Cargando…

Oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

INTRODUCTION: Radical cystectomy (RC) is historically considered the gold standard treatment for muscle invasive and high‐risk non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, this technique leaves the majority of patients of both sexes with poor sexual and urinary function. Organ‐sparing cystectomy (OS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clay, Reece, Shaunak, Raghav, Raj, Siddarth, Light, Alexander, Malde, Sachin, Thurairaja, Ramesh, El‐Hage, Oussama, Dasgupta, Prokar, Khan, Muhammed Shamim, Nair, Rajesh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9931545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36816151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.189
_version_ 1784889271692296192
author Clay, Reece
Shaunak, Raghav
Raj, Siddarth
Light, Alexander
Malde, Sachin
Thurairaja, Ramesh
El‐Hage, Oussama
Dasgupta, Prokar
Khan, Muhammed Shamim
Nair, Rajesh
author_facet Clay, Reece
Shaunak, Raghav
Raj, Siddarth
Light, Alexander
Malde, Sachin
Thurairaja, Ramesh
El‐Hage, Oussama
Dasgupta, Prokar
Khan, Muhammed Shamim
Nair, Rajesh
author_sort Clay, Reece
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Radical cystectomy (RC) is historically considered the gold standard treatment for muscle invasive and high‐risk non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, this technique leaves the majority of patients of both sexes with poor sexual and urinary function. Organ‐sparing cystectomy (OSC) techniques are emerging as an alternative to the standard procedure to preserve these functions, without compromising the oncological outcomes. We present a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the published literature. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for eligible studies on 6 April 2021. Primary outcomes studied were both oncological outcomes, specifically overall recurrence, and functional outcomes, specifically sexual function, and daytime and nighttime continence. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. The PROSPERO registration reference number was CRD42018118897. RESULTS: From 13 894 identified abstracts, 19 studies (1886 male and 305 female patients) were eligible for inclusion in this review. These studies included patients who underwent either whole prostate, prostate capsule, seminal vesicle, nerve, uterus, ovary, vagina and fallopian tube sparing techniques. Four studies included only female patients. Thirteen studies reported oncological outcomes, and overall recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (five studies; OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.38–1.40, p = 0.34). Thirteen studies reported on male sexual function. In men, OSC had significantly greater odds of retaining potency (five studies; OR 9.05; 95% CI 5.07–16.16, p < 0.00001). Fourteen studies (13 on males and 1 female) reported urinary outcomes. In men, OSC demonstrated greater odds of daytime (seven studies; OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.74 to 3.92, p < 0.00001) and nighttime continence (seven studies; OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.76 to 3.89, p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: In carefully selected patients, OSC allows the potential to provide better sexual and urinary function without compromising oncological outcomes. There remains, however, a paucity of OSC studies in females. Further studies are required to make recommendations based on robust clinical evidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9931545
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99315452023-02-17 Oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Clay, Reece Shaunak, Raghav Raj, Siddarth Light, Alexander Malde, Sachin Thurairaja, Ramesh El‐Hage, Oussama Dasgupta, Prokar Khan, Muhammed Shamim Nair, Rajesh BJUI Compass Reviews INTRODUCTION: Radical cystectomy (RC) is historically considered the gold standard treatment for muscle invasive and high‐risk non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, this technique leaves the majority of patients of both sexes with poor sexual and urinary function. Organ‐sparing cystectomy (OSC) techniques are emerging as an alternative to the standard procedure to preserve these functions, without compromising the oncological outcomes. We present a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the published literature. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for eligible studies on 6 April 2021. Primary outcomes studied were both oncological outcomes, specifically overall recurrence, and functional outcomes, specifically sexual function, and daytime and nighttime continence. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. The PROSPERO registration reference number was CRD42018118897. RESULTS: From 13 894 identified abstracts, 19 studies (1886 male and 305 female patients) were eligible for inclusion in this review. These studies included patients who underwent either whole prostate, prostate capsule, seminal vesicle, nerve, uterus, ovary, vagina and fallopian tube sparing techniques. Four studies included only female patients. Thirteen studies reported oncological outcomes, and overall recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (five studies; OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.38–1.40, p = 0.34). Thirteen studies reported on male sexual function. In men, OSC had significantly greater odds of retaining potency (five studies; OR 9.05; 95% CI 5.07–16.16, p < 0.00001). Fourteen studies (13 on males and 1 female) reported urinary outcomes. In men, OSC demonstrated greater odds of daytime (seven studies; OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.74 to 3.92, p < 0.00001) and nighttime continence (seven studies; OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.76 to 3.89, p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: In carefully selected patients, OSC allows the potential to provide better sexual and urinary function without compromising oncological outcomes. There remains, however, a paucity of OSC studies in females. Further studies are required to make recommendations based on robust clinical evidence. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9931545/ /pubmed/36816151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.189 Text en © 2022 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Reviews
Clay, Reece
Shaunak, Raghav
Raj, Siddarth
Light, Alexander
Malde, Sachin
Thurairaja, Ramesh
El‐Hage, Oussama
Dasgupta, Prokar
Khan, Muhammed Shamim
Nair, Rajesh
Oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort oncological and functional outcomes of organ‐preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9931545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36816151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.189
work_keys_str_mv AT clayreece oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shaunakraghav oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rajsiddarth oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lightalexander oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT maldesachin oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT thurairajaramesh oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT elhageoussama oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dasguptaprokar oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT khanmuhammedshamim oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nairrajesh oncologicalandfunctionaloutcomesoforganpreservingcystectomyversusstandardradicalcystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis