John Kim, Abdullah Alrumaih, Braden Millan, Michael Uy, Deron Britt, Jennifer Tang, Rahul Bansal
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Impact of bladder cuff management on oncologic outcomes following radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.