Dataset Information

Comparing Oncological and Perioperative Outcomes of Open versus Laparoscopic versus Robotic Radical Nephroureterectomy for the Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Multinational, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify correlates of survival and perioperative outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients undergoing open (ORNU), laparoscopic (LRNU), and robotic (RRNU) radical nephroureterectomy (RNU).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study that included non-metastatic UTUC patients who underwent RNU between 1990-2020. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to impute missing data. Patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical treatment and were adjusted by 1:1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Survival outcomes per group were estimated for recurrence-free survival (RFS), bladder recurrence-free survival (BRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Perioperative outcomes: Intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay (LOS), and overall (OPC) and major postoperative complications (MPCs; defined as Clavien-Dindo > 3) were assessed between groups.

Results

Of the 2434 patients included, 756 remained after PSM with 252 in each group. The three groups had similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. The median follow-up was 32 months. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests demonstrated similar RFS, CSS, and OS between groups. BRFS was found to be superior with ORNU. Using multivariable regression analyses, LRNU and RRNU were independently associated with worse BRFS (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22-2.28, p = 0.001 and HR 1.73, 95%CI 1.22-2.47, p = 0.002, respectively). LRNU and RRNU were associated with a significantly shorter LOS (beta -1.1, 95% CI -2.2-0.02, p = 0.047 and beta -6.1, 95% CI -7.2-5.0, p < 0.001, respectively) and fewer MPCs (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.31-0.79, p = 0.003 and OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.46, p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

In this large international cohort, we demonstrated similar RFS, CSS, and OS among ORNU, LRNU, and RRNU. However, LRNU and RRNU were associated with significantly worse BRFS, but a shorter LOS and fewer MPCs.

SUBMITTER: Grossmann NC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10000228 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing Oncological and Perioperative Outcomes of Open versus Laparoscopic versus Robotic Radical Nephroureterectomy for the Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Multinational, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Grossmann Nico C NC Soria Francesco F Juvet Tristan T Potretzke Aaron M AM Djaladat Hooman H Ghoreifi Alireza A Kikuchi Eiji E Mari Andrea A Khene Zine-Eddine ZE Fujita Kazutoshi K Raman Jay D JD Breda Alberto A Fontana Matteo M Sfakianos John P JP Pfail John L JL Laukhtina Ekaterina E Rajwa Pawel P Pallauf Maximillian M Poyet Cédric C Cacciamani Giovanni E GE van Doeveren Thomas T Boormans Joost L JL Antonelli Alessandro A Jamil Marcus M Abdollah Firas F Ploussard Guillaume G Heidenreich Axel A Storz Enno E Daneshmand Siamak S Boorjian Stephen A SA Rouprêt Morgan M Rink Michael M Shariat Shahrokh F SF Pradere Benjamin B

Cancers 20230223 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To identify correlates of survival and perioperative outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients undergoing open (ORNU), laparoscopic (LRNU), and robotic (RRNU) radical nephroureterectomy (RNU).<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study that included non-metastatic UTUC patients who underwent RNU between 1990-2020. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to impute missing data. Patients were divided into three groups based on the ...[more]

PMID: 36900201

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring the past two decades, laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LRNU) has been proposed as an alternative technique to open radical nephroureterectomy (ORNU) and has become increasingly accepted for the treatment of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Nevertheless, the oncologic efficacy of LRNU remains controversial, especially for the treatment of locally advanced (T3/T4 and/or N+) UTUC. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to cumulatively compare the oncological outcomes of LRNU versus ORNU.Materials and methodsThe present meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A search was conducted of three electronic databases, namely, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcome measurements of cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS), including hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were extracted and pooled.ResultsEighteen articles published from 2007 to 2020 were included in the final quantitative analysis. One study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and the remaining articles had a retrospective design. Among a total of 10,730 participants in the selected papers, 5959 (55.5%) and 4771 (44.5%) underwent ORNU and LRNU, respectively. The results of pooled analyses revealed no significant differences in CSS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.60-1.19, p = 0.33), OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62-1.13, p = 0.25), IVRFS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85-1.39, p = 0.52), and RFS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94-1.25, p = 0.26) between LRNU and ORNU groups. Furthermore, the results of subgroup analyses for pT3/T4 and pTany N+ populations did not confirm any statistically significant differences between LRNU and ORNU in terms of any survival parameter.ConclusionsOur present meta-analysis of current evidence suggests that LRNU and ORNU have comparable oncological outcomes in patients with UTUC, even in those with locally advanced disease. Further multicenter RCTs with large sample sizes and uniform data regarding specific surgical procedures, such as bladder cuff excision, are required to establish definitive conclusions.

Project description:PurposeInternational guidelines suggest the use of lapro-endoscopic technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia (IHR) because of lower postoperative pain and reduction in chronic pain. It is unclear if the primary benefit is due to the minimally invasive approach, the posterior mesh position or both. Further research evaluating posterior mesh placement using open preperitoneal techniques is recommended. A potential benefit of open preperitoneal repair is the avoidance of general anesthesia, as these repairs can be performed under local anesthesia. This study compares clinical and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral laparo-endoscopic, robotic, and open posterior mesh IHRs.MethodsWe performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing IHR between 2012 and 2021 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. 10,409 patients underwent a unilateral IHR via a posterior approach. Hernia repairs were performed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which includes laparoscopic and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP), or open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) approaches. Propensity score matching (PSM) utilizing nearest neighbor matching accounted for differences in baseline characteristics and possible confounding variables between groups. We matched 816 patients in the MIS cohort with 816 patients in the TREPP/OPP group. Outcomes included patient reported quality of life, hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use.ResultsImprovement was seen after TREPP/OPP as compared to MIS IHR in EuraHS at 30 days (Median(IQR) 7.0 (2.0-16.64) vs 10 (2.0-24.0); OR 0.69 [0.55-0.85]; p = 0.001) and 6 months (1.0 (0.0-4.0) vs 2.0 (0.0-4.0); OR 0.63 [0.46-85]; p = 0.002), patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up (18% vs 45% OR 0.26 [0.19-0.35]; p < 0.001), and rates of surgical site occurrences (0.8% vs 4.9% OR 0.16 [0.06-0.35]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in EuraHS scores and recurrences at 1 year.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a potential benefit of open posterior mesh placement over MIS repair in short-term quality of life and seroma formation with equivalent rates of hernia recurrence. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and determine the reproducibility of these findings outside of high-volume specialty centers.

Project description:BackgroundSelected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.ResultsOf 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).ConclusionLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.

Dataset Information

Comparing Oncological and Perioperative Outcomes of Open versus Laparoscopic versus Robotic Radical Nephroureterectomy for the Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Multinational, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing Oncological and Perioperative Outcomes of Open versus Laparoscopic versus Robotic Radical Nephroureterectomy for the Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Multinational, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets