Suppr超能文献

国际协作共识声明:整块切除膀胱肿瘤,包含两项系统评价、两轮德尔菲调查和一次共识会议。

An International Collaborative Consensus Statement on En Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumour Incorporating Two Systematic Reviews, a Two-round Delphi Survey, and a Consensus Meeting.

机构信息

S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

出版信息

Eur Urol. 2020 Oct;78(4):546-569. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.059. Epub 2020 May 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing interest in en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) as an oncologically noninferior alternative to transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) with fewer complications and better histology specimens. However, there is a lack of robust randomised controlled trial (RCT) data for making recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop a consensus statement to standardise various aspects of ERBT for clinical practice and to guide future research.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed the consensus statement on ERBT using a modified Delphi method. First, two systematic reviews were performed to investigate the clinical effectiveness of ERBT versus TURBT (effectiveness review) and to identify areas of uncertainty in ERBT (uncertainties review). Next, 200 health care professionals (urologists, oncologists, and pathologists) with experience in ERBT were invited to complete a two-round Delphi survey. Finally, a 16-member consensus panel meeting was held to review, discuss, and re-vote on the statements as appropriate.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Meta-analyses were performed for RCT data in the effectiveness review. Consensus statements were developed from the uncertainties review. Consensus was defined as follows: (1) ≥70% scoring a statement 7-9 and ≤15% scoring the statement 1-3 (consensus agree), or (2) ≥70% scoring a statement 1-3 and ≤15% scoring the statement 7-9 (consensus disagree).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 10 RCTs were identified upon systematic review. ERBT had a shorter irrigation time (mean difference -7.24 h, 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.29 to -5.20, I = 85%, p < 0.001) and a lower rate of bladder perforation (risk ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.83, I = 1%, p = 0.02) than TURBT, both with moderate certainty of evidence. There were no significant differences in recurrences at 0-12, 13-24, or 25-36 mo (all very low certainty of evidence). A total of 103 statements were developed, of which 99 reached a consensus. A summary of statements is as follows: ERBT should always be considered for treating non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; ERBT should be considered feasible even for bladder tumours larger than 3 cm; number and location of bladder tumours are not major limitations in performing ERBT; the planned circumferential margin should be at least 5 mm from any visible bladder tumour; after ERBT, additional biopsy of the tumour edge or tumour base should not be performed routinely; for the ERBT specimen, T1 substage, and circumferential and deep resection margins must be assessed; it is safe to give a single dose of immediate intravesical chemotherapy, perform second-look transurethral resection, and give intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy after ERBT; and in studies of ERBT, both per-patient and -tumour analysis should be performed for different outcomes as appropriate. Important outcomes for future ERBT studies were also identified. A limitation is that as consensus statements are brief, concise and binary in nature, areas of uncertainty that are complex in nature may not be addressed adequately.

CONCLUSIONS

We have provided the most comprehensive review of the evidence base to date using a meta-analysis where appropriate and applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and mobilised the international urology community to develop a consensus statement on ERBT using transparent and robust methods. The consensus statement will provide interim guidance for health care professionals who practice ERBT and inform researchers regarding ERBT-related studies in the future.

PATIENT SUMMARY

En bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) is a surgical technique aiming to resect a bladder tumour in one piece. We included an international panel of experts to agree on the best practice of ERBT, and this will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers in the future.

摘要

背景

整块切除膀胱肿瘤(ERBT)作为经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术(TURBT)的一种非劣效替代方法,具有更少的并发症和更好的组织学标本,越来越受到关注。然而,缺乏强有力的随机对照试验(RCT)数据来提出建议。

目的

我们旨在制定一项共识声明,以规范 ERBT 的各个方面,用于临床实践,并指导未来的研究。

设计、设置和参与者:我们使用改良 Delphi 方法制定了关于 ERBT 的共识声明。首先,我们进行了两项系统评价,一项旨在研究 ERBT 与 TURBT 的临床效果(有效性评价),另一项旨在确定 ERBT 中的不确定领域(不确定性评价)。接下来,邀请了 200 名具有 ERBT 经验的医疗保健专业人员(泌尿科医生、肿瘤学家和病理学家)完成两轮 Delphi 调查。最后,举行了一个由 16 名成员组成的共识小组会议,以适当的方式审查、讨论和重新投票表决声明。

结果和局限性

系统评价共确定了 10 项 RCT。不确定性评价中制定了共识声明。共识定义如下:(1)≥70%的评分在 7-9 分,≤15%的评分在 1-3 分(共识同意),或(2)≥70%的评分在 1-3 分,≤15%的评分在 7-9 分(共识不同意)。

局限性

作为共识声明的简短而简洁的性质,可能无法充分解决本质上复杂的不确定性领域。

结论

我们使用适当的荟萃分析提供了迄今为止最全面的证据基础综述,并应用了推荐评估、制定和评估(GRADE)方法学,动员国际泌尿科社区使用透明和稳健的方法制定 ERBT 共识声明。共识声明将为实施 ERBT 的医疗保健专业人员提供临时指导,并为未来与 ERBT 相关的研究提供信息。

患者总结

整块切除膀胱肿瘤(ERBT)是一种旨在整块切除膀胱肿瘤的手术技术。我们邀请了一个国际专家小组来就 ERBT 的最佳实践达成一致意见,这将为未来的临床医生和研究人员提供指导。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验