The impact of bladder cuff management on oncologic outcomes following radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma
A systematic review and meta-analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9145Keywords:
urothelial cancer, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, radical nephroureterectomy, bladder cuff excision, intravesical recurrenceAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Bladder cuff excision (BCE) is an integral component of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). While many approaches have been described, the optimal technique for BCE to provide maximal oncologic control remains unanswered. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of different BCE techniques.
METHODS: The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing oncologic outcomes of RNU for UTUC based on different BCE approaches. Techniques for BCE were categorized as intravesical, extravesical, or endoscopic. Our primary outcomes were intravesical recurrence rate (IVR) and intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Meta-analysis was performed to compare the recurrence rates and survival outcomes associated with different BCE techniques.
RESULTS: Forty studies assessing a total of 17 168 patients were identified for inclusion. Open intravesical BCE was associated with superior univariate IVRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.42, p=0.04, I2=43%), multivariate IVRFS (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16-1.80, p<0.0001, I2=75%), univariate RFS (HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.04-5.10, p=0.0002, I2=71%), and multivariate CSS (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.22-2.15, p=0.33, I2=14%) when compared to non-intravesical techniques. Subgroup analysis revealed that this difference was primarily driven by the inferiority of the open extravesical approach. Endoscopic and non-endoscopic BCE demonstrated equivalent univariate and multivariate IVRFS, RFS, and CSS.
CONCLUSIONS: Open intravesical BCE is associated with superior oncologic outcomes when compared to non-intravesical techniques. This difference is primarily driven by the open intravesical approach’s superiority to the open extravesical approach. Endoscopic BCE showed equivalent outcomes when compared to non-endoscopic approaches. Prospective randomized trials can shed further light on the optimal approach to BCE.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.
