Repeat Transurethral Resection for Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in the Contemporary Era

. 2024 Jan ; 10 (1) : 41-56. [epub] 20230724

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium print-electronic

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid37495458
Odkazy

PubMed 37495458
DOI 10.1016/j.euf.2023.07.002
PII: S2405-4569(23)00173-6
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

CONTEXT: Repeat transurethral resection (reTUR) is a guideline-recommended treatment strategy in high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT); however, the impact of recent procedural/technological developments on reTUR outcomes has not been assessed yet. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of reTUR for NMIBC in the contemporary era, focusing on whether temporal differences and technical advancement, specifically, photodynamic diagnosis and en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT), affect the outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Multiple databases were queried in February 2023 for studies investigating reTUR outcomes, such as residual tumor and/or upstaging rates, its predictive factors, and oncologic outcomes, including recurrence-free (RFS), progression-free (PFS), cancer-specific (CSS), and overall (OS) survival. We synthesized comparative outcomes adjusting for the effect of possible confounders. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 81 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. In T1 patients initially treated with conventional TURBT (cTURBT) in the 2010s, the pooled rates of any residual tumors and upstaging on reTUR were 31.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.0-37.2%) and 2.8% (95% CI: 2.0-3.8%), respectively. Despite a potential publication bias, these rates were significantly lower than those in patients treated in the 1990-2000s (both p < 0.001). ERBT and visual enhancement-guided cTURBT significantly improved any residual tumor rates on reTUR compared with cTURBT based on both matched-cohort and multivariable analyses. Among studies adjusting for the effect of possible confounders, patients who underwent reTUR had better RFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.97) and OS (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.93) than those who did not, while it did not lead to superior PFS (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.47-1.15) and CSS (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: reTUR is currently recommended for high-risk NMIBC based on the persistent high rates of residual tumors after primary resection. Improvement of resection quality based on checklist applications and recent technical/procedural advancements hold the promise to omit reTUR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Recent endoscopic/procedural developments improve the outcomes of repeat resection for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Further investigations are urgently needed to clarify the potential impact of the use of these techniques on the need for repeat transurethral resection in the contemporary era.

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit Division of Urology University of Montreal Health Center Montreal Canada

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Clinic of Urology and Urological Oncology Jagiellonian University Krakow Poland

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology La Croix Du Sud Hospital Quint Fonsegrives France

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology Medical University of Silesia Zabrze Poland

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences Okayama Japan

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology The Jikei University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health Sechenov University Moscow Russia

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health Sechenov University Moscow Russia; Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research Al Ahliyya Amman University Amman Jordan; Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX USA; Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic; Department of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York NY USA; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology Vienna Austria

Department of Urology IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital and Vita Salute San Raffaele University Milan Italy

Department of Urology The Jikei University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan

S H Ho Urology Centre Department of Surgery The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong China

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...