• Something wrong with this record ?

Comparison of Clinicopathologic and Oncological Outcomes Between Transurethral En Bloc Resection and Conventional Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Network Meta-Analysis with Focus on Different Energy Sources

R. Sari Motlagh, P. Rajwa, K. Mori, E. Laukhtina, A. Aydh, S. Katayama, T. Yanagisawa, F. König, NC. Grossmann, B. Pradere, H. Mostafai, F. Quhal, PI. Karakiewicz, M. Babjuk, SF. Shariat

. 2022 ; 36 (4) : 535-547. [pub] 20211116

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22018994

Introduction: It has been hypothesized that transurethral en bloc (TUEB) of bladder tumor offers benefits over conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor (cTURBT). This study aimed to compare disease outcomes of TUEB and cTURBT with focus on the different energy sources. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed and Web of Science databases in June 2021. Studies that compared the pathological (detrusor muscle presence), oncological (recurrence rates) efficacy, and safety (serious adverse events [SAEs]) of TUEB and cTURBT were included. Random- and fixed-effects meta-analytic models and Bayesian approach in the network meta-analysis was used. Results: Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and seven non-RCTs (NRCT), with a total of 2092 patients. The pooled 3- and 12-month recurrence risk ratios (RR) of five and four NRCTs were 0.46 (95% CI 0.29-0.73) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.96), respectively. The pooled 3- and 12-month recurrence RRs of four and seven RCTs were 0.57 (95% CI 0.25-1.27) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.69-1.15), respectively. The pooled RR for SAEs such as prolonged hematuria and bladder perforation of seven RCTs was 0.16 (95% CI 0.06-0.41) in benefit of TUEB. Seven RCTs (n = 1077) met our eligibility criteria for network meta-analysis. There was no difference in 12-month recurrence rates between hybridknife, laser, and bipolar TUEB compared with cTURBT. Contrary, laser TUEB was significantly associated with lower SAEs compared with cTURBT. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking analyses showed with high certainty that laser TUEB was the best treatment option to access all endpoints. Conclusion: While NRCTs suggested a recurrence-free benefit to TUEB compared with cTURBT, RCTs failed to confirm this. Conversely, SAEs were consistently and clinically significantly better for TUEB. Network meta-analyses suggested laser TUEB has the best performance compared with other energy sources. These early findings need to be confirmed and expanded upon.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22018994
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220804135243.0
007      
ta
008      
220720s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1089/end.2021.0688 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34693740
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Sari Motlagh, Reza $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Men's Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran $1 https://orcid.org/0000000238199911
245    10
$a Comparison of Clinicopathologic and Oncological Outcomes Between Transurethral En Bloc Resection and Conventional Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Network Meta-Analysis with Focus on Different Energy Sources / $c R. Sari Motlagh, P. Rajwa, K. Mori, E. Laukhtina, A. Aydh, S. Katayama, T. Yanagisawa, F. König, NC. Grossmann, B. Pradere, H. Mostafai, F. Quhal, PI. Karakiewicz, M. Babjuk, SF. Shariat
520    9_
$a Introduction: It has been hypothesized that transurethral en bloc (TUEB) of bladder tumor offers benefits over conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor (cTURBT). This study aimed to compare disease outcomes of TUEB and cTURBT with focus on the different energy sources. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed and Web of Science databases in June 2021. Studies that compared the pathological (detrusor muscle presence), oncological (recurrence rates) efficacy, and safety (serious adverse events [SAEs]) of TUEB and cTURBT were included. Random- and fixed-effects meta-analytic models and Bayesian approach in the network meta-analysis was used. Results: Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and seven non-RCTs (NRCT), with a total of 2092 patients. The pooled 3- and 12-month recurrence risk ratios (RR) of five and four NRCTs were 0.46 (95% CI 0.29-0.73) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.96), respectively. The pooled 3- and 12-month recurrence RRs of four and seven RCTs were 0.57 (95% CI 0.25-1.27) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.69-1.15), respectively. The pooled RR for SAEs such as prolonged hematuria and bladder perforation of seven RCTs was 0.16 (95% CI 0.06-0.41) in benefit of TUEB. Seven RCTs (n = 1077) met our eligibility criteria for network meta-analysis. There was no difference in 12-month recurrence rates between hybridknife, laser, and bipolar TUEB compared with cTURBT. Contrary, laser TUEB was significantly associated with lower SAEs compared with cTURBT. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking analyses showed with high certainty that laser TUEB was the best treatment option to access all endpoints. Conclusion: While NRCTs suggested a recurrence-free benefit to TUEB compared with cTURBT, RCTs failed to confirm this. Conversely, SAEs were consistently and clinically significantly better for TUEB. Network meta-analyses suggested laser TUEB has the best performance compared with other energy sources. These early findings need to be confirmed and expanded upon.
650    _2
$a cystektomie $x škodlivé účinky $7 D015653
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a síťová metaanalýza $7 D000071076
650    12
$a nádory močového měchýře $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D001749
650    _2
$a urologické chirurgické výkony $7 D013520
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Rajwa, Pawel $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
700    1_
$a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Laukhtina, Ekaterina $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
700    1_
$a Aydh, Abdulmajeed $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, King Faisal Medical City, Abha, Saudi Arabia
700    1_
$a Katayama, Satoshi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, 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 Yanagisawa, Takafumi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a König, Frederik $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Grossmann, Nico C $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland $1 https://orcid.org/0000000186986461
700    1_
$a Pradere, Benjamin $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $1 https://orcid.org/0000000277688558
700    1_
$a Mostafai, Hadi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, 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, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
700    1_
$a Karakiewicz, Pierre I $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada
700    1_
$a Babjuk, Marek $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Motol University Hospital, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Praha, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria
773    0_
$w MED00002655 $t Journal of endourology $x 1557-900X $g Roč. 36, č. 4 (2022), s. 535-547
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34693740 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220720 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220804135236 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1822550 $s 1170237
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 36 $c 4 $d 535-547 $e 20211116 $i 1557-900X $m Journal of endourology $n J Endourol $x MED00002655
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220720
Back

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options