Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar;14(5):e70758.
doi: 10.1002/cam4.70758.

Prognostic Factors Influencing Postoperative Survival in Patients With Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Bladder: A Population-Based Study

Affiliations

Prognostic Factors Influencing Postoperative Survival in Patients With Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Bladder: A Population-Based Study

Liang Liu et al. Cancer Med. 2025 Mar.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to identify prognostic factors influencing survival in patients with bladder neuroendocrine carcinoma (NC).

Methods: This study utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015) to compare NC with urothelial carcinoma (UC). We evaluated the prognostic value of clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes for bladder NC patients. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models and propensity score matching (PSM) were employed for analysis.

Result: A total of 99,704 patients were included, with 603 in the NC group and 99,101 in the UC group. Compared with the UC group, the NC group was inclined to receive radical cystectomy (34.2% vs. 12.2%), radiation (25.0% vs. 4.6%) and chemotherapy (62.0% vs. 22.2%) as treatment options. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed higher overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) outcomes for NC patients who underwent radical cystectomy (HR = 0.569, 95% CI = 0.537-0.603, p < 0.001; HR = 0.531, 95% CI = 0.489-0.577, p < 0.001; respectively). To mitigate bias, a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed on both groups, resulting in 1202 patients (n = 601 per group). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified seven risk factors for OS and CSS: age at diagnosis, race, cT stage, cN stage, cM stage, histological type, and chemotherapy. Additionally, surgery of the primary site was a prognostic factor for OS. A better prognosis was observed for NC patients who underwent radical cystectomy compared to those who did not. NC patients who only received radical cystectomy have a better prognosis in both OS (log-rank p = 0.002) and CSS (log-rank p = 0.009) compared with those who only received radiotherapy.

Conclusion: Age, race, TNM stage, chemotherapy, and surgery were identified as independent predictors of bladder NC patients. Radical cystectomy may represent the optimal therapeutic approach to improve the prognosis of NC patients.

Keywords: neuroendocrine carcinoma; prognosis; propensity score matching; urinary bladder neoplasms; urothelial carcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors verify that all information and materials in the manuscript are original.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Patient selection flowchart.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Overall survival (A) and cancer‐specific survival (B) of 99,704 unmatched patients in the NC group and UC group (NC: Neuroendocrine carcinoma; UC: Urothelial carcinoma).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Overall survival (A) and cancer‐specific survival (B) of 1202 matched patients in the NC group and UC group (NC: Neuroendocrine carcinoma; UC: Urothelial carcinoma).
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Overall survival (A) and cancer‐specific survival (B) in 601 NC patients (TURB: Transurethral resection of the bladder; RC: Partial cystectomy + simple/total/complete cystectomy + complete cystectomy with reconstruction + pelvic exenteration + cystectomy).
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Overall survival (A) and cancer‐specific survival (B) of NC patients (RC: Partial cystectomy + simple/total/complete cystectomy + complete cystectomy with reconstruction + pelvic exenteration + cystectomy).

References

    1. Siegel R. L., Miller K. D., Fuchs H. E., and Jemal A., “Cancer Statistics, 2022,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 72, no. 1 (2022): 7–33. - PubMed
    1. Coelho H. M., Pereira B. A., and Caetano P. A., “Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder: Case Report and Review,” Current Urology 7, no. 3 (2013): 155–159. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choong N. W. W., Quevedo J. F., and Kaur J. S., “Small Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder. The Mayo Clinic Experience,” Cancer 103, no. 6 (2005): 1172–1178. - PubMed
    1. Cheng L., Pan C. X., Yang X. J., et al., “Small Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder: A Clinicopathologic Analysis of 64 Patients,” Cancer 101, no. 5 (2004): 957–962, 10.1002/cncr.20456. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Trias I., Algaba F., Condom E., et al., “Small Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder. Presentation of 23 Cases and Review of 134 Published Cases,” European Urology 39, no. 1 (2001): 85–90. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources