Impact of bladder cuff management on oncologic outcomes following radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
John Kim, Abdullah Alrumaih, Braden Millan, Michael Uy, Deron Britt, Jennifer Tang, Rahul Bansal
{"title":"Impact of bladder cuff management on oncologic outcomes following radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"John Kim, Abdullah Alrumaih, Braden Millan, Michael Uy, Deron Britt, Jennifer Tang, Rahul Bansal","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.9145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bladder cuff excision (BCE) is an integral component of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). While many approaches have been described, the optimal technique for BCE to provide maximal oncologic control remains unanswered. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of different BCE techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing oncologic outcomes of RNU for UTUC based on different BCE approaches. Techniques for BCE were categorized as intravesical, extravesical, or endoscopic. Our primary outcomes were intravesical recurrence rate (IVR) and intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Meta-analysis was performed to compare the recurrence rates and survival outcomes associated with different BCE techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty studies assessing a total of 17 168 patients were identified for inclusion. Open intravesical BCE was associated with superior univariate IVRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.42, p=0.04, I<sup>2</sup>=43%), multivariate IVRFS (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16-1.80, p<0.0001, I<sup>2</sup>=75%), univariate RFS (HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.04-5.10, p=0.0002, I<sup>2</sup>=71%), and multivariate CSS (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.22-2.15, p=0.33, I<sup>2</sup>=14%) when compared to non-intravesical techniques. Subgroup analysis revealed that this difference was primarily driven by the inferiority of the open extravesical approach. Endoscopic and non-endoscopic BCE demonstrated equivalent univariate and multivariate IVRFS, RFS, and CSS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Open intravesical BCE is associated with superior oncologic outcomes when compared to non-intravesical techniques. This difference is primarily driven by the open intravesical approach's superiority to the open extravesical approach. Endoscopic BCE showed equivalent outcomes when compared to non-endoscopic approaches. Prospective randomized trials can shed further light on the optimal approach to BCE.</p>","PeriodicalId":50613,"journal":{"name":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9145","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Bladder cuff excision (BCE) is an integral component of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). While many approaches have been described, the optimal technique for BCE to provide maximal oncologic control remains unanswered. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of different BCE techniques.

Methods: The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing oncologic outcomes of RNU for UTUC based on different BCE approaches. Techniques for BCE were categorized as intravesical, extravesical, or endoscopic. Our primary outcomes were intravesical recurrence rate (IVR) and intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Meta-analysis was performed to compare the recurrence rates and survival outcomes associated with different BCE techniques.

Results: Forty studies assessing a total of 17 168 patients were identified for inclusion. Open intravesical BCE was associated with superior univariate IVRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.42, p=0.04, I2=43%), multivariate IVRFS (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16-1.80, p<0.0001, I2=75%), univariate RFS (HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.04-5.10, p=0.0002, I2=71%), and multivariate CSS (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.22-2.15, p=0.33, I2=14%) when compared to non-intravesical techniques. Subgroup analysis revealed that this difference was primarily driven by the inferiority of the open extravesical approach. Endoscopic and non-endoscopic BCE demonstrated equivalent univariate and multivariate IVRFS, RFS, and CSS.

Conclusions: Open intravesical BCE is associated with superior oncologic outcomes when compared to non-intravesical techniques. This difference is primarily driven by the open intravesical approach's superiority to the open extravesical approach. Endoscopic BCE showed equivalent outcomes when compared to non-endoscopic approaches. Prospective randomized trials can shed further light on the optimal approach to BCE.

膀胱袖带管理对上尿路癌根治性肾输尿管切除术后肿瘤预后的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介:膀胱袖口切除术(BCE)是根治性肾输尿管切除术(RNU)治疗上尿路上皮癌(UTUC)的一个组成部分。虽然已经描述了许多方法,但BCE提供最大肿瘤控制的最佳技术仍然没有答案。我们的目的是进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,以比较不同BCE技术的肿瘤学结果。方法:检索Ovid MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL和Web of Science数据库,以比较基于不同BCE方法的RNU治疗UTUC的肿瘤预后。BCE的技术分为膀胱内、膀胱外或内窥镜。我们的主要结局是膀胱内复发率(IVR)和膀胱内无复发生存率(IVRFS)。次要终点包括无复发生存期(RFS)和癌症特异性生存期(CSS)。荟萃分析比较不同BCE技术的复发率和生存结果。结果:共纳入了40项研究,共评估了17168例患者。与非膀胱内技术相比,开放性膀胱内BCE与更高的单因素IVRFS(风险比[HR] 1.27, 95%可信区间[CI] 1.13-1.42, p=0.04, I2=43%)、多因素IVRFS(风险比[HR] 1.44, 95% CI 1.16-1.80, p2=75%)、单因素RFS(风险比[HR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.04-5.10, p=0.0002, I2=71%)和多因素CSS(风险比[HR] 1.62, 95% CI 1.22-2.15, p=0.33, I2=14%)相关。亚组分析显示,这种差异主要是由于开放体外入路的低劣性所致。内镜下和非内镜下BCE表现出相同的单变量和多变量IVRFS、RFS和CSS。结论:与非膀胱内技术相比,开放性膀胱内BCE具有更好的肿瘤预后。这种差异主要是由于开放膀胱内入路优于开放膀胱外入路。与非内镜入路相比,内镜下BCE显示出相同的结果。前瞻性随机试验可以进一步阐明治疗BCE的最佳方法。
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
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
167
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CUAJ is a a peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to promoting the highest standard of urological patient care through the publication of timely, relevant, evidence-based research and advocacy information.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信