• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

En Bloc Resection for Bladder Tumors: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Its Differential Effect on Safety, Recurrence and Histopathology

T. Yanagisawa, K. Mori, RS. Motlagh, T. Kawada, H. Mostafaei, F. Quhal, E. Laukhtina, P. Rajwa, A. Aydh, F. König, M. Pallauf, B. Pradere, D. D'Andrea, E. Compérat, J. Miki, T. Kimura, S. Egawa, SF. Shariat

. 2022 ; 207 (4) : 754-768. [pub] 20220121

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22010717

PURPOSE: En bloc resection for bladder tumors has been developed to overcome shortcomings of conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors with regard to safety, pathological evaluation and oncologic outcomes. However, the potential benefits and utility compared to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors have not been conclusively demonstrated. We aimed to update the current evidence with focus on the pathological benefits of en bloc resection for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed®, Web of ScienceTM and Scopus® databases were searched in August 2021 according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared safety, and pathological and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent en bloc resection with conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors. RESULTS: Overall, 29 studies comprising 4,484 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. Among 13 randomized controlled trials, the pooled 12- and 24-month recurrence risk ratios were not statistically different between the 2 surgical techniques (0.96, 95% CI 0.74-1.23 and 0.83, 95% CI 0.55-1.23, respectively). The pooled risk ratio for bladder perforation was 0.13 (95% CI 0.05-0.34) in favor of en bloc resection. In randomized controlled trials, the differential rates of detrusor muscle presence (pooled RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.43) and of detectable muscularis mucosae (pooled RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.81-3.97) were more likely in patients receiving en bloc resection. Patients who underwent en bloc resection had a lower rate of residual tumor at repeat transurethral resection than those treated with conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors in 1 randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies (pooled RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: En bloc resection for bladder tumors seems to be safer, and to yield superior histopathological information and performance compared to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors. Despite the failure to improve the recurrence rate, the more accurate histopathological analysis is likely to improve clinical decision making and care delivery in nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22010717
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220506130056.0
007      
ta
008      
220425s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1097/JU.0000000000002444 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)35060770
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Yanagisawa, Takafumi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan $1 https://orcid.org/0000000274100712
245    10
$a En Bloc Resection for Bladder Tumors: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Its Differential Effect on Safety, Recurrence and Histopathology / $c T. Yanagisawa, K. Mori, RS. Motlagh, T. Kawada, H. Mostafaei, F. Quhal, E. Laukhtina, P. Rajwa, A. Aydh, F. König, M. Pallauf, B. Pradere, D. D'Andrea, E. Compérat, J. Miki, T. Kimura, S. Egawa, SF. Shariat
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: En bloc resection for bladder tumors has been developed to overcome shortcomings of conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors with regard to safety, pathological evaluation and oncologic outcomes. However, the potential benefits and utility compared to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors have not been conclusively demonstrated. We aimed to update the current evidence with focus on the pathological benefits of en bloc resection for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed®, Web of ScienceTM and Scopus® databases were searched in August 2021 according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared safety, and pathological and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent en bloc resection with conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors. RESULTS: Overall, 29 studies comprising 4,484 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. Among 13 randomized controlled trials, the pooled 12- and 24-month recurrence risk ratios were not statistically different between the 2 surgical techniques (0.96, 95% CI 0.74-1.23 and 0.83, 95% CI 0.55-1.23, respectively). The pooled risk ratio for bladder perforation was 0.13 (95% CI 0.05-0.34) in favor of en bloc resection. In randomized controlled trials, the differential rates of detrusor muscle presence (pooled RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.43) and of detectable muscularis mucosae (pooled RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.81-3.97) were more likely in patients receiving en bloc resection. Patients who underwent en bloc resection had a lower rate of residual tumor at repeat transurethral resection than those treated with conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors in 1 randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies (pooled RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: En bloc resection for bladder tumors seems to be safer, and to yield superior histopathological information and performance compared to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors. Despite the failure to improve the recurrence rate, the more accurate histopathological analysis is likely to improve clinical decision making and care delivery in nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer.
650    _2
$a cystektomie $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D015653
650    _2
$a progrese nemoci $7 D018450
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a resekční okraje $7 D000072662
650    _2
$a sliznice $x patologie $7 D009092
650    _2
$a invazivní růst nádoru $7 D009361
650    _2
$a lokální recidiva nádoru $7 D009364
650    _2
$a reziduální nádor $7 D018365
650    _2
$a délka operace $7 D061646
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $7 D011183
650    _2
$a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
650    _2
$a močový měchýř $x zranění $7 D001743
650    _2
$a nádory močového měchýře $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D001749
650    _2
$a katetrizace močového měchýře $7 D014546
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Motlagh, Reza Sari $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Men's Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
700    1_
$a Kawada, Tatsushi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
700    1_
$a Mostafaei, Hadi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
700    1_
$a Quhal, Fahad $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
700    1_
$a Laukhtina, Ekaterina $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
700    1_
$a Rajwa, Pawel $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
700    1_
$a Aydh, Abdulmajeed $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, King Faisal Medical City, Abha, Saudi Arabia
700    1_
$a König, Frederik $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Pallauf, Maximilian $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
700    1_
$a Pradere, Benjamin $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a D'Andrea, David $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Compérat, Eva $u Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Miki, Jun $u Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Kimura, Takahiro $u Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Egawa, Shin $u Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia $u Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria
773    0_
$w MED00003040 $t The Journal of urology $x 1527-3792 $g Roč. 207, č. 4 (2022), s. 754-768
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35060770 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220425 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220506130048 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1788724 $s 1161915
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 207 $c 4 $d 754-768 $e 20220121 $i 1527-3792 $m The Journal of urology $n J Urol $x MED00003040
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220425

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace