Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Oncologic Outcomes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Surgery of the Bladder

  • 1145 Accesses

Abstract

As robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is emerging as a viable surgical technique for bladder cancer, it is imperative to evaluate oncologic outcomes as it compares to the gold standard of open radical cystectomy (ORC). For cancer-specific survival and recurrence-free survival, long-term data is lacking; however, medium-term data shows similar cancer-specific survival and overall survival with median follow-up as far out as 3 years. With regards to surrogates for oncologic efficacy, namely surgical margin status and lymph node yield, we present collective data from several large RARC series showing comparable rates of positive surgical margins and similar lymph node yields. We also examine several head to head comparisons of RARC compared to open radical cystectomy, which show similar oncologic outcomes. As long term data matures and more randomized controlled studies directly comparing RARC to ORC come to fruition, we will have more data potentially confirming that RARC provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to ORC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dotan ZA, Kavanagh K, Yossepowitch O, Kaag M, Olgac S, Donat M, et al. Positive surgical margins in soft tissue following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and cancer specific survival. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2308–12. discussion 13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pruthi RS, Nielsen ME, Nix J, Smith A, Schultz H, Wallen EM. Robotic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: surgical and pathological outcomes in 100 consecutive cases. J Urol. 2010;183(2):510–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mmeje CO, Nunez-Nateras R, Pruthi RS, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Humphreys MR, Castle EP. Robotic radical cystectomy: medium-term oncologic follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29 Suppl 7:abstr 288.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Novara G, Svatek RS, Karakiewicz PI, Skinner E, Ficarra V, Fradet Y, et al. Soft tissue surgical margin status is a powerful predictor of outcomes after radical cystectomy: a multicenter study of more than 4,400 patients. J Urol. 2010;183(6):2165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Herr H, Lee C, Chang S, Lerner S. Standardization of radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for bladder cancer: a collaborative group report. J Urol. 2004;171(5):1823–8. discussion 7–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guru KA, Sternberg K, Wilding GE, Tan W, Butt ZM, Mohler JL, et al. The lymph node yield during robot-assisted radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2008;102(2):231–4. discussion 4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kang SG, Kang SH, Lee YG, Rha KH, Jeong BC, Ko YH, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: a multi-institutional study from Korea. J Endourol. 2010;24(9):1435–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hellenthal NJ, Hussain A, Andrews PE, Carpentier P, Castle E, Dasgupta P, et al. Surgical margin status after robot assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. J Urol. 2010;184(1):87–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Richards KA, Kader K, Pettus JA, Smith JJ, Hemal AK. Does initial learning curve compromise outcomes for robot-assisted radical cystectomy? A critical evaluation of the first 60 cases while establishing a robotics program. J Endourol. 2011;25(9):1553–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Leissner J, Ghoneim MA, Abol-Enein H, Thuroff JW, Franzaring L, Fisch M, et al. Extended radical lymphadenectomy in patients with urothelial bladder cancer: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol. 2004;171(1):139–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Leissner J, Hohenfellner R, Thuroff JW, Wolf HK. Lymphadenectomy in patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder; significance for staging and prognosis. BJU Int. 2000;85(7):817–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Herr HW, Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Donat SM, Reuter VE, Bajorin DF. Impact of the number of lymph nodes retrieved on outcome in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol. 2002;167(3):1295–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Poulsen AL, Horn T, Steven K. Radical cystectomy: extending the limits of pelvic lymph node dissection improves survival for patients with bladder cancer confined to the bladder wall. J Urol. 1998;160(6 Pt 1):2015–9. discussion 20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bochner BH, Herr HW, Reuter VE. Impact of separate versus en bloc pelvic lymph node dissection on the number of lymph nodes retrieved in cystectomy specimens. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2295–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Styn NR, Montgomery JS, Wood DP, Hafez KS, Lee CT, Tallman C, et al. Matched comparison of robotic-assisted and open radical cystectomy. Urology. 2012;79(6):1303–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):196–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Parekh DJ, Messer J, FItzgerald J, Ercole B, Svatek R. Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(2):474–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Davis JW, Gaston K, Anderson R, Dinney CP, Grossman HB, Munsell MF, et al. Robot assisted extended pelvic lymphadenectomy at radical cystectomy: lymph node yield compared with second look open dissection. J Urol. 2011;185(1):79–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pruthi RS, Smith A, Wallen EM. Evaluating the learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(11):2469–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hayn MH, Hussain A, Mansour AM, Andrews PE, Carpentier P, Castle E, et al. The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol. 2010;58(2):197–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghoneim MA, Abdel-Latif M, el-Mekresh M, Abol-Enein H, Mosbah A, Ashamallah A, et al. Radical cystectomy for carcinoma of the bladder: 2,720 consecutive cases 5 years later. J Urol. 2008;180(1):121–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cote R, Groshen S, Feng AC, Boyd S, et al. Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1,054 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(3):666–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayn MH, Hellenthal NJ, Seixas-Mikelus SA, Mansour AM, Stegemann A, Hussain A, et al. Is patient outcome compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy? Results of 164 consecutive cases. BJU Int. 2011;108(6):882–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guillotreau J, Miocinovic R, Game X, Forest S, Malavaud B, Kaouk J, et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic radical cystectomy in the elderly patients. Urology. 2012;79(3):585–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Coward RM, Smith A, Raynor M, Nielsen M, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Feasibility and outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in older patients. Urology. 2011;77(5):1111–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Dipen Parekh

  2. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, US

    G. Andy Ransford MD

  3. Department of Urology, Martin Army Community Hospital, 7950 Martin Loop, Fort Benning, GA, 31909, USA

    George S. Kallingal M.D., M.P.H.

Authors
  1. Dipen Parekh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Andy Ransford MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George S. Kallingal M.D., M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George S. Kallingal M.D., M.P.H. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

    Erik P. Castle

  2. Department of Urology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

    Raj S. Pruthi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Parekh, D., Ransford, G.A., Kallingal, G.S. (2014). Oncologic Outcomes. In: Castle, E., Pruthi, R. (eds) Robotic Surgery of the Bladder. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4906-5_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4906-5_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4905-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4906-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation