Robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in adults.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Apr 2019
24 Apr 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
25
4
2019
medline:
29
5
2019
entrez:
25
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It has been suggested that in comparison with open radical cystectomy, robotic-assisted radical cystectomy results in less blood loss, shorter convalescence, and fewer complications with equivalent short-term oncological and functional outcomes; however, uncertainty remains as to the magnitude of these benefits. To assess the effects of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in adults with bladder cancer. Review authors conducted a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status for studies comparing open radical cystectomy and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. The date of the last search was 1 July 2018 for the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1999 to July 2018), PubMed Embase (1999 to July 2018), Web of Science (1999 to July 2018), Cancer Research UK (www.cancerresearchuk.org/), and the Institute of Cancer Research (www.icr.ac.uk/). We searched the following trials registers: ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/), BioMed Central International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We searched for randomised controlled trials that compared robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with open radical cystectomy (ORC). This study was based on a published protocol. Primary outcomes of the review were recurrence-free survival and major postoperative complications (class III to V). Secondary outcomes were minor postoperative complications (class I and II), transfusion requirement, length of hospital stay (days), quality of life, and positive margins (%). Three review authors independently assessed relevant titles and abstracts of records identified by the literature search to determine which studies should be assessed further. Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse the data. We included in the review five randomised controlled trials comprising a total of 541 participants. Total numbers of participants included in the ORC and RARC cohorts were 270 and 271, respectively.Primary outomesTime-to-recurrence: Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may result in a similar time to recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43); 2 trials; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms at 5 years of follow-up, this corresponds to 16 more recurrences per 1000 participants (95% CI 79 fewer to 123 more) with 431 recurrences per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Major complications (Clavien grades 3 to 5): Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may result in similar rates of major complications (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.48); 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 11 more major complications per 1000 participants (95% CI 44 fewer to 89 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Secondary outcomesMinor complications (Clavien grades 1 and 2): We are very uncertain whether robotic cystectomy may reduce minor complications (very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and for very serious imprecision.Transfusion rate: Robotic cystectomy probably results in substantially fewer transfusions than open cystectomy (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 193 fewer transfusions per 1000 participants (95% CI 262 fewer to 92 fewer) based on 460 transfusion per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations.Hospital stay: Robotic cystectomy may result in a slightly shorter hospital stay than open cystectomy (mean difference (MD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12); 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Quality of life: Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may result in a similar quality of life (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.08, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.16 higher; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Positive margin rates: Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may result in similar positive margin rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.40; 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 8 more (95% CI 21 fewer to 67 more) positive margins per 1000 participants based on 48 positive margins per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision. Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may have similar outcomes with regard to time to recurrence, rates of major complications, quality of life, and positive margin rates (all low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether the robotic approach reduces rates of minor complications (very low-certainty evidence), although it probably reduces the risk of blood transfusions substantially (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce hospital stay slightly (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses to assess the impact of patient age, pathological stage, body habitus, or surgeon expertise on outcomes. This review did not address issues of cost-effectiveness.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
It has been suggested that in comparison with open radical cystectomy, robotic-assisted radical cystectomy results in less blood loss, shorter convalescence, and fewer complications with equivalent short-term oncological and functional outcomes; however, uncertainty remains as to the magnitude of these benefits.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in adults with bladder cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
METHODS
Review authors conducted a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status for studies comparing open radical cystectomy and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. The date of the last search was 1 July 2018 for the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1999 to July 2018), PubMed Embase (1999 to July 2018), Web of Science (1999 to July 2018), Cancer Research UK (www.cancerresearchuk.org/), and the Institute of Cancer Research (www.icr.ac.uk/). We searched the following trials registers: ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/), BioMed Central International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
METHODS
We searched for randomised controlled trials that compared robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with open radical cystectomy (ORC).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
This study was based on a published protocol. Primary outcomes of the review were recurrence-free survival and major postoperative complications (class III to V). Secondary outcomes were minor postoperative complications (class I and II), transfusion requirement, length of hospital stay (days), quality of life, and positive margins (%). Three review authors independently assessed relevant titles and abstracts of records identified by the literature search to determine which studies should be assessed further. Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.
