Exploration of Targeted Anti-tumor Therapy

Table 1. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with ORC, LRC, and RARC.

Variables	Unweighted					IPTW-adjusted
Variables	ORC	LRC	RARC	P value	Max SMD	ORC	LRC	RARC	P value	Max SMD
Total	110	38	44			107.2	34.5	31.6
Age, years, mean ± SD	69 ± 9.2	72 ± 6.8	72 ± 11	0.16	0.37	70 ± 8.8	72 ± 7.5	72 ± 7.5	0.29	0.25
Sex				0.27	0.33				0.15	0.58
Male	86 (78%)	29 (76%)	39 (89%)			87.0 (81%)	25.6 (74%)	29.9 (95%)
Female	24 (22%)	9 (24%)	5 (11%)			20.2 (19%)	8.9 (26%)	1.7 (5.3%)
Smoking history				0.29	0.37				0.36	0.57
Never	27 (25%)	9 (24%)	7 (16%)			22.1 (21%)	8.8 (26%)	14.7 (47%)
Former/Current	78 (71%)	25 (66%)	36 (82%)			79.2 (74%)	23.0 (67%)	15.9 (50%)
Unkown	5 (4.5%)	4 (11%)	1 (2.3%)			5.9 (5.5%)	2.7 (7.8%)	1.0 (3.2%)
BMI, kg/m², mean ± SD	22.3 ± 3.5	21.2 ± 3.9	18.2 ± 3.0	< 0.01	1.26	21.4 ± 3.4	21.6 ± 4.4	21.3 ± 3.8	0.99	0.07
ECOG-PS				0.05	0.55				0.57	0.41
0	101 (92%)	27 (71%)	40 (91%)			94.0 (88%)	27.7 (81%)	29.7 (94%)
1	5 (4.5%)	8 (21%)	3 (6.8%)			9.7 (9.0%)	4.5 (13%)	1.6 (5.0%)
2 ≥	4 (3.6%)	3 (7.9%)	1 (2.3%)			3.6 (3.3%)	2.2 (6.4%)	0.3 (1.0%)
eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m², mean ± SD	65.1 ± 22.9	62.5 ± 25.7	63.1 ± 22.2	0.81	0.11	64.1 ± 23.0	64.2 ± 24.1	68.1 ± 16.5	0.52	0.2
Clinical N category				0.53	0.41				0.66	0.34
cN0	98 (89%)	33 (87%)	42 (96%)			97.3 (91%)	31.9 (93%)	31.1 (98%)
cN1	5 (4.5%)	3 (7.9%)	0 (0.0%)			3.7 (3.5%)	1.0 (2.8%)	0.0 (0.0%)
cN2	6 (5.5%)	2 (5.3%)	1 (2.3%)			5.5 (5.2%)	1.6 (4.6%)	0.2 (0.8%)
cN3	1 (0.9%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (2.3%)			0.7 (0.7%)	0.0 (0.0%)	0.3 (0.9%)
NAC				< 0.01	0.63				0.62	0.25
Yes	42 (38%)	22 (58%)	30 (68%)			52.3 (49%)	12.6 (37%)	12.4 (39%)
No	68 (62%)	16 (42%)	14 (32%)			54.9 (51%)	21.9 (63%)	19.2 (61%)
LN dissection				0.03	0.38				0.57	0.14
Yes	109 (99%)	35 (92%)	40 (91%)			105.6 (99%)	33.2 (96%)	30.4 (96%)
No	1 (0.9%)	3 (7.9%)	4 (9.1%)			1.6 (1.5%)	1.3 (3.6%)	1.2 (3.8%)
Pathological T category				0.06	0.71				0.49	0.75
pT0	16 (15%)	12 (32%)	15 (34%)			32.3 (30%)	8.3 (24%)	18.6 (59%)
pTa	1 (0.9%)	1 (2.6%)	0 (0.0%)			0.8 (0.7%)	0.3 (0.8%)	0.0 (0.0%)
pTis	12 (11%)	3 (7.9%)	4 (9.1%)			9.1 (8.5%)	3.1 (8.9%)	2.9 (9.1%)
pT1	13 (12%)	3 (7.9%)	3 (6.8%)			9.8 (9.2%)	1.9 (5.5%)	1.7 (5.5%)
pT2	21 (19%)	6 (16%)	7 (16%)			16.8 (16%)	8.8 (26%)	2.7 (8.5%)
pT3	23 (21%)	8 (21%)	15 (34%)			20.0 (19%)	7.4 (21%)	5.7 (18%)
pT4a	23 (21%)	5 (13%)	0 (0.0%)			17.8 (17%)	4.7 (14%)	0.0 (0.0%)
pT4b	1 (0.9%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)			0.6 (0.5%)	0.0 (0.0%)	0.0 (0.0%)
Pathological N category				0.01	0.61				0.4	0.46
pN0	88 (80%)	25 (66%)	39 (89%)			87.5 (82%)	28.2 (82%)	30.0 (95%)
pN1	11 (10%)	4 (11%)	1 (2.3%)			7.8 (7.3%)	1.6 (4.7%)	0.4 (1.4%)
pN2	10 (9.1%)	6 (16%)	0 (0.0%)			10.3 (9.6%)	3.4 (9.9%)	0.0 (0.0%)
Nx†	1 (0.9%)	3 (7.9%)	4 (9.1%)			1.6 (1.5%)	1.3 (3.6%)	1.2 (3.8%)
LVI				0.47	0.21				0.57	0.55
Yes	59 (54%)	18 (47%)	19 (43%)			49.1 (46%)	16.6 (48%)	7.4 (23%)
No	51 (46%)	20 (53%)	25 (57%)			58.1 (54%)	17.9 (52%)	24.2 (77%)
Subtype				0.43	0.29				0.4	0.24
Yes	12 (11%)	6 (16%)	3 (6.8%)			10.6 (9.8%)	2.4 (7.0%)	1.2 (3.8%)
No	98 (89%)	32 (84%)	41 (93%)			96.6 (90%)	32.1 (93%)	30.4 (96%)
AC				0.22	0.36				0.63	0.2
Yes	19 (17%)	5 (13%)	12 (27%)			18.6 (17%)	4.5 (13%)	3.3 (11%)
No	91 (83%)	33 (87%)	32 (73%)			88.4 (83%)	30.0 (87%)	28.3 (89%)

