An international multicentre randomised controlled trial of en bloc resection of bladder tumour vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour: first results of the en bloc resection of urothelium carcinoma of the bladder (EBRUC) II trial

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Julian Peter Struck, Nadim Moharam, Armin Leitenberger, Jörg Weber, Lukas Lusuardi, David Oswald, Jens J. Rassweiler, Marcel Fiedler, Jakub Horňák, Marek Babjuk, Salvatore Micali, Carlo Zaraca, Thomas Spreu, Frank Friedersdorff, Hendrik Borgmann, Axel S. Merseburger, Mario W. Kramer
{"title":"An international multicentre randomised controlled trial of en bloc resection of bladder tumour vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour: first results of the en bloc resection of urothelium carcinoma of the bladder (EBRUC) II trial","authors":"Julian Peter Struck, Nadim Moharam, Armin Leitenberger, Jörg Weber, Lukas Lusuardi, David Oswald, Jens J. Rassweiler, Marcel Fiedler, Jakub Horňák, Marek Babjuk, Salvatore Micali, Carlo Zaraca, Thomas Spreu, Frank Friedersdorff, Hendrik Borgmann, Axel S. Merseburger, Mario W. Kramer","doi":"10.1111/bju.16543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesTo determine the safety and oncological advantages of <jats:italic>en bloc</jats:italic> resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour (cTURBT) in terms of resection quality, staging quality, and safety.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a single‐blinded randomised controlled trial at seven European hospitals with the following inclusion criteria: first diagnosis of non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer, no singular carcinoma <jats:italic>in situ</jats:italic>, and tumour size &gt;4.3 mm. Patients were randomised intraoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to either the ERBT or cTURBT group. Outcome analysis was performed using the chi‐square test, <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>‐test, and multivariate regression analysis.ResultsA total of 97 patients were randomised into the study (cTURBT = 40, ERBT = 57). A switch to cTURBT was necessary in two patients (3.5%) and 11.5% of the screened patients were preoperatively excluded for ERBT. There was no difference in the specimen presence of detrusor muscle with 73.7% in cTURBT and 67.3% in ERBT specimens (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.69). There were no significant differences in mean operative time (ERBT 27.6 vs cTURBT 25.4 min, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.450) or mean resection time (ERBT 16.3 vs cTURBT 15.5 min, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.732). Overall the complication rate did not differ significantly (ERBT 18.2% vs cTURBT 7.5%, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.142). Bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group (ERBT seven vs cTURBT none, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.020). R0 status was reported more often after ERBT, whilst a second resection was significantly less frequent after ERBT (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.018). Recurrence rates were comparable for both techniques after 6 months of follow‐up.ConclusionThe feasibility of ERBT is higher than previously reported. Whereas other perioperative and safety parameters are comparable to cTURBT, bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group and raised safety concerns. This is why this trial was terminated.","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJU International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16543","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesTo determine the safety and oncological advantages of en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour (cTURBT) in terms of resection quality, staging quality, and safety.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a single‐blinded randomised controlled trial at seven European hospitals with the following inclusion criteria: first diagnosis of non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer, no singular carcinoma in situ, and tumour size >4.3 mm. Patients were randomised intraoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to either the ERBT or cTURBT group. Outcome analysis was performed using the chi‐square test, t‐test, and multivariate regression analysis.ResultsA total of 97 patients were randomised into the study (cTURBT = 40, ERBT = 57). A switch to cTURBT was necessary in two patients (3.5%) and 11.5% of the screened patients were preoperatively excluded for ERBT. There was no difference in the specimen presence of detrusor muscle with 73.7% in cTURBT and 67.3% in ERBT specimens (P = 0.69). There were no significant differences in mean operative time (ERBT 27.6 vs cTURBT 25.4 min, P = 0.450) or mean resection time (ERBT 16.3 vs cTURBT 15.5 min, P = 0.732). Overall the complication rate did not differ significantly (ERBT 18.2% vs cTURBT 7.5%, P = 0.142). Bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group (ERBT seven vs cTURBT none, P = 0.020). R0 status was reported more often after ERBT, whilst a second resection was significantly less frequent after ERBT (P = 0.018). Recurrence rates were comparable for both techniques after 6 months of follow‐up.ConclusionThe feasibility of ERBT is higher than previously reported. Whereas other perioperative and safety parameters are comparable to cTURBT, bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group and raised safety concerns. This is why this trial was terminated.
膀胱肿瘤整体切除术与传统经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术的国际多中心随机对照试验:膀胱尿路上皮癌整体切除术(EBRUC)II 试验的初步结果
目的确定膀胱肿瘤全切术(ERBT)与传统经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术(cTURBT)在切除质量、分期质量和安全性方面的安全性和肿瘤学优势。患者和方法我们在七家欧洲医院开展了一项单盲随机对照试验,纳入标准如下:首次诊断为非肌层浸润性膀胱癌,无单发原位癌,肿瘤大小为 4.3 mm。患者在术中按 1:1 的比例随机分配到 ERBT 或 cTURBT 组。结果共有97名患者被随机纳入研究(cTURBT=40人,ERT=57人)。有两名患者(3.5%)必须转为 cTURBT,11.5% 的筛选患者在术前排除了 ERBT。cTURBT和ERBT标本中存在逼尿肌的比例没有差异,前者为73.7%,后者为67.3%(P = 0.69)。平均手术时间(ERBT 27.6 分钟 vs cTURBT 25.4 分钟,P = 0.450)和平均切除时间(ERBT 16.3 分钟 vs cTURBT 15.5 分钟,P = 0.732)无明显差异。总体而言,并发症发生率没有明显差异(ERBT 18.2% vs cTURBT 7.5%,P = 0.142)。ERBT组的膀胱穿孔发生率明显更高(ERBT 7例 vs cTURBT 0例,P = 0.020)。ERBT术后R0状态的报告更多,而ERBT术后第二次切除的频率明显降低(P = 0.018)。结论 ERBT 的可行性高于之前的报道。尽管其他围手术期和安全性参数与 cTURBT 相当,但 ERBT 组的膀胱穿孔发生率明显更高,这引起了人们对安全性的担忧。这也是该试验终止的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJU International
BJU International 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.40%
发文量
262
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BJUI is one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world, with a truly international range of published papers and appeal. Every issue gives invaluable practical information in the form of original articles, reviews, comments, surgical education articles, and translational science articles in the field of urology. BJUI employs topical sections, and is in full colour, making it easier to browse or search for something specific.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信