Comparison of extended and standard lymph node dissection in radical cystectomy for urothelial bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Aleksander Ślusarczyk, Pietro Scilipoti, Gautier Marcq, Benjamin Pradere, Roberto Contieri, Wojciech Krajewski, Ekaterina Laukthina, Francesco Del Giudice, Mattia Longoni, Andrea Gallioli, Yasmin Abu-Ghanem, Muhammed Shamin Khan, Francesco Soria, Simone Albisinni, Morgan Rouprêt, Piotr Radziszewski, Francesco Montorsi, Alberto Briganti, Marco Moschini
{"title":"Comparison of extended and standard lymph node dissection in radical cystectomy for urothelial bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Aleksander Ślusarczyk, Pietro Scilipoti, Gautier Marcq, Benjamin Pradere, Roberto Contieri, Wojciech Krajewski, Ekaterina Laukthina, Francesco Del Giudice, Mattia Longoni, Andrea Gallioli, Yasmin Abu-Ghanem, Muhammed Shamin Khan, Francesco Soria, Simone Albisinni, Morgan Rouprêt, Piotr Radziszewski, Francesco Montorsi, Alberto Briganti, Marco Moschini","doi":"10.1007/s00345-025-05549-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Lymph node dissection (LND) is an essential part of radical cystectomy (RC) performed with curative intent for invasive urothelial bladder cancer (UBC). This meta-analysis synthesizes evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of extended and standard LND during RC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, conducted on November 10, 2024, identified RCTs that compared outcomes of standard (removal of pelvic lymph nodes [LNs]) versus extended LND (removal of pelvic and retroperitoneal LNs) during RC. Intention-to-treat populations were analyzed. Primary outcomes were recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two RCTs involved 993 patients, among whom 490 were randomized to extended and 503 to standard LND. We did not find evidence that RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.24) and OS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.19) differed between patients undergoing extended and standard LND. The risk of local recurrence did not differ between extended and standard LND (relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95% CI 0.80-1.72). The risk of major complications (grade > 3) was higher for the extended template (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.41), as was the 90-day postoperative mortality (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01-3.69). The limited number of studies and sample size constitute major limitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis demonstrates that extended LND was not associated with improved RFS or OS compared to standard LND, but was linked to increased morbidity. Therefore, pelvic lymphadenectomy up to the common iliac bifurcation should remain the standard of care during RC.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"43 1","pages":"181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05549-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Lymph node dissection (LND) is an essential part of radical cystectomy (RC) performed with curative intent for invasive urothelial bladder cancer (UBC). This meta-analysis synthesizes evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of extended and standard LND during RC.

Methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, conducted on November 10, 2024, identified RCTs that compared outcomes of standard (removal of pelvic lymph nodes [LNs]) versus extended LND (removal of pelvic and retroperitoneal LNs) during RC. Intention-to-treat populations were analyzed. Primary outcomes were recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results: Two RCTs involved 993 patients, among whom 490 were randomized to extended and 503 to standard LND. We did not find evidence that RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.24) and OS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.19) differed between patients undergoing extended and standard LND. The risk of local recurrence did not differ between extended and standard LND (relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95% CI 0.80-1.72). The risk of major complications (grade > 3) was higher for the extended template (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.41), as was the 90-day postoperative mortality (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01-3.69). The limited number of studies and sample size constitute major limitations.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that extended LND was not associated with improved RFS or OS compared to standard LND, but was linked to increased morbidity. Therefore, pelvic lymphadenectomy up to the common iliac bifurcation should remain the standard of care during RC.

尿路上皮膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术中扩大淋巴结清扫与标准淋巴结清扫的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
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
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
×
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