Comparison of oncological and perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic nephroureterectomy approaches in patients with non-metastatic upper-tract urothelial carcinoma

Hakmin Lee, Hak Ju Kim, Sang Eun Lee, Sung Kyu Hong, Seok-Soo Byun, Hakmin Lee, Hak Ju Kim, Sang Eun Lee, Sung Kyu Hong, Seok-Soo Byun

Abstract

Background: To compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of different nephroureterectomy approaches in patients with non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 422 patients who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic nephroureterectomy for non-metastatic UTUC. Perioperative and postoperative survival outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox-proportional hazard models.

Results: Of the patients, 161, 137, and 124 were treated with an open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach, respectively. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches involved significantly less blood loss (p = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001), and longer operation time (p < 0.001) compared with the open approach. There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications (open, 8.1%; laparoscopic, 5.1%; robotic, 7.3%; p = 0.363) or early postoperative complications (open, 14.9%; laparoscopic, 14.6%; robotic, 13.7%; p = 0.880). The laparoscopic and robotic groups showed significantly less postoperative analgesic use (p = 0.015). The robotic group showed significantly longer progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survivals than the open approach group on univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis, but surgery type was not significantly associated with survival outcomes per multivariate Cox proportional tests (all p-values > 0.05).

Conclusion: The laparoscopic and robotic approaches yielded better perioperative outcomes, such as less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stays, less analgesic usage, and non-inferior oncological outcomes, compared with the open approach. Further prospective studies are needed to compare these surgical techniques.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Kaplan-Meier analysis of survival outcomes…
Fig 1. Kaplan-Meier analysis of survival outcomes of patients treated with nephroureterectomy for non-metastatic upper tract urothelial cell carcinoma.

References

    1. Raman JD, Messer J, Sielatycki JA, Hollenbeak CS. Incidence and survival of patients with carcinoma of the ureter and renal pelvis in the USA, 1973–2005. BJU int 2011;107: 1059–64. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09675.x
    1. Chen CY, Liao YM, Tsai WM, Kuo HC. Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma in eastern Taiwan: high proportion among all urothelial carcinomas and correlation with chronic kidney disease. J Formos Med Assoc. 2007;106:992–8. 10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60074-1
    1. Colin P, Koenig P, Ouzzane A, Berthon N, Villers A, Biserte J, et al. Environmental factors involved in carcinogenesis of urothelial cell carcinomas of the upper urinary tract. BJU Int. 2009;104:1436–40. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08838.x
    1. Tan LB, Chang LL, Cheng KI, Huang CH, Kwan AL. Transitional cell carcinomas of the renal pelvis and the ureter: comparative demographic characteristics, pathological grade and stage and 5-year survival in a Taiwanese population. BJU Int. 2009;103:312–6. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07985.x
    1. Margulis V, Shariat SF, Matin SF, Kamat AM, Zigeuner R, Kikuchi E, et al. Outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy: a series from the Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Collaboration. Cancer. 2009;115:1224–33. 10.1002/cncr.24135
    1. Jeldres C, Sun M, Isbarn H, Lughezzani G, Budäus L, Alasker A, et al. A population-based assessment of perioperative mortality after nephroureterectomy for upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. Urology. 2010;75:315–20. 10.1016/j.urology.2009.10.004
    1. Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Compérat E, Zigeuner R, Sylvester R, Burger M, et al. European guidelines on upper tract urothelial carcinomas: 2013 update. Eur Urol. 2013;63:1059–71. 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.032
    1. McNeill SA, Chrisofos M, Tolley DA. The long-term outcome after laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: a comparison with open nephroureterectomy. BJU Int. 2000;86:619–23.
    1. Stewart GD, Humphries KJ, Cutress ML, Riddick AC, McNeill SA, Tolley DA. Long-term comparative outcomes of open versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial-cell carcinoma after a median follow-up of 13 years. J Endourol. 2011;25:1329–35. 10.1089/end.2011.0223
    1. Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, Montironi R, Lin DW, Amin MB. Updates in the Eighth Edition of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging Classification for Urologic Cancers. Eur Urol. 2018. April;73(4):560–9. 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.018
    1. Lopez-Beltran A, Bassi P, Pavone-Macaluso M, Montironi R. Handling and pathology reporting of specimens with carcinoma of the urinary bladder, ureter, and renal pelvis. Eur Urol. 2004. March;45(3):257–66. 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.09.018
    1. Schatteman P, Chatzopoulos C, Assenmacher C, De Visscher L, Jorion JL, Blaze V, et al. Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy for Upper Urinary Tract Transitional Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Belgian Retrospective Multicentre Survey. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1633–8 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.09.016
    1. Rassweiler JJ, Teber D. Advances in laparoscopic surgery in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:387–99 10.1038/nrurol.2016.70
    1. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC. Robotic Surgery: A Current Perspective. Annals of Surgery. 2004;239:14–21. 10.1097/01.sla.0000103020.19595.7d
    1. Rose K, Khan S, Godbole H, Olsburgh J, Dasgupta P; GUY'S and St. Thomas' Robotics Group. Robotic assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephroureterectomydfirst experience and the hybrid port technique. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:12–4. 10.1111/j.1368-5031.2006.00703.x
    1. Nanigian DK, Smith W, Ellison LM. Robot-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy. J Endourol. 2006;20:463–5 10.1089/end.2006.20.463
    1. Eun D, Bhandari A, Boris R, Rogers C, Bhandari M, Menon M. Concurrent upper and lower urinary tract robotic surgery: strategies for success. BJU Int 2007; 100: 1121–5 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07105.x
    1. Rassweiler JJ, Schulze M, Marrero R, Frede T, Palou Redorta J, Bassi P. Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy for Upper UrinaryTract Transitional Cell Carcinoma: Is it Better than Open Surgery? Eur Urol. 2004;46:690–7. 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.08.006
    1. Capitanio U, Shariat SF, Isbarn H, Weizer A, Remzi M, Roscigno M, Kikuchi E, et al. Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes for Open and Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of 1249 Cases. Eur Urol. 2009;56:1–9. 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.072
    1. Ambani SN, Weizer AZ, Wolf JS Jr, et al. Matched Comparison of Robotic vs Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy: An Initial Experience. Urology. 2014;83:345–9. 10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.079
    1. Melquist JJ, Weizer AZ, Wolf JS Jr, He C, Miller DC, Montgomery JS. Comparison of Single-docking Robotic-assisted and Traditional Laparoscopy for Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection During Nephroureterectomy With Bladder Cuff Excision for Upper-tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Urology. 2016;87:216–23. 10.1016/j.urology.2015.07.070
    1. Kido K, Hatakeyama S, Fujita N, Yamamoto H, Tobisawa Y, Yoneyama T, et al. Oncologic outcomes for open and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018. February 12 10.1007/s10147-018-1248-9 [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Yun JE, Lee NR, Kwak C, Rha KH, Seo SI, Hong SH, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs of robotic surgery in prostate cancer: a multi institutional study in Korea. 2018. May 4 10.1016/j.prnil.2018.04.004. [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Chang SL, Kibel AS, Brooks JD, Chung BI. The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA. BJU Int. 2015. June;115(6):929–36. 10.1111/bju.12850 Epub 2014 Aug 26.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa