David E Hinojosa-Gonzalez, Gal Saffati, Eric Wahlstedt, Madeline Chaput, Sagar R Patel, Gustavo Salgado-Garza, Shane Kronstedt, Michal R Segall, Juan C Angulo-Lozano, Jeffrey A Jones, Jennifer M Taylor, Jeremy R Slawin
{"title":"盆腔器官保留根治性膀胱切除术与标准根治性膀胱切除术的肿瘤学结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"David E Hinojosa-Gonzalez, Gal Saffati, Eric Wahlstedt, Madeline Chaput, Sagar R Patel, Gustavo Salgado-Garza, Shane Kronstedt, Michal R Segall, Juan C Angulo-Lozano, Jeffrey A Jones, Jennifer M Taylor, Jeremy R Slawin","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.09.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Radical Cystectomy is indicated in muscle-invasive bladder cancer and select cases of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Women often undergo additional reproductive organ removal, greatly impacting sexual function and quality of life. Pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy aims to mitigate these effects, but its oncologic outcomes are not well-defined. This presents a meta-analysis of available literature on oncological outcomes of pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy in women with muscle invasive disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies comparing oncological outcomes between pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy and standard radical cystectomy in women with muscle-invasive bladder cancer or high-risk or recurrent nonmuscle invasive cancer. The search included English or Spanish studies, statistically comparing overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival. Statistical analysis used Review Manager, employing fixed or random-effects models based on heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Six retrospective studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 597 patients of which 303 received pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy and 294 received standard radical cystectomy. Overall Survival was not different between the 2 groups (HR 1.05 [0.77, 1.43]; P = 0.77). Cancer-Specific Survival also was found to be not different between the 2 groups (HR 1.27 [0.86, 1.87]; P = 0.22). Additionally, recurrence-free survival was not different between the 2 groups (HR 0.85 [0.41, 1.75]; P = 0.65. Four of the included studies exhibited a moderate risk of bias, with 1 study demonstrating low risk and the remaining study manifesting a serious risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The comparison showed no significant differences in overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or recurrence-free survival rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oncologic outcomes of pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy vs. Standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"David E Hinojosa-Gonzalez, Gal Saffati, Eric Wahlstedt, Madeline Chaput, Sagar R Patel, Gustavo Salgado-Garza, Shane Kronstedt, Michal R Segall, Juan C Angulo-Lozano, Jeffrey A Jones, Jennifer M Taylor, Jeremy R Slawin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.09.024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Radical Cystectomy is indicated in muscle-invasive bladder cancer and select cases of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Women often undergo additional reproductive organ removal, greatly impacting sexual function and quality of life. Pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy aims to mitigate these effects, but its oncologic outcomes are not well-defined. This presents a meta-analysis of available literature on oncological outcomes of pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy in women with muscle invasive disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies comparing oncological outcomes between pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy and standard radical cystectomy in women with muscle-invasive bladder cancer or high-risk or recurrent nonmuscle invasive cancer. The search included English or Spanish studies, statistically comparing overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival. Statistical analysis used Review Manager, employing fixed or random-effects models based on heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Six retrospective studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 597 patients of which 303 received pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy and 294 received standard radical cystectomy. Overall Survival was not different between the 2 groups (HR 1.05 [0.77, 1.43]; P = 0.77). Cancer-Specific Survival also was found to be not different between the 2 groups (HR 1.27 [0.86, 1.87]; P = 0.22). Additionally, recurrence-free survival was not different between the 2 groups (HR 0.85 [0.41, 1.75]; P = 0.65. Four of the included studies exhibited a moderate risk of bias, with 1 study demonstrating low risk and the remaining study manifesting a serious risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The comparison showed no significant differences in overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or recurrence-free survival rates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.09.024\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.09.024","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Oncologic outcomes of pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy vs. Standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background and objective: Radical Cystectomy is indicated in muscle-invasive bladder cancer and select cases of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Women often undergo additional reproductive organ removal, greatly impacting sexual function and quality of life. Pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy aims to mitigate these effects, but its oncologic outcomes are not well-defined. This presents a meta-analysis of available literature on oncological outcomes of pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy in women with muscle invasive disease.
Methods: A systematic search across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies comparing oncological outcomes between pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy and standard radical cystectomy in women with muscle-invasive bladder cancer or high-risk or recurrent nonmuscle invasive cancer. The search included English or Spanish studies, statistically comparing overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival. Statistical analysis used Review Manager, employing fixed or random-effects models based on heterogeneity.
Key findings and limitations: Six retrospective studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 597 patients of which 303 received pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy and 294 received standard radical cystectomy. Overall Survival was not different between the 2 groups (HR 1.05 [0.77, 1.43]; P = 0.77). Cancer-Specific Survival also was found to be not different between the 2 groups (HR 1.27 [0.86, 1.87]; P = 0.22). Additionally, recurrence-free survival was not different between the 2 groups (HR 0.85 [0.41, 1.75]; P = 0.65. Four of the included studies exhibited a moderate risk of bias, with 1 study demonstrating low risk and the remaining study manifesting a serious risk of bias.
Conclusion: The comparison showed no significant differences in overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or recurrence-free survival rates.
期刊介绍:
Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.