Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

En Bloc Resection Versus Conventional TURBT for T1HG Bladder Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

T. Yanagisawa, A. Matsukawa, K. Iwatani, S. Sato, Y. Hayashida, Y. Okada, T. Yorozu, W. Fukuokaya, K. Sakanaka, F. Urabe, S. Kimura, S. Tsuzuki, M. Shimoda, H. Takahashi, J. Miki, SF. Shariat, T. Kimura

. 2023 ; 30 (6) : 3820-3828. [pub] 20230310

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23011276
E-resources Online Full text

NLK Free Medical Journals from 1994 to 24 months ago
ProQuest Central from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2009-07-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago

Links

PubMed 36897417
DOI 10.1245/s10434-023-13227-7
Knihovny.cz E-resources

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the clinical, oncological, and pathological impact of en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) compared with conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors (cTURBT) for pT1 high-grade (HG) bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the record of 326 patients (cTURBT: n = 216, ERBT: n = 110) diagnosed with pT1 HG bladder cancer at multiple institutions. The cohorts were matched by one-to-one propensity scores based on patient and tumor demographics. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared. The prognosticators of RFS and PFS were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: After matching, 202 patients (cTURBT: n = 101, ERBT: n = 101) were retained. There were no differences in perioperative outcomes between the two procedures. The 3-year RFS, PFS, and CSS were not different between the two procedures (p = 0.7, 1, and 0.7, respectively). Among patients who underwent repeat transurethral resection (reTUR), the rate of any residue on reTUR was significantly lower in the ERBT group (cTURBT: 36% versus ERBT: 15%, p = 0.029). Adequate sampling of muscularis propria (83% versus 93%, p = 0.029) and diagnostic rates of pT1a/b substaging (90% versus 100%, p < 0.001) were significantly better in ERBT specimen compared with cTURBT specimen. On multivariable analyses, pT1a/b substaging was a prognosticator of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pT1HG bladder cancer, ERBT had similar perioperative and mid-term oncologic outcomes compared with cTURBT. However, ERBT improves the quality of resection and specimen, yielding less residue on reTUR and yielding superior histopathologic information such as substaging.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23011276
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230801132925.0
007      
ta
008      
230718s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1245/s10434-023-13227-7 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)36897417
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, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $1 https://orcid.org/0000000274100712
245    10
$a En Bloc Resection Versus Conventional TURBT for T1HG Bladder Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis / $c T. Yanagisawa, A. Matsukawa, K. Iwatani, S. Sato, Y. Hayashida, Y. Okada, T. Yorozu, W. Fukuokaya, K. Sakanaka, F. Urabe, S. Kimura, S. Tsuzuki, M. Shimoda, H. Takahashi, J. Miki, SF. Shariat, T. Kimura
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the clinical, oncological, and pathological impact of en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) compared with conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors (cTURBT) for pT1 high-grade (HG) bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the record of 326 patients (cTURBT: n = 216, ERBT: n = 110) diagnosed with pT1 HG bladder cancer at multiple institutions. The cohorts were matched by one-to-one propensity scores based on patient and tumor demographics. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared. The prognosticators of RFS and PFS were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: After matching, 202 patients (cTURBT: n = 101, ERBT: n = 101) were retained. There were no differences in perioperative outcomes between the two procedures. The 3-year RFS, PFS, and CSS were not different between the two procedures (p = 0.7, 1, and 0.7, respectively). Among patients who underwent repeat transurethral resection (reTUR), the rate of any residue on reTUR was significantly lower in the ERBT group (cTURBT: 36% versus ERBT: 15%, p = 0.029). Adequate sampling of muscularis propria (83% versus 93%, p = 0.029) and diagnostic rates of pT1a/b substaging (90% versus 100%, p < 0.001) were significantly better in ERBT specimen compared with cTURBT specimen. On multivariable analyses, pT1a/b substaging was a prognosticator of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pT1HG bladder cancer, ERBT had similar perioperative and mid-term oncologic outcomes compared with cTURBT. However, ERBT improves the quality of resection and specimen, yielding less residue on reTUR and yielding superior histopathologic information such as substaging.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a tendenční skóre $7 D057216
650    12
$a nádory močového měchýře $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D001749
650    _2
$a cystektomie $7 D015653
650    _2
$a urologické chirurgické výkony $x metody $7 D013520
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Matsukawa, Akihiro $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Iwatani, Kosuke $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Sato, Shun $u Department of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Hayashida, Yasushi $u Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization Ureshino Medical Center, Saga, Japan
700    1_
$a Okada, Yohei $u Department of Urology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
700    1_
$a Yorozu, Takashi $u Department of Anatomic Pathology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Fukuokaya, Wataru $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Sakanaka, Keigo $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Urabe, Fumihiko $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Kimura, Shoji $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Tsuzuki, Shunsuke $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Shimoda, Masayuki $u Department of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Takahashi, Hiroyuki $u Department of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Miki, Jun $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. junmiki.jikei@gmail.com
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, TX, USA $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Kimura, Takahiro $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
773    0_
$w MED00000441 $t Annals of surgical oncology $x 1534-4681 $g Roč. 30, č. 6 (2023), s. 3820-3828
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36897417 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230718 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230801132922 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1963586 $s 1197541
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 30 $c 6 $d 3820-3828 $e 20230310 $i 1534-4681 $m Annals of surgical oncology $n Ann Surg Oncol $x MED00000441
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230718

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options