Marco Moschini1,2, Stefania Zamboni3,4, Luca Afferi2, Benjamin Pradere1,5, Mohammad Abufaraj1,6, Francesco Soria1,7, David D'Andrea1, Morgan Roupret8, Alexandre De la Taille9, Claudio Simeone3, Agostino Mattei2, Romain Mathieu10, Karim Bensalah10, Manfred Peter Wirth11, Francesco Montorsi12, Alberto Briganti12, Andrea Gallina12, Giuseppe Simone13, Michele Gallucci13, Carlo Di Bona2, Giancarlo Marra7, Andrea Mari14, Ettore Di Trapani15, Mario Alvarez Maestro16, Wojciech Krajewski17, Shahrokh F Shariat1,18,19,20,21,22, Evanguelos Xylinas23, Philipp Baumeister2. 1. Department of Urology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland. 3. Urology Unit, ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy. 4. Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, CHRU Tours, Francois Rabelais University, Tours, France. 6. Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, the University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. 7. Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy. 8. Urology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux De Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France. 9. Department of Urology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux De Paris (AP-HP) CHU Mondor, Faculté De Médecine, Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France. 10. Urology, Rennes University Hospital (France), Rennes, France. 11. Department of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. 12. Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 13. Department of Urology, 'Regina Elena' National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. 14. Department of Urology, University of Florence, Unit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy. 15. Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), Milan, Italy. 16. Department of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 17. Department of Urology and Oncologic Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland. 18. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. 19. Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria. 20. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 21. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 22. Department of Urology, Motol Hospital, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 23. Department of Urology, CHU Bichat, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare oncological outcomes of open (ORNU) and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LRNU) after controlling for preoperative patient-derived factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated a multi-institutional collaborative database composed of 3984 patients diagnosed with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) treated with RNU between 2006 and 2018. To adjust for potential selection bias, propensity score matching adjusted for age, gender and American society Anesthesiology (ASA) score was performed with one ORNU patient matched to one LRNU patient. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression evaluating the risk of overall recurrence, cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) in the overall population and after propensity matching were performed. RESULTS: In total, 3984 patients underwent RNU, of these 3227 (81%) patients were treated with ORNU and 757 (19%) patients with LRNU. Within a median follow-up of 62 months, 1276 recurrences, 844 CSMs and 1128 OMs were recorded. On multivariable analyses, the LRNU approach was associated with an increased risk of overall recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.54; P = 0.02), but on the other hand LRNU was associated with a protective effect on CSM (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.98; P = 0.04). After propensity matching analyses adjusted for age, gender and ASA score, 757 patients treated with LRNU and 757 patients treated with ORNU were available for the analyses. On multivariable Cox regression, LRNU vs ORNU was not associated with any difference in overall recurrence (P = 0.08), CSM (P = 0.1) or OM (P = 0.9). CONCLUSION: Our present data suggest that even if the type of approach to RNU was associated with different survival outcomes considering the overall population, this difference vanished when adjusted for potential confounders in propensity matching analyses. Therefore, we found that LRNU is not inferior to the ORNU approach for the treatment of UTUC. ABBREVIATIONS: ASA: American Society of Anesthesiology; CIS: carcinoma in situ; CSM: cancer-specific mortality; HR: hazard ratio; IQR: interquartile range; LN: lymph node; LNI: lymph node invasion; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; OM: overall mortality; pT: pathological tumour stage; RCT: randomised controlled trial; (L)(O)RNU: (laparoscopic) (open) radical nephroureterectomy; UTUC: upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
