Dataset Information

Clinical outcome of robot-assisted residual mass resection in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumor.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the outcome of robot-assisted residual mass resection (RA-RMR) in nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT) patients with residual tumor following chemotherapy.

Patients and methods

Retrospective medical chart analysis of all patients with NSGCT undergoing RA-RMR at two tertiary referral centers between January 2007 and April 2019. Patients were considered for RA-RMR in case of a residual tumor between 10 and 50 mm at cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) imaging located ventrally or laterally from the aorta or vena cava, with normalized tumor markers following completion of chemotherapy, and no history of retroperitoneal surgery.

Results

A total of 45 patients were included in the analysis. The Royal Marsden stage before chemotherapy was IIA in 13 (28.9%), IIB in 16 (35.6%), IIC in 3 (6.7%) and IV in 13 patients (28.9%). The median residual tumor size was 1.9 cm (interquartile range [IQR] 1.4-2.8; range 1.0-5.0). Five procedures (11.1%) were converted to an open procedure due to a vascular injury (n = 2), technical difficulty (n = 2) or tumor debris leakage (n = 1). A postoperative adverse event occurred in two patients (4.4%). Histopathology showed teratoma, necrosis and viable cancer in 29 (64.4%), 14 (31.1%), and two patients (4.4%), respectively. After a median follow-up of 41 months (IQR 22-70), one patient (2.2%) relapsed in the retroperitoneum. The one- and 2-year recurrence-free survival rate was 98%.

Conclusion

RA-RMR is an appropriate treatment option in selected patients, potentially providing excellent cure rates with minimal morbidity. Long-term outcome data are needed to further support this strategy and determine inclusion and exclusion criteria.

SUBMITTER: Blok JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8217018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.ResultsOf 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.