OBJECTIVES: Oncologic outcomes of robotic cystectomy have focused on pathology and not on survival endpoints. We compared pathology, recurrence, and survival in a single surgeon series of open and robotic cystectomy since the introduction of robotic cystectomy. METHODS: We identified all patients treated by a single surgeon with radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer from June 2007 to June 2010. Clinical, demographic, and pathologic data was abstracted from chart review. Mortality was obtained from institutional cancer registry and chart review. Patients were excluded from analysis for a relative contraindication to robotic surgery. The remaining cohort of patients undergoing robotic (n = 36) vs. open (n = 29) cystectomy with median follow-up 12.2 months were evaluated. RESULTS: The robotic cohort was more likely to be older and male (P < 0.05). Obesity, comorbidity, preoperative pathology, and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not different between groups. Three patients had conversion from robotic to open cystectomy because of difficult dissection. Mean surgical time was longer in robotic cystectomy (410 vs. 345 minutes, P < 0.01). Cystectomy pathology was not different for robotic vs. open surgery for stage, margin status, or mean node count (robotic: 17.0, open: 15.5). On survival analysis robotic and open cystectomy outcomes were similar with respect to recurrence-free, disease-specific, and overall survival (all log-rank P values > 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier estimate for 2-year outcome for recurrence-free, disease-specific, and overall survival was 67% (95% CI: 41-83), 75% (95% CI: 53-88), 68% (95% CI: 47-82) for robotic cystectomy and 58% (95% CI: 29-79), 63% (95% CI: 34-82), 63% (95% CI: 34-82) for open cystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term oncologic outcomes were similar for open and robotic cystectomy. Increased sample size and further follow-up are necessary before claiming equivalent long-term survival.
OBJECTIVES: Oncologic outcomes of robotic cystectomy have focused on pathology and not on survival endpoints. We compared pathology, recurrence, and survival in a single surgeon series of open and robotic cystectomy since the introduction of robotic cystectomy. METHODS: We identified all patients treated by a single surgeon with radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer from June 2007 to June 2010. Clinical, demographic, and pathologic data was abstracted from chart review. Mortality was obtained from institutional cancer registry and chart review. Patients were excluded from analysis for a relative contraindication to robotic surgery. The remaining cohort of patients undergoing robotic (n = 36) vs. open (n = 29) cystectomy with median follow-up 12.2 months were evaluated. RESULTS: The robotic cohort was more likely to be older and male (P < 0.05). Obesity, comorbidity, preoperative pathology, and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not different between groups. Three patients had conversion from robotic to open cystectomy because of difficult dissection. Mean surgical time was longer in robotic cystectomy (410 vs. 345 minutes, P < 0.01). Cystectomy pathology was not different for robotic vs. open surgery for stage, margin status, or mean node count (robotic: 17.0, open: 15.5). On survival analysis robotic and open cystectomy outcomes were similar with respect to recurrence-free, disease-specific, and overall survival (all log-rank P values > 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier estimate for 2-year outcome for recurrence-free, disease-specific, and overall survival was 67% (95% CI: 41-83), 75% (95% CI: 53-88), 68% (95% CI: 47-82) for robotic cystectomy and 58% (95% CI: 29-79), 63% (95% CI: 34-82), 63% (95% CI: 34-82) for open cystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term oncologic outcomes were similar for open and robotic cystectomy. Increased sample size and further follow-up are necessary before claiming equivalent long-term survival.
Authors: J P Stein; G Lieskovsky; R Cote; S Groshen; A C Feng; S Boyd; E Skinner; B Bochner; D Thangathurai; M Mikhail; D Raghavan; D G Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew H Hayn; Nicholas J Hellenthal; Stéfanie A Seixas-Mikelus; Ahmed M Mansour; Andrew Stegemann; Abid Hussain; Khurshid A Guru Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Declan G Murphy; Ben J Challacombe; Oussama Elhage; Tim S O'Brien; Peter Rimington; Mohammad Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Takehiro Iwata; Shoji Kimura; Beat Foerster; Nicola Fossati; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Kilian M Gust; Shin Egawa; Yasutomo Nasu; Mohammad Abufaraj; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Keiran D Clement; Emily Pearce; Ahmed H Gabr; Bhavan P Rai; Abdulla Al-Ansari; Omar M Aboumarzouk Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Bhavan Prasad Rai; Jasper Bondad; Nikhil Vasdev; Jim Adshead; Tim Lane; Kamran Ahmed; Mohammed S Khan; Prokar Dasgupta; Khurshid Guru; Piotr L Chlosta; Omar M Aboumarzouk Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-24