OBJECTIVES: To compare oncological outcomes of open (ORNU) and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LRNU) after controlling for preoperative patient-derived factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated a multi-institutional collaborative database composed of 3984 patients diagnosed with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) treated with RNU between 2006 and 2018. To adjust for potential selection bias, propensity score matching adjusted for age, gender and American society Anesthesiology (ASA) score was performed with one ORNU patient matched to one LRNU patient. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression evaluating the risk of overall recurrence, cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) in the overall population and after propensity matching were performed. RESULTS: In total, 3984 patients underwent RNU, of these 3227 (81%) patients were treated with ORNU and 757 (19%) patients with LRNU. Within a median follow-up of 62 months, 1276 recurrences, 844 CSMs and 1128 OMs were recorded. On multivariable analyses, the LRNU approach was associated with an increased risk of overall recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.54; P = 0.02), but on the other hand LRNU was associated with a protective effect on CSM (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.98; P = 0.04). After propensity matching analyses adjusted for age, gender and ASA score, 757 patients treated with LRNU and 757 patients treated with ORNU were available for the analyses. On multivariable Cox regression, LRNU vs ORNU was not associated with any difference in overall recurrence (P = 0.08), CSM (P = 0.1) or OM (P = 0.9). CONCLUSION: Our present data suggest that even if the type of approach to RNU was associated with different survival outcomes considering the overall population, this difference vanished when adjusted for potential confounders in propensity matching analyses. Therefore, we found that LRNU is not inferior to the ORNU approach for the treatment of UTUC. ABBREVIATIONS: ASA: American Society of Anesthesiology; CIS: carcinoma in situ; CSM: cancer-specific mortality; HR: hazard ratio; IQR: interquartile range; LN: lymph node; LNI: lymph node invasion; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; OM: overall mortality; pT: pathological tumour stage; RCT: randomised controlled trial; (L)(O)RNU: (laparoscopic) (open) radical nephroureterectomy; UTUC: upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
Authors: Francesco Soria; Marco Moschini; Andrea Haitel; Gregory J Wirth; Jose A Karam; Christopher G Wood; Morgan Rouprêt; Vitaly Margulis; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Jay D Raman; Solene-Florence Kammerer-Jacquet; Romain Mathieu; Karim Bensalah; Yair Lotan; Mehmet Özsoy; Mesut Remzi; Kilian M Gust; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Nawar Hanna; Maxine Sun; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jens Hansen; Marco Bianchi; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Markus Graefen; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marco Moschini; Beat Foerster; Mohammad Abufaraj; Francesco Soria; Thomas Seisen; Morgan Roupret; Pierre Colin; Alexandre De la Taille; Benoit Peyronnet; Karim Bensalah; Roman Herout; Manfred Peter Wirth; Vladimir Novotny; Piotr Chlosta; Marco Bandini; Francesco Montorsi; Giuseppe Simone; Michele Gallucci; Giuseppe Romeo; Kazumasa Matsumoto; Pierre Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Stefania Zamboni; Beat Foerster; Mohammad Abufaraj; Thomas Seisen; Morgan Roupret; Pierre Colin; Alexandre De la Taille; Carlo Di Bona; Benoit Peyronnet; Karim Bensalah; Roman Herout; Manfred Peter Wirth; Vladimir Novotny; Francesco Soria; Piotr Chlosta; Alessandro Antonelli; Claudio Simeone; Philipp Baumeister; Agostino Mattei; Francesco Montorsi; Giuseppe Simone; Michele Gallucci; Kazumasa Matsumoto; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Evanguelos Xylinas; Shahrokh F Shariat; Marco Moschini Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-04-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Morgan Rouprêt; Marko Babjuk; Eva Compérat; Richard Zigeuner; Richard J Sylvester; Maximilian Burger; Nigel C Cowan; Paolo Gontero; Bas W G Van Rhijn; A Hugh Mostafid; Joan Palou; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marco Moschini; Shahrokh F Shariat; Morgan Rouprêt; Maria De Santis; Joaquim Bellmunt; Cora N Sternberg; Bertrand Tombal; Laurence Collette Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Benoit Peyronnet; Thomas Seisen; Jose-Luis Dominguez-Escrig; Harman Max Bruins; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Thomas Lam; Steven Maclennan; James N'dow; Marko Babjuk; Eva Comperat; Richard Zigeuner; Richard J Sylvester; Maximilian Burger; Hugh Mostafid; Bas W G van Rhijn; Paolo Gontero; Joan Palou; Sharokh F Shariat; Morgan Roupret Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-11-15