2022, with a follow-up period of ≥ 6 months. A descriptive analysis was performed, and survival was represented in Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Forty-two patients were included. The mean age was 64.64 years (SD: 9.58), mainly comprising men (80.95%), and the most common histological subtype was high-grade urothelial carcinoma in 71.43%. The most performed urinary diversion was cutaneous ureterostomy in 50% of cases. Incidence of bladder cancer recurrence was found in 28%, tumor-related mortality was 38,09%, and non-tumor-related mortality was 26,19%, for a global mortality of 64.29% (95% CI: 48.03-78.45). Conclusions: We found a slightly lower cumulative incidence of relapse compared to the general population. However, the five-year global mortality of 64% is above what is documented in the literature, and the use of cutaneous ureterostomy as the urinary diversion was comparatively higher than in the rest of the studies.
Content available only in Spanish.
Content available only in Spanish.
The editorial process consists of 6 stages:
1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.
2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.
3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.
4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.
5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.
6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.