Robot-assisted nephroureterectomy: surgical and mid-term oncological outcomes in over 1100 patients (ROBUUST 2.0 collaborative group).
oncological outcomes
radical nephroureterectomy
robotic surgical procedure
surgical complications
upper urinary tract urothelial cancer
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Sep 2024
12 Sep 2024
Historique:
medline:
12
9
2024
pubmed:
12
9
2024
entrez:
12
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To analyse surgical, functional, and mid-term oncological outcomes of robot-assisted nephroureterectomy (RANU) in a contemporary large multi-institutional setting. Data were retrieved from the ROBotic surgery for Upper tract Urothelial cancer STtudy (ROBUUST) 2.0 database, an international, multicentre registry encompassing data of patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma undergoing curative surgery between 2015 and 2022. The analysis included all consecutive patients undergoing RANU except those with missing data in predictors. Detailed surgical, pathological, and postoperative functional data were recorded and analysed. Oncological time-to-event outcomes were: recurrence-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, with a 3-year cut-off. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was built to evaluate predictors of each oncological outcome. A total of 1118 patients underwent RANU during the study period. The postoperative complications rate was 14.1%; the positive surgical margin rate was 4.7%. A postoperative median (interquartile range) estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease of -13.1 (-27.5 to 0) mL/min/1.73 m The present study contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting the increasing adoption of RANU. The procedure consistently offers low surgical morbidity and can provide favourable mid-term oncological outcomes, mirroring those of open NU, even in non-organ-confined disease.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
Soria F, Shariat SF, Lerner SP et al. Epidemiology, diagnosis, preoperative evaluation and prognostic assessment of upper‐tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). World J Urol 2017; 35: 379–387
Rouprêt M, Gontero P, Birtle A et al. EAU Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma [Internet]. 2023. Available at: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/upper‐urinary‐tract‐urothelial‐cell‐carcinoma
Rodriguez JF, Packiam VT, Boysen WR et al. Utilization and outcomes of nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma by surgical approach. J Endourol 2017; 31: 661–665
Grob G, Rogers D, Pandolfo SD et al. Oncologic outcomes following radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a literature review. Transl Androl Urol 2023; 12: 1351–1362
Veccia A, Carbonara U, Djaladat H et al. Robotic vs laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a multicenter propensity‐score matched pair “tetrafecta” analysis (ROBUUST collaborative group). J Endourol 2022; 36: 752–759
Franco A, Ditonno F, Feng C et al. Minimally invasive radical nephroureterectomy: 5‐year update of techniques and outcomes. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15: 4585
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205–213
Assel M, Sjoberg D, Elders A et al. Guidelines for reporting of statistics for clinical research in urology. J Urol 2019; 201: 595–604
Vickers AJ, Assel MJ, Sjoberg DD et al. Guidelines for reporting of figures and tables for clinical research in urology. Eur Urol 2020; 78: 97–109
Tinay I, Gelpi‐Hammerschmidt F, Leow JJ et al. Trends in utilisation, perioperative outcomes, and costs of nephroureterectomies in the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a 10‐year population‐based analysis. BJU Int 2016; 117: 954–960
Del Giudice F, van Uem S, Li S et al. Contemporary trends of systemic neoadjuvant and adjuvant intravesical chemotherapy in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinomas undergoing minimally invasive or open radical nephroureterectomy: analysis of US claims on perioperative outcomes and health care costs. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2022; 20: 198.e1–198.e9
Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol 2012; 187: 1392–1399
Zeuschner P, Vollmer SG, Linxweiler J et al. Robot‐assisted versus open radical nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a retrospective cohort study across ten years. Surg Oncol 2021; 38: 101607
Veccia A, Antonelli A, Francavilla S et al. Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of over 87,000 cases. World J Urol 2020; 38: 845–852
De Groote R, Decaestecker K, Larcher A et al. Robot‐assisted nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: results from three high‐volume robotic surgery institutions. J Robot Surg 2020; 14: 211–219
Lim SK, Shin TY, Kim KH et al. Intermediate‐term outcomes of robot‐assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2013; 11: 515–521
Gabriel PE, Pinar U, Lenfant L et al. Perioperative, renal function and oncological outcomes of robot‐assisted radical nephroureterectomy for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. World J Urol 2023; 41: 3001–3007
Aboumohamed AA, Krane LS, Hemal AK. Oncologic outcomes following robot‐assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff excision for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 2015; 194: 1561–1566
Trudeau V, Gandaglia G, Shiffmann J et al. Robot‐assisted versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for uppertract urothelial cancer: a population‐based assessment of costs and perioperative outcomes. Can Urol Assoc J 2014; 8: E695–E701
Raman JD, Lin Y, Shariat SF et al. Preoperative nomogram to predict the likelihood of complications after radical nephroureterectomy. BJU Int 2017; 119: 268–275
Kocher NJ, Canes D, Bensalah K et al. Incidence and preoperative predictors for major complications following radical nephroureterectomy. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9: 1786–1793
Rajput MZ, Kamat AM, Clavell‐Hernandez J et al. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy and regional lymphadenectomy in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Urology 2011; 78: 61–67
Cacciamani GE, Sholklapper T, Dell'Oglio P et al. The intraoperative complications assessment and reporting with universal standards (ICARUS) global surgical collaboration project: development of criteria for reporting adverse events during surgical procedures and evaluating their impact on the postoperative course. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8: 1847–1858
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 341–349
Colin P, Ouzzane A, Yates DR et al. Influence of positive surgical margin status after radical nephroureterectomy on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma survival. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 3613–3620
Clements MB, Krupski TL, Culp SH. Robotic‐assisted surgery for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comparative survival analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25: 2550–2562
Simone G, Papalia R, Guaglianone S et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy: perioperative and oncologic outcomes from a randomised prospective study. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 520–526
Margulis V, Shariat SF, Matin SF et al. Outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy: a series from the upper tract urothelial carcinoma collaboration. Cancer 2009; 115: 1224–1233
Veeratterapillay R, Geraghty R, Pandian R et al. Ten‐year survival outcomes after radical nephroureterectomy with a risk‐stratified approach using prior diagnostic ureteroscopy: a single‐institution observational retrospective cohort study. BJU Int 2022; 129: 744–751
Seisen T, Granger B, Colin P et al. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of clinicopathologic factors linked to intravesical recurrence after radical nephroureterectomy to treat upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 1122–1133
Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Dominguez‐Escrig JL et al. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy versus open radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: An European Association of Urology guidelines systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 5: 205–223
Phé V, Cussenot O, Bitker M, Rouprêt M. Does the surgical technique for management of the distal ureter influence the outcome after nephroureterectomy? BJU Int 2011; 108: 130–138
Rosiello G, Palumbo C, Knipper S et al. Contemporary conditional cancer‐specific survival after radical nephroureterectomy in patients with nonmetastatic urothelial carcinoma of upper urinary tract. J Surg Oncol 2020; 121(7): 1154–1161
Pearce SM, Pariser JJ, Patel SG, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL, Smith ND. The effect of surgical approach on performance of lymphadenectomy and perioperative morbidity for radical nephroureterectomy. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: 121.e15–121.e21
Veccia A, Carbonara U, Derweesh I et al. Single‐stage Xi® robotic radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: surgical technique and outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2022; 74: 233–241