Julian Peter Struck, Nadim Moharam, Armin Leitenberger, Jörg Weber, Lukas Lusuardi, David Oswald, Jens J. Rassweiler, Marcel Fiedler, Jakub Horňák, Marek Babjuk, Salvatore Micali, Carlo Zaraca, Thomas Spreu, Frank Friedersdorff, Hendrik Borgmann, Axel S. Merseburger, Mario W. Kramer
{"title":"膀胱肿瘤整体切除术与传统经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术的国际多中心随机对照试验:膀胱尿路上皮癌整体切除术(EBRUC)II 试验的初步结果","authors":"Julian Peter Struck, Nadim Moharam, Armin Leitenberger, Jörg Weber, Lukas Lusuardi, David Oswald, Jens J. Rassweiler, Marcel Fiedler, Jakub Horňák, Marek Babjuk, Salvatore Micali, Carlo Zaraca, Thomas Spreu, Frank Friedersdorff, Hendrik Borgmann, Axel S. Merseburger, Mario W. Kramer","doi":"10.1111/bju.16543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesTo determine the safety and oncological advantages of <jats:italic>en bloc</jats:italic> resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour (cTURBT) in terms of resection quality, staging quality, and safety.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a single‐blinded randomised controlled trial at seven European hospitals with the following inclusion criteria: first diagnosis of non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer, no singular carcinoma <jats:italic>in situ</jats:italic>, and tumour size >4.3 mm. Patients were randomised intraoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to either the ERBT or cTURBT group. Outcome analysis was performed using the chi‐square test, <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>‐test, and multivariate regression analysis.ResultsA total of 97 patients were randomised into the study (cTURBT = 40, ERBT = 57). A switch to cTURBT was necessary in two patients (3.5%) and 11.5% of the screened patients were preoperatively excluded for ERBT. There was no difference in the specimen presence of detrusor muscle with 73.7% in cTURBT and 67.3% in ERBT specimens (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.69). There were no significant differences in mean operative time (ERBT 27.6 vs cTURBT 25.4 min, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.450) or mean resection time (ERBT 16.3 vs cTURBT 15.5 min, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.732). Overall the complication rate did not differ significantly (ERBT 18.2% vs cTURBT 7.5%, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.142). Bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group (ERBT seven vs cTURBT none, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.020). R0 status was reported more often after ERBT, whilst a second resection was significantly less frequent after ERBT (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.018). Recurrence rates were comparable for both techniques after 6 months of follow‐up.ConclusionThe feasibility of ERBT is higher than previously reported. Whereas other perioperative and safety parameters are comparable to cTURBT, bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group and raised safety concerns. This is why this trial was terminated.","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An international multicentre randomised controlled trial of en bloc resection of bladder tumour vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour: first results of the en bloc resection of urothelium carcinoma of the bladder (EBRUC) II trial\",\"authors\":\"Julian Peter Struck, Nadim Moharam, Armin Leitenberger, Jörg Weber, Lukas Lusuardi, David Oswald, Jens J. Rassweiler, Marcel Fiedler, Jakub Horňák, Marek Babjuk, Salvatore Micali, Carlo Zaraca, Thomas Spreu, Frank Friedersdorff, Hendrik Borgmann, Axel S. Merseburger, Mario W. Kramer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bju.16543\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectivesTo determine the safety and oncological advantages of <jats:italic>en bloc</jats:italic> resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour (cTURBT) in terms of resection quality, staging quality, and safety.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a single‐blinded randomised controlled trial at seven European hospitals with the following inclusion criteria: first diagnosis of non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer, no singular carcinoma <jats:italic>in situ</jats:italic>, and tumour size >4.3 mm. Patients were randomised intraoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to either the ERBT or cTURBT group. Outcome analysis was performed using the chi‐square test, <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>‐test, and multivariate regression analysis.ResultsA total of 97 patients were randomised into the study (cTURBT = 40, ERBT = 57). A switch to cTURBT was necessary in two patients (3.5%) and 11.5% of the screened patients were preoperatively excluded for ERBT. There was no difference in the specimen presence of detrusor muscle with 73.7% in cTURBT and 67.3% in ERBT specimens (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.69). There were no significant differences in mean operative time (ERBT 27.6 vs cTURBT 25.4 min, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.450) or mean resection time (ERBT 16.3 vs cTURBT 15.5 min, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.732). Overall the complication rate did not differ significantly (ERBT 18.2% vs cTURBT 7.5%, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.142). Bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group (ERBT seven vs cTURBT none, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.020). R0 status was reported more often after ERBT, whilst a second resection was significantly less frequent after ERBT (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.018). Recurrence rates were comparable for both techniques after 6 months of follow‐up.ConclusionThe feasibility of ERBT is higher than previously reported. Whereas other perioperative and safety parameters are comparable to cTURBT, bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group and raised safety concerns. This is why this trial was terminated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJU International\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJU International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16543\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJU International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16543","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
An international multicentre randomised controlled trial of en bloc resection of bladder tumour vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour: first results of the en bloc resection of urothelium carcinoma of the bladder (EBRUC) II trial
ObjectivesTo determine the safety and oncological advantages of en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour (cTURBT) in terms of resection quality, staging quality, and safety.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a single‐blinded randomised controlled trial at seven European hospitals with the following inclusion criteria: first diagnosis of non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer, no singular carcinoma in situ, and tumour size >4.3 mm. Patients were randomised intraoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to either the ERBT or cTURBT group. Outcome analysis was performed using the chi‐square test, t‐test, and multivariate regression analysis.ResultsA total of 97 patients were randomised into the study (cTURBT = 40, ERBT = 57). A switch to cTURBT was necessary in two patients (3.5%) and 11.5% of the screened patients were preoperatively excluded for ERBT. There was no difference in the specimen presence of detrusor muscle with 73.7% in cTURBT and 67.3% in ERBT specimens (P = 0.69). There were no significant differences in mean operative time (ERBT 27.6 vs cTURBT 25.4 min, P = 0.450) or mean resection time (ERBT 16.3 vs cTURBT 15.5 min, P = 0.732). Overall the complication rate did not differ significantly (ERBT 18.2% vs cTURBT 7.5%, P = 0.142). Bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group (ERBT seven vs cTURBT none, P = 0.020). R0 status was reported more often after ERBT, whilst a second resection was significantly less frequent after ERBT (P = 0.018). Recurrence rates were comparable for both techniques after 6 months of follow‐up.ConclusionThe feasibility of ERBT is higher than previously reported. Whereas other perioperative and safety parameters are comparable to cTURBT, bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group and raised safety concerns. This is why this trial was terminated.
期刊介绍:
BJUI is one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world, with a truly international range of published papers and appeal. Every issue gives invaluable practical information in the form of original articles, reviews, comments, surgical education articles, and translational science articles in the field of urology. BJUI employs topical sections, and is in full colour, making it easier to browse or search for something specific.