MAIN RESULTS
RESULTS
We included in the review five randomised controlled trials comprising a total of 541 participants. Total numbers of participants included in the ORC and RARC cohorts were 270 and 271, respectively.Primary outomesTime-to-recurrence: Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may result in a similar time to recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43); 2 trials; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms at 5 years of follow-up, this corresponds to 16 more recurrences per 1000 participants (95% CI 79 fewer to 123 more) with 431 recurrences per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Major complications (Clavien grades 3 to 5): Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may result in similar rates of major complications (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.48); 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 11 more major complications per 1000 participants (95% CI 44 fewer to 89 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Secondary outcomesMinor complications (Clavien grades 1 and 2): We are very uncertain whether robotic cystectomy may reduce minor complications (very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and for very serious imprecision.Transfusion rate: Robotic cystectomy probably results in substantially fewer transfusions than open cystectomy (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 193 fewer transfusions per 1000 participants (95% CI 262 fewer to 92 fewer) based on 460 transfusion per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations.Hospital stay: Robotic cystectomy may result in a slightly shorter hospital stay than open cystectomy (mean difference (MD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12); 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Quality of life: Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may result in a similar quality of life (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.08, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.16 higher; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Positive margin rates: Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may result in similar positive margin rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.40; 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 8 more (95% CI 21 fewer to 67 more) positive margins per 1000 participants based on 48 positive margins per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic cystectomy and open cystectomy may have similar outcomes with regard to time to recurrence, rates of major complications, quality of life, and positive margin rates (all low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether the robotic approach reduces rates of minor complications (very low-certainty evidence), although it probably reduces the risk of blood transfusions substantially (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce hospital stay slightly (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses to assess the impact of patient age, pathological stage, body habitus, or surgeon expertise on outcomes. This review did not address issues of cost-effectiveness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31016718
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011903.pub2
pmc: PMC6479207
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD011903Références
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):402-22
pubmed: 25560797
Eur Urol. 2005 Jun;47(6):780-4
pubmed: 15925073
Eur Urol. 2014 Apr;65(4):778-92
pubmed: 24373477
Urol Oncol. 2016 Jun;34(6):257.e1-9
pubmed: 26968561
Eur Urol. 2018 Oct;74(4):465-471
pubmed: 29784190
Int Braz J Urol. 2012 May-Jun;38(3):330-40
pubmed: 22765852
J Endourol. 2008 May;22(5):939-46
pubmed: 18419330
World J Urol. 2009 Jun;27(3):289-93
pubmed: 19219610
BJU Int. 2014 Dec;114(6):896-902
pubmed: 24862633
J Urol. 2013 Feb;189(2):474-9
pubmed: 23017529
J Endourol. 2013 Sep;27(9):1083-95
pubmed: 23688026
Int Braz J Urol. 2006 May-Jun;32(3):300-5
pubmed: 16813673
World J Urol. 2017 Apr;35(4):657-663
pubmed: 27495912
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Int J Clin Pract. 2012 Jul;66(7):656-62
pubmed: 22507234
Urology. 2017 Jun;104:77-83
pubmed: 28267606
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1042-1050
pubmed: 25496767
BJU Int. 2015 Dec;116(6):924-31
pubmed: 25943158
Eur Urol. 2016 Feb;69(2):247-53
pubmed: 26164417
Int Braz J Urol. 2016 Jul-Aug;42(4):663-70
pubmed: 27564275
J Urol. 2019 Apr;201(4):715-720
pubmed: 30321551
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):376-401
pubmed: 25560798
Eur Urol. 2011 Nov;60(5):1066-73
pubmed: 21852033
Eur Urol. 2009 Jan;55(1):164-74
pubmed: 18675501
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
J Endourol. 2016 Feb;30(2):212-7
pubmed: 26414964
JAMA. 2009 Oct 14;302(14):1557-64
pubmed: 19826025
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul;42(7):625-31
pubmed: 22581913
Urology. 2011 Mar;77(3):621-5
pubmed: 21122900
BJU Int. 2006 Nov;98(5):1059-63
pubmed: 16796697
BJU Int. 2008 Jan;101(1):89-93
pubmed: 17888044
Surg Innov. 2016 Dec;23(6):598-605
pubmed: 27354552
Eur Urol. 2015 Oct;68(4):721-8
pubmed: 25985883
Urology. 2012 Jun;79(6):1303-8
pubmed: 22516354
BJU Int. 2011 Sep;108(6 Pt 2):969-75
pubmed: 21917099
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Nov;42(11):1736-1743
pubmed: 27032295
Prog Urol. 2016 Jun;26(8):457-63
pubmed: 27460787
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;(3):CD003145
pubmed: 16034888
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
J Urol. 2013 Feb;189(2):541-7
pubmed: 23260561
JSLS. 2006 Apr-Jun;10(2):145-50
pubmed: 16882409
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):613-621
pubmed: 26272237
Urol Oncol. 2013 Aug;31(6):894-8
pubmed: 21803615
Surg Clin North Am. 2003 Dec;83(6):1293-304, vii
pubmed: 14712866
Eur Urol. 2008 Jul;54(1):54-62
pubmed: 18403100
JSLS. 2015 Jan-Mar;19(1):e2014.00193
pubmed: 25848187
Ann Surg. 2002 Jun;235(6):803-13
pubmed: 12035036
Investig Clin Urol. 2016 Jul;57(4):260-7
pubmed: 27437535
J Endourol. 2014 Oct;28(10):1215-23
pubmed: 25000311
Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):431-52
pubmed: 22749853
Eur Urol. 2010 Feb;57(2):196-201
pubmed: 19853987
Eur Urol. 2010 Feb;57(2):274-81
pubmed: 19560255
Urol Oncol. 2016 Oct;34(10):431.e9-431.e15
pubmed: 27264169
Urology. 2011 Feb;77(2):357-62
pubmed: 20828801
BJU Int. 2014 Mar;113(3):458-67
pubmed: 24053793
JAMA. 2013 Feb 20;309(7):689-98
pubmed: 23423414
Eur Urol. 2010 Sep;58(3):442-9
pubmed: 20554372
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Nov;40(11):1399-411
pubmed: 24767803
BJU Int. 2011 Sep;108(6 Pt 2):962-8
pubmed: 21917098
Surg Endosc. 2007 Aug;21(8):1308-11
pubmed: 17285392
Lancet. 2018 Jun 23;391(10139):2525-2536
pubmed: 29976469
Eur Urol. 2010 Aug;58(2):197-202
pubmed: 20434830
BJU Int. 2011 Dec;108(11):1886-92
pubmed: 21501370
BMJ. 2008 May 3;336(7651):995-8
pubmed: 18456631
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94
pubmed: 21195583
Arch Esp Urol. 2009 Nov;62(9):737-44
pubmed: 19955599
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):399-405
pubmed: 25709026
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120