BACKGROUND: To compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns between robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intra-corporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 177 bladder cancer patients who received iRARC or ORC at Fujita Health University between 2008 and 2020. Our primary endpoint was long-term oncological outcomes. As a secondary endpoint, we examined perioperative outcomes, complications, and recurrence patterns. These outcome measures were compared between the propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts. RESULTS: PS-matched analysis resulted in 60 matched pairs from iRARC and ORC groups. The iRARC cohort was associated with significantly longer operative time (p = 0.02), lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.001), fewer overall complications (p = 0.03), and lower rate of postoperative ileus (p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference between iRARC and ORC in 5-year RFS (p = 0.46), CSS (p = 0.63), and OS (p = 0.71). RFS and CSS were also comparable, even in locally advanced (≥ cT3) disease. Multivariate analysis identified lymphovascular invasion as a robust predictor of RFS, CSS, and OS. The number of recurrence was similar between the groups, while extra-pelvic lymph nodes were more frequent in iRARC than that in ORC (22.7% vs. 7.7%). CONCLUSIONS: iRARC has favorable perioperative outcomes, fewer complications, and comparable long-term survival outcomes, including locally advanced (≥ cT3) disease, compared to that in ORC. Our results need to be validated in prospective randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: To compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns between robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intra-corporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 177 bladder cancerpatients who received iRARC or ORC at Fujita Health University between 2008 and 2020. Our primary endpoint was long-term oncological outcomes. As a secondary endpoint, we examined perioperative outcomes, complications, and recurrence patterns. These outcome measures were compared between the propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts. RESULTS: PS-matched analysis resulted in 60 matched pairs from iRARC and ORC groups. The iRARC cohort was associated with significantly longer operative time (p = 0.02), lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.001), fewer overall complications (p = 0.03), and lower rate of postoperative ileus (p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference between iRARC and ORC in 5-year RFS (p = 0.46), CSS (p = 0.63), and OS (p = 0.71). RFS and CSS were also comparable, even in locally advanced (≥ cT3) disease. Multivariate analysis identified lymphovascular invasion as a robust predictor of RFS, CSS, and OS. The number of recurrence was similar between the groups, while extra-pelvic lymph nodes were more frequent in iRARC than that in ORC (22.7% vs. 7.7%). CONCLUSIONS: iRARC has favorable perioperative outcomes, fewer complications, and comparable long-term survival outcomes, including locally advanced (≥ cT3) disease, compared to that in ORC. Our results need to be validated in prospective randomized clinical trials.
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: Marko Babjuk; Andreas Böhle; Maximilian Burger; Otakar Capoun; Daniel Cohen; Eva M Compérat; Virginia Hernández; Eero Kaasinen; Joan Palou; Morgan Rouprêt; Bas W G van Rhijn; Shahrokh F Shariat; Viktor Soukup; Richard J Sylvester; Richard Zigeuner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ahmed S Elsayed; Sean Gibson; Zhe Jing; Carl Wijburg; Andrew A Wagner; Alex Mottrie; Prokar Dasgupta; James Peabody; Ahmed A Hussein; Khurshid A Guru Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Karim H Marzouk; Daniel D Sjoberg; Justin Lee; Sheri M Donat; Jonathan A Coleman; Andrew Vickers; Harry W Herr; Vincent P Laudone Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Dipen J Parekh; Isildinha M Reis; Erik P Castle; Mark L Gonzalgo; Michael E Woods; Robert S Svatek; Alon Z Weizer; Badrinath R Konety; Mathew Tollefson; Tracey L Krupski; Norm D Smith; Ahmad Shabsigh; Daniel A Barocas; Marcus L Quek; Atreya Dash; Adam S Kibel; Lynn Shemanski; Raj S Pruthi; Jeffrey Scott Montgomery; Christopher J Weight; David S Sharp; Sam S Chang; Michael S Cookson; Gopal N Gupta; Alex Gorbonos; Edward M Uchio; Eila Skinner; Vivek Venkatramani; Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash; Kerri Kendrick; Joseph A Smith; Ian M Thompson Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel P Nguyen; Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Xian Wu; Padraic O'Malley; Igor M Inoyatov; Abimbola Ayangbesan; Bishoy M Faltas; Paul J Christos; Douglas S Scherr Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Silberstein; Gal E Keren Paz; S Machele Donat; Jonathan A Coleman; Sheila Mathew; Andrew Vickers; Geoffrey C Schnorr; Michael A Feuerstein; Bruce Rapkin; Raul O Parra; Harry W Herr; Vincent P Laudone Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Muhammad Shamim Khan; Christine Gan; Kamran Ahmed; Ahmad Fahim Ismail; Jane Watkins; Jennifer A Summers; Janet L Peacock; Peter Rimington; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 20.096