TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes Following Open and Robotic-assisted Radical Cystectomy with both Extracorporeal and Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion
AU - Murthy, Prithvi B.
AU - Lone, Zaeem
AU - Munoz Lopez, Carlos
AU - Ericson, JJ Zhang Kyle
AU - Thomas, Lewis
AU - Caveney, Maxx
AU - Gerber, Daniel
AU - Khanna, Abhinav
AU - Abouassaly, Robert
AU - Haber, Georges Pascal
AU - Lee, Byron H.
N1 - Funding Information:
Financial Disclosures: None.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Objectives: To compare oncologic endpoints between open radical cystectomy (ORC) and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with extracorporeal urinary diversion (eRARC) or intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC). Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of all patients undergoing curative-intent radical cystectomy with urinary diversion for urothelial bladder cancer at a single-institution from 2010-2018. Primary outcomes included recurrence location and rates, recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Survival estimates were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank analysis. Cox proportional-hazards model was used to identify predictors of survival. Results: 265, 366 and 285 patients underwent ORC, eRARC, and iRARC, respectively (n = 916). Median follow-up was 52, 40 and 37 months for ORC, eRARC and iRARC, respectively (P < 0.001). Ileal conduit was more commonly performed in iRARC (85%, P < 0.001). Neobladder rates did not vary. Neoadjuvant (p=0.4) or adjuvant therapy use (P = 0.36), pT-stage (P = 0.28) or pN-stage (P = 0.1) did not differ. Positive soft tissue margin rates were higher in ORC (7.2%-ORC, 3.6%-eRARC, 3.2%-iRARC, P = 0.041). Differences in recurrence rates or location were not observed. Surgical approach was not associated with any survival endpoint on proportional-hazards or Kaplan-Meier analysis. Hazard ratios and 95% CI for RFS were 1 (0.72-14) and 0.93 (0.66-1.3) for eRARC and iRARC, respectively, when compared to ORC as the referent. Conclusion: These findings from a large, single-institution in conjunction with randomized-controlled trial data suggest that RARC does not compromise perioperative or long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to ORC.
AB - Objectives: To compare oncologic endpoints between open radical cystectomy (ORC) and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with extracorporeal urinary diversion (eRARC) or intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC). Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of all patients undergoing curative-intent radical cystectomy with urinary diversion for urothelial bladder cancer at a single-institution from 2010-2018. Primary outcomes included recurrence location and rates, recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Survival estimates were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank analysis. Cox proportional-hazards model was used to identify predictors of survival. Results: 265, 366 and 285 patients underwent ORC, eRARC, and iRARC, respectively (n = 916). Median follow-up was 52, 40 and 37 months for ORC, eRARC and iRARC, respectively (P < 0.001). Ileal conduit was more commonly performed in iRARC (85%, P < 0.001). Neobladder rates did not vary. Neoadjuvant (p=0.4) or adjuvant therapy use (P = 0.36), pT-stage (P = 0.28) or pN-stage (P = 0.1) did not differ. Positive soft tissue margin rates were higher in ORC (7.2%-ORC, 3.6%-eRARC, 3.2%-iRARC, P = 0.041). Differences in recurrence rates or location were not observed. Surgical approach was not associated with any survival endpoint on proportional-hazards or Kaplan-Meier analysis. Hazard ratios and 95% CI for RFS were 1 (0.72-14) and 0.93 (0.66-1.3) for eRARC and iRARC, respectively, when compared to ORC as the referent. Conclusion: These findings from a large, single-institution in conjunction with randomized-controlled trial data suggest that RARC does not compromise perioperative or long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to ORC.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107895462&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2021.03.041
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2021.03.041
M3 - Article
C2 - 33891929
AN - SCOPUS:85107895462
SN - 0090-4295
VL - 154
SP - 184
EP - 190
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
ER -