Jim C Hu1, Bilal Chughtai2, Padraic O'Malley2, Joshua A Halpern2, Jialin Mao3, Douglas S Scherr2, Dawn L Hershman4, Jason D Wright4, Art Sedrakyan3. 1. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: jch9011@med.cornell.edu. 2. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 4. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radical cystectomy is the gold-standard management for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and there is debate concerning the comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC). OBJECTIVE: To compare utilization, perioperative, cost, and survival outcomes of RARC versus ORC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified bladder urothelial carcinoma treated with RARC (n=439) or ORC (n=7308) during 2002-2012 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare linked data. INTERVENTION: Comparison of RARC versus ORC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used propensity score matching to compare perioperative and survival outcomes, including lymph node yield, perioperative complications, and healthcare costs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Utilization of RARC increased from 0.7% of radical cystectomies in 2002 to 18.5% in 2012 (p<0.001). Women comprised 13.9% versus 18.1% (p=0.007) of RARC versus ORC, respectively. RARC was associated with greater lymph node yield with 41.5% versus 34.9% having ≥10 lymph nodes removed (relative risk 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.22, p=0.03) and shorter mean length of hospitalization at 10.1 (± standard deviation 7.1) d versus 11.2 (± 8.6) d (p=0.004). While inpatient costs were similar, RARC was associated with increased home healthcare utilization (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.26, p=0.009) and higher 30-d (p<0.01) and 90-d (p<0.01) costs. With a median follow-up of 44 mo (interquartile range 16-78), overall survival (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.05) and cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.66-1.26) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: RARC provides equivalent perioperative and intermediate term outcomes to ORC. Additional long-term and randomized studies are needed for continued comparative effectiveness assessment of RARC versus ORC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our population-based US study demonstrates that robotic-assisted radical cystectomy has similar perioperative and survival outcomes albeit at higher costs.
BACKGROUND: Radical cystectomy is the gold-standard management for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and there is debate concerning the comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC). OBJECTIVE: To compare utilization, perioperative, cost, and survival outcomes of RARC versus ORC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified bladder urothelial carcinoma treated with RARC (n=439) or ORC (n=7308) during 2002-2012 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare linked data. INTERVENTION: Comparison of RARC versus ORC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used propensity score matching to compare perioperative and survival outcomes, including lymph node yield, perioperative complications, and healthcare costs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Utilization of RARC increased from 0.7% of radical cystectomies in 2002 to 18.5% in 2012 (p<0.001). Women comprised 13.9% versus 18.1% (p=0.007) of RARC versus ORC, respectively. RARC was associated with greater lymph node yield with 41.5% versus 34.9% having ≥10 lymph nodes removed (relative risk 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.22, p=0.03) and shorter mean length of hospitalization at 10.1 (± standard deviation 7.1) d versus 11.2 (± 8.6) d (p=0.004). While inpatient costs were similar, RARC was associated with increased home healthcare utilization (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.26, p=0.009) and higher 30-d (p<0.01) and 90-d (p<0.01) costs. With a median follow-up of 44 mo (interquartile range 16-78), overall survival (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.05) and cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.66-1.26) were similar. CONCLUSIONS:RARC provides equivalent perioperative and intermediate term outcomes to ORC. Additional long-term and randomized studies are needed for continued comparative effectiveness assessment of RARC versus ORC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our population-based US study demonstrates that robotic-assisted radical cystectomy has similar perioperative and survival outcomes albeit at higher costs.
Authors: Tudor Borza; Bruce L Jacobs; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Todd M Morgan; Khaled S Hafez; Cheryl T Lee; Benjamin Y Li; Hye Sung Min; Chang He; Scott M Gilbert; Jonathan E Helm; Mariel S Lavieri; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ted A Skolarus Journal: Urology Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Yong Shan; Usama Jazzar; Hemalkumar B Mehta; Jacques G Baillargeon; Jinhai Huo; Anthony J Senagore; Eduardo Orihuela; Douglas S Tyler; Todd A Swanson; Ashish M Kamat Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
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: Andrea Necchi; Gregory R Pond; Marc C Smaldone; Sumanta K Pal; Kevin Chan; Yu-Ning Wong; Rosalia Viterbo; Guru Sonpavde; Lauren C Harshman; Simon Crabb; Ajjai Alva; Simon Chowdhury; Ugo De Giorgi; Sandy Srinivas; Neeraj Agarwal; Aristotelis Bamias; Jack Baniel; Ali-Reza Golshayan; Sylvain Ladoire; Cora N Sternberg; Linda Cerbone; Evan Y Yu; Joaquim Bellmunt; Ulka Vaishampayan; Gunter Niegisch; Syed Hussain; Daniel W Bowles; Rafael Morales-Barrera; Matthew I Milowsky; Christine Theodore; Dominik R Berthold; Srikala S Sridhar; Thomas Powles; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Matthew D Galsky Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-03-31
Authors: Karthik Tanneru; Seyed Behzad Jazayeri; Jatinder Kumar; Muhammad Umar Alam; Daniel Norez; Sabine Nguyen; Soroush Bazargani; Hariharan Palayapalayam Ganapathi; Mark Bandyk; Robert Marino; Shahriar Koochekpour; Shiva Gautam; K C Balaji; Joseph Costa Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2020-11-22
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Yong Shan; Mohamed D Ray-Zack; Hogan K Hudgins; Usama Jazzar; Douglas S Tyler; Stephen J Freedland; Todd A Swanson; Jacques G Baillargeon; Jim C Hu; Sapna Kaul; Ashish M Kamat; John L Gore; Hemalkumar B Mehta Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Peter S Kirk; Ted A Skolarus; Bruce L Jacobs; Yongmei Qin; Benjamin Li; Michael Sessine; Xiang Liu; Kevin Zhu; Scott M Gilbert; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ken Urish; Jonathan Helm; Mariel S Lavieri; Tudor Borza Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-08-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Meera R Chappidi; Max Kates; C J Stimson; Michael H Johnson; Phillip M Pierorazio; Trinity J Bivalacqua Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brady L Miller; E Jason Abel; Glenn Allen; Jessica R Schumacher; David Jarrard; Tracy Downs; Kyle A Richards Journal: Am J Clin Exp Urol Date: 2020-02-25