Randomized clinical trial on the use of IMAGE1 S LIGHT (SPIES) vs. white light in the prevention of recurrence during transurethral resection of bladder tumors: Analysis after 12-month follow-up
{"title":"Randomized clinical trial on the use of IMAGE1 S LIGHT (SPIES) vs. white light in the prevention of recurrence during transurethral resection of bladder tumors: Analysis after 12-month follow-up","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.acuroe.2023.12.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The improved image resolution of IMAGE1 S technology will increase tumor detection, achieve a greater number of complete resections, and would probably have an impact on the reduction of recurrences.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p><span>The primary objective was to compare the recurrence rates of IMAGE1 S vs. white light during transurethral resection of the </span>bladder (TUR); the secondary objective was to compare the complication rates according to Clavien-Dindo (CD) at 12 months of follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Prospective, randomized 1:1, blinded clinical trial<span>. Recurrence and complication rates according to CD were analyzed using chi-square/U Mann-Whitney tests and recurrence-free survival (RFS) using Kaplan-Meier curves. The European Association of Urology (EAU) 2021 scoring model was used.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The analysis included 103 participants; 49 were assigned to the IMAGE1 S group and 54 to the white light group. Recurrence rates were 12.2% and 25.9%, respectively (<em>P</em><span> = .080). The low and intermediate risk group had a lower recurrence rate with IMAGE1 S (7.7% vs. 30.8%, </span><em>P</em> = .003) and a higher RFS with IMAGE1 S (85.2% vs. 62.8% Log Rank: 0.021), with a Hazard Ratio of 0.215 (95% CI: 0.046−0.925). No differences were observed in the high and very high-risk groups. Complications were mostly grade I and rates were similar between both groups (IMAGE1 S 20.4% vs. white light 7.4% <em>P</em> = .083).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There were no differences in the recurrence rates between groups. However, the low and intermediate risk group had a lower recurrence rate with IMAGE1 S. In addition, perioperative complication rates were not higher.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94291,"journal":{"name":"Actas urologicas espanolas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actas urologicas espanolas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173578623001415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
The improved image resolution of IMAGE1 S technology will increase tumor detection, achieve a greater number of complete resections, and would probably have an impact on the reduction of recurrences.
Aim
The primary objective was to compare the recurrence rates of IMAGE1 S vs. white light during transurethral resection of the bladder (TUR); the secondary objective was to compare the complication rates according to Clavien-Dindo (CD) at 12 months of follow-up.
Methods
Prospective, randomized 1:1, blinded clinical trial. Recurrence and complication rates according to CD were analyzed using chi-square/U Mann-Whitney tests and recurrence-free survival (RFS) using Kaplan-Meier curves. The European Association of Urology (EAU) 2021 scoring model was used.
Results
The analysis included 103 participants; 49 were assigned to the IMAGE1 S group and 54 to the white light group. Recurrence rates were 12.2% and 25.9%, respectively (P = .080). The low and intermediate risk group had a lower recurrence rate with IMAGE1 S (7.7% vs. 30.8%, P = .003) and a higher RFS with IMAGE1 S (85.2% vs. 62.8% Log Rank: 0.021), with a Hazard Ratio of 0.215 (95% CI: 0.046−0.925). No differences were observed in the high and very high-risk groups. Complications were mostly grade I and rates were similar between both groups (IMAGE1 S 20.4% vs. white light 7.4% P = .083).
Conclusions
There were no differences in the recurrence rates between groups. However, the low and intermediate risk group had a lower recurrence rate with IMAGE1 S. In addition, perioperative complication rates were not higher.