Search

INTRODUCTION: Elective pelvic nodal irradiation for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing trimodal therapy (TMT) is controversial. In patients with node-negative (N0) MIBC, the benefit of elective whole-pelvis concurrent chemoradiation (WP-CCR) compared to bladder-only (BO)-CCR has not been demonstrated. Using realworld data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we sought to compare the overall survival (OS) between BO-CCR and WP-CCR for MIBC. METHODS: Using the 2020 NCDB Participant User File, we identified cases of MIBC diagnosed between 2017 and 2019. We selected patients with clinical T2-T4aN0M0 disease receiving CCR as first-line treatment. CCR was defined as transurethral resection of bladder tumor followed by =40 Gy radiation to the bladder with concurrent single- or multiple-agent chemotherapy. Based on elective nodal irradiation status, patients were stratified as having received BO-CCR vs. WP-CCR. OS analysis was performed using summary three-month conditional landmark, inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 604 patients receiving CCR for MIBC were identified: 367 (60.8%) BO-CCR and 237 (39.2%) WP-CCR. Before IPTW, the groups were imbalanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The median followup of the weighted population was 42.3 months (interquartile range 18.1-49.1 months). In IPTW-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, WP-CCR was associated with a significant OS benefit compared to BO-CCR (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.96, p=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of CCR for N0 MIBC, this retrospective NCDB analysis revealed that WP-CCR was associated with a benefit in OS compared to BO-CCR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There are no meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing open radical cystectomy (ORC) with robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), inclusive of both intracorporeal (iRARC) and extracorporeal (hybrid RARC, hRARC) urinary reconstruction. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched in May 2022. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-or progression-free survival (RFS/PFS), margin status and lymph node yield, mean estimated blood loss (EBL) and operating room time (ORT), hospital length of stay (LOS), 90-day complications and readmissions, and quality of life (QoL). Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models and Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models, respectively. Results: We found no significant differences between RARC and ORC for oncological and most perioperative outcomes: RFS/PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.23); positive surgical margins (odds ratio [OR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.60-1.85); lymph node yield (mean difference [MD] -0.63, 95% CI -2.63-1.37); LOS (MD -0.22, 95% CI -1.10-0.65); overall complications (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61-1.07); major complications (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.30); readmissions (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60-1.35); and QoL (standardized MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17-0.14). We found significantly lower EBL for RARC compared to ORC (MD -312.61, 95% CI - 447 to -178.22) at the expense of significantly prolonged ORT (MD 82.34 minutes, 95% CI 44.82-119.86). Network meta-analysis did not find significant differences in complications between hRARC and iRARC. Conclusions: This meta-analysis confirms the equivalence of RARC and ORC with respect to oncological outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]