• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy Versus Open Radical Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An European Association of Urology Guidelines Systematic Review

B. Peyronnet, T. Seisen, JL. Dominguez-Escrig, HM. Bruins, CY. Yuan, T. Lam, S. Maclennan, J. N'dow, M. Babjuk, E. Comperat, R. Zigeuner, RJ. Sylvester, M. Burger, H. Mostafid, BWG. van Rhijn, P. Gontero, J. Palou, SF. Shariat, M. Roupret,

. 2019 ; 5 (2) : 205-223. [pub] 20171115

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19045584

CONTEXT: Most series have suggested better perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) over open RNU. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic RNU remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of open versus laparoscopic RNU. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases and clinicaltrial.gov was performed in December 2014 and updated in August 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective nonrandomised comparative studies comparing the oncological outcomes of any laparoscopic RNU with those of open RNU were included. The primary outcome was cancer-specific survival. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane RoB tools. A narrative synthesis of the evidence is presented. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 42 studies were included, which accounted for 7554 patients: 4925 in the open groups and 2629 in the laparoscopic groups. Most included studies were retrospective comparative series. Only one RCT was found. RoB and confounding were high in most studies. No study compared the oncological outcomes of robotic RNU with those of open RNU. Bladder cuff excision in laparoscopic groups was performed via an open approach in most studies, with only three studies reporting laparoscopic removal of the bladder cuff. Port-site metastasis rates ranged from 0% to 2.8%. No significant difference in oncological outcomes was reported in most series. However, three studies, including the only RCT, reported significantly poorer oncological outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic RNU, especially in the subgroups of patients with locally advanced (pT3/pT4) or high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), as well as in instances when the bladder cuff was excised laparoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: The current available evidence suggests that the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic RNU may be poorer than those of open RNU when bladder cuff is excised laparoscopically and in patients with locally advanced high-risk (pT3/pT4 and/or high-grade) UTUC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature comparing the outcomes of two different surgical procedures for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Open radical nephroureterectomy is a surgical procedure in which the kidney is removed through a large incision in the abdomen, while in laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy, the kidney is removed through a number of small incisions. Our findings suggest that the outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy may be poorer than those of open radical nephroureterectomy, particularly when the bladder cuff is also required to be removed. Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy may also be less effective in patients with locally advanced (pT3/pT4) or high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinomas.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19045584
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20200114083349.0
007      
ta
008      
200109s2019 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.003 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)29154042
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Peyronnet, Benoit $u Department of Urology, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France. Electronic address: peyronnetbenoit@hotmail.fr.
245    10
$a Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy Versus Open Radical Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An European Association of Urology Guidelines Systematic Review / $c B. Peyronnet, T. Seisen, JL. Dominguez-Escrig, HM. Bruins, CY. Yuan, T. Lam, S. Maclennan, J. N'dow, M. Babjuk, E. Comperat, R. Zigeuner, RJ. Sylvester, M. Burger, H. Mostafid, BWG. van Rhijn, P. Gontero, J. Palou, SF. Shariat, M. Roupret,
520    9_
$a CONTEXT: Most series have suggested better perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) over open RNU. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic RNU remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of open versus laparoscopic RNU. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases and clinicaltrial.gov was performed in December 2014 and updated in August 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective nonrandomised comparative studies comparing the oncological outcomes of any laparoscopic RNU with those of open RNU were included. The primary outcome was cancer-specific survival. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane RoB tools. A narrative synthesis of the evidence is presented. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 42 studies were included, which accounted for 7554 patients: 4925 in the open groups and 2629 in the laparoscopic groups. Most included studies were retrospective comparative series. Only one RCT was found. RoB and confounding were high in most studies. No study compared the oncological outcomes of robotic RNU with those of open RNU. Bladder cuff excision in laparoscopic groups was performed via an open approach in most studies, with only three studies reporting laparoscopic removal of the bladder cuff. Port-site metastasis rates ranged from 0% to 2.8%. No significant difference in oncological outcomes was reported in most series. However, three studies, including the only RCT, reported significantly poorer oncological outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic RNU, especially in the subgroups of patients with locally advanced (pT3/pT4) or high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), as well as in instances when the bladder cuff was excised laparoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: The current available evidence suggests that the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic RNU may be poorer than those of open RNU when bladder cuff is excised laparoscopically and in patients with locally advanced high-risk (pT3/pT4 and/or high-grade) UTUC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature comparing the outcomes of two different surgical procedures for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Open radical nephroureterectomy is a surgical procedure in which the kidney is removed through a large incision in the abdomen, while in laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy, the kidney is removed through a number of small incisions. Our findings suggest that the outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy may be poorer than those of open radical nephroureterectomy, particularly when the bladder cuff is also required to be removed. Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy may also be less effective in patients with locally advanced (pT3/pT4) or high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinomas.
650    _2
$a karcinom z přechodných buněk $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D002295
650    _2
$a přežití bez známek nemoci $7 D018572
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a laparoskopie $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D010535
650    _2
$a nefroureterektomie $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D000074682
650    _2
$a perioperační období $7 D059035
650    _2
$a směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma $7 D017410
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
650    _2
$a recidiva $7 D012008
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a nádory močovodu $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D014516
650    _2
$a močový měchýř $x chirurgie $7 D001743
650    _2
$a urologie $x organizace a řízení $7 D014572
651    _2
$a Evropa $x epidemiologie $7 D005060
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Seisen, Thomas $u Department of Urology, La Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, France.
700    1_
$a Dominguez-Escrig, Jose-Luis $u Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.
700    1_
$a Bruins, Harman Max $u Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Yuan, Cathy Yuhong $u Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
700    1_
$a Lam, Thomas $u Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
700    1_
$a Maclennan, Steven $u Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
700    1_
$a N'dow, James $u Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
700    1_
$a Babjuk, Marko $u Department of Urology, Hospital Motol, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Comperat, Eva $u Department of Pathology, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France.
700    1_
$a Zigeuner, Richard $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
700    1_
$a Sylvester, Richard J $u European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Brussels, Belgium.
700    1_
$a Burger, Maximilian $u Department of Urology, Caritas St. Josef Medical Centre, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
700    1_
$a Mostafid, Hugh $u Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
700    1_
$a van Rhijn, Bas W G $u Department of Surgical Oncology (Urology), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Gontero, Paolo $u Department of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
700    1_
$a Palou, Joan $u Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
700    1_
$a Shariat, Sharokh F $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Roupret, Morgan $u Department of Urology, La Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, France.
773    0_
$w MED00193513 $t European urology focus $x 2405-4569 $g Roč. 5, č. 2 (2019), s. 205-223
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29154042 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20200109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20200114083721 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1483852 $s 1084257
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2019 $b 5 $c 2 $d 205-223 $e 20171115 $i 2405-4569 $m European urology focus $n Eur Urol Focus $x MED00193513
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20200109

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace