Suppr超能文献

膀胱肿瘤整块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:膀胱尿路上皮癌整块切除术(EBRUC)II 试验的初步结果

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.

作者信息

Struck Julian Peter, Moharam Nadim, Leitenberger Armin, Weber Jörg, Lusuardi Lukas, Oswald David, Rassweiler Jens J, Fiedler Marcel, Horňák Jakub, Babjuk Marek, Micali Salvatore, Zaraca Carlo, Spreu Thomas, Friedersdorff Frank, Borgmann Hendrik, Merseburger Axel S, Kramer Mario W

机构信息

Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.

Department of Urology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (MHB), Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.

出版信息

BJU Int. 2025 Mar;135(3):446-455. doi: 10.1111/bju.16543. Epub 2024 Oct 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To 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 METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSION

The 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.

摘要

目的

从切除质量、分期质量和安全性方面,确定整块切除膀胱肿瘤(ERBT)与传统经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术(cTURBT)相比的安全性和肿瘤学优势。

患者与方法

我们在七家欧洲医院进行了一项单盲随机对照试验,纳入标准如下:首次诊断为非肌层浸润性膀胱癌,无孤立性原位癌,肿瘤大小>4.3毫米。患者在术中以1:1的比例随机分为ERBT组或cTURBT组。使用卡方检验、t检验和多变量回归分析进行结果分析。

结果

共有97例患者被随机纳入研究(cTURBT = 40例,ERBT = 57例)。两名患者(3.5%)需要转为cTURBT,11.5%的筛查患者术前因ERBT被排除。在膀胱逼尿肌标本方面无差异,cTURBT标本中为73.7%,ERBT标本中为67.3%(P = 0.69)。平均手术时间(ERBT 27.6分钟 vs cTURBT 25.4分钟,P = 0.450)或平均切除时间(ERBT 16.3分钟 vs cTURBT 15.5分钟,P = 0.732)无显著差异。总体并发症发生率无显著差异(ERBT 18.2% vs cTURBT 7.5%,P = 0.142)。ERBT组膀胱穿孔的发生率显著更高(ERBT组7例 vs cTURBT组0例,P = 0.020)。ERBT术后报告的R0状态更多,而ERBT术后二次切除的频率显著更低(P = 0.018)。随访6个月后,两种技术的复发率相当。

结论

ERBT的可行性高于先前报道。虽然其他围手术期和安全参数与cTURBT相当,但ERBT组膀胱穿孔的发生率显著更高,引发了安全担忧。这就是该试验终止的原因。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f06a/11842884/30930e0668d6/BJU-135-446-g001.jpg

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