Search

Background and Objectives: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has been shown to be non-inferior to open radical cystectomy (ORC) for the treatment of bladder cancer (BC). However, most data on RARC come from high-volume surgeons at high-volume centers. The objective of the study was to compare perioperative and mid-term oncologic outcomes of RARC versus ORC in a real-life cohort of patients treated by surgeons starting their experience with RARC., Materials and Methods: Data were prospectively collected from consecutive patients undergoing RARC and ORC at five referral Centers between 2010 and 2016 by five surgeons (one per center) with no prior experience in RARC. Patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive or organ-confined muscle-invasive (T2N0M0) bladder cancer were considered for RARC. The main study endpoints were perioperative outcomes, postoperative surgical complications, and mid-term oncologic outcomes., Results: Overall, 124 and 118 patients underwent RARC and ORC, respectively. Baseline patients' and tumors' characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Yet, the proportion of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy was significantly higher in the RARC cohort. Median operative time was significantly higher, while median EBL, LOH, and transfusion rates were significantly lower after RARC. Median number of lymph nodes removed was significantly higher after RARC. All other histopathological outcomes, as well as the rate of early (< 30 days) and late postoperative complications, were comparable to ORC. At a median follow-up of 2 years, 29 (23%) and 41 (35%) patients developed disease recurrence (p = 0.05), while 20 (16%) and 37 (31%) died of bladder cancer (p = 0.005) after RARC and ORC, respectively., Conclusions: With proper patient selection, RARC was non-inferior to ORC throughout the surgeons' learning phase. Yet, the observed differences in oncologic outcomes suggest selection bias toward adoption of RARC for patients with more favorable disease characteristics.

Purpose: To compare perioperative outcomes and complications of extracorporeal (ECUD) vs intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) in patients after undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) at five referral centers in France., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional, prospectively-collected database to select patients undergoing RARC between 2010 and 2016 with at least 3 months of follow-up. At each center, the surgery was performed by one surgeon with extensive experience in robotic surgery and radical cystectomy but no prior experience in RARC., Results: Overall, 108 patients were included. ECUD and ICUD were performed in 34 (31.5%) and 74 (68.5%) patients, respectively. Patient characteristics were comparable among the two groups, except for a higher proportion of patients with high surgical risk (ASA score ≥ 3) in the ECUD group. Ileal conduit and ileal neobladder were performed in 63/108 (58%) and 45/108 (42%) cases, respectively. Ileal conduit was performed more often with an extracorporeal approach while ileal neobladder with an intracorporeal approach. Overall, operative time, length of hospital stay, positive margin rate, and number of lymph nodes removed did not significantly differ among the two cohorts. Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates were significantly higher in the ECUD group. Rate of early (38.2 vs 47.3%, p = 0.4) and late (29.4 vs 18.9%, p = 0.2) surgical complications did not significantly differ between the ECUD and ICUD groups. Results were comparable in the subgroup analysis in the ileal conduit subpopulation., Conclusion: In our real-life, multi-institutional study, RARC with ICUD achieved perioperative outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of RARC with ECUD.

Context: There is an ongoing debate about the factors that influence intravesical recurrence (IVR) after radical nephrouretectomy (RNU) to treat upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC)., Objective: To assess significant predictors of IVR after RNU from a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis., Evidence Acquisition: A computerized bibliographic search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for all reports that included detailed results of multivariate analyses on the predictors of IVR. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we selected 18 retrospective studies that each included more than 100 patients treated exclusively with RNU between 2007 and 2014. Cumulative analyses of available hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were conducted using R software to assess the potential predictors of IVR., Evidence Synthesis: Among the 8275 patients included, 2402 (29%) were diagnosed with IVR within a median time of 22.2 mo (range 6.7-56.5). Patient-specific predictors were as follows: male gender (HR 1.37; p<0.001), previous bladder cancer (HR 1.96; p<0.001), and preoperative chronic kidney disease (HR 1.87; p=0.002). Tumor-specific predictors were as follows: positive preoperative urinary cytology (HR 1.56; p<0.001), ureteral location (HR 1.27; p<0.001), multifocality (HR 1.61; p=0.002), invasive pT stage (HR 1.38; p<0.001), and necrosis (HR 2.17; p=0.02). Treatment-specific predictors were as follows: a laparoscopic approach (HR 1.62; p=0.003), extravesical bladder cuff removal (HR 1.22; p=0.02), and positive surgical margins (HR 1.90; p=0.004)., Conclusions: A meta-analysis of available data identified significant predictors of IVR that should be systematically assessed to propose a risk-adapted approach to adjuvant intravesical instillation of chemotherapy and cystoscopic surveillance after RNU., Patient Summary: In this report, we looked at the factors linked to intravesical recurrence after radical nephroureterectomy to treat upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. We identified patient-, tumor- and treatment-specific characteristics that should be systematically assessed to guide postoperative decision-making., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)