Return to article view

†: Nx indicates cases in which lymph node dissection was not performed (n = 8). AC: adjuvant chemotherapy; ECOG-PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; LN: lymph node; LRC: laparoscopic radical cystectomy; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; NAC: neoadjuvant chemotherapy; ORC: open radical cystectomy; RARC: robot-assisted radical cystectomy.

Supplementary materials

The supplementary figure for this article is available at: https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/file/1002389_sup_1.pdf.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all patients who participated in this study for their important contributions.

Author contributions

NN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing—original draft. MM: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing—review & editing. YO: Resources, Data curation. TS: Resources, Data curation. KI: Resources, Data curation. MT: Resources. KO: Resources. SH: Resources. YM: Resources. DG: Resources. YN: Resources. NT: Supervision. All the authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

Makito Miyake and Yuki Oda are Guest Editors for the Special Issue ‘Emerging Innovation in Surgical and Medical Approaches on the Horizon for Urogenital Malignancies’ and are co-authors of this article. To minimize bias, they were excluded from all editorial decision-making related to the acceptance of this article for publication. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This retrospective study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and the requirement for informed consent was waived due to its retrospective design (IRB approval number: 2891).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained via the opt-out method through posters and/or websites.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors without undue reservation to any qualified researcher.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Novara G, De Marco V, Aragona M, Boscolo-Berto R, Cavalleri S, Artibani W, et al. Complications and Mortality After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Transitional Cell Cancer. J Urol. 2009;182:914–21. [DOI] [PubMed]

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;19:666–75. [DOI] [PubMed]

Ríos González E, López-Tello García JJ, Martínez-Piñeiro Lorenzo L. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy. Clin Transl Oncol. 2009;11:799–804. [DOI] [PubMed]

Lin T, Fan X, Zhang C, Xu K, Liu H, Zhang J, et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and oncologic outcomes with 5-year follow-up. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:842–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Challacombe BJ, Bochner BH, Dasgupta P, Gill I, Guru K, Herr H, et al. The Role of Laparoscopic and Robotic Cystectomy in the Management of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer With Special Emphasis on Cancer Control and Complications. Eur Urol. 2011;60:767–75. [DOI] [PubMed]

Su S, Gu L, Ma X, Li H, Wang B, Shi T, et al. Comparison of Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17:e1048–e1053. [DOI] [PubMed]

Parekh DJ, Reis IM, Castle EP, Gonzalgo ML, Woods ME, Svatek RS, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391:2525–36. [DOI]

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;58:197–202. [DOI] [PubMed]

Wijburg CJ, Hannink G, Michels CTJ, Weijerman PC, Issa R, Tay A, et al. Learning Curve Analysis for Intracorporeal Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy: Results from the EAU Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;39:55–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

10.

Cacciamani GE, Winter M, Medina LG, Ashrafi AN, Miranda G, Tafuri A, et al. Radical cystectomy pentafecta: a proposal for standardisation of outcomes reporting following robot‐assisted radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2019;125:64–72. [DOI] [PubMed]

11.

Gavi F, Foschi N, Fettucciari D, Russo P, Giannarelli D, Ragonese M, et al. Assessing Trifecta and Pentafecta Success Rates between Robot-Assisted vs. Open Radical Cystectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Cancers. 2024;16:1270. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Clavien PA, Strasberg SM. Severity Grading of Surgical Complications. Ann Surg. 2009;250:197–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

13.

Katayama H, Kurokawa Y, Nakamura K, Ito H, Kanemitsu Y, Masuda N, et al. Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today. 2015;46:668–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

14.

Khetrapal P, Wong JKL, Tan WP, Rupasinghe T, Tan WS, Williams SB, et al. Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy Versus Open Radical Cystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Perioperative, Oncological, and Quality of Life Outcomes Using Randomized Controlled Trials. Eur Urol. 2023;84:393–405. [DOI] [PubMed]

15.

Aboumarzouk OM, Hughes O, Narahari K, Drewa T, Chlosta PL, Kynaston H. Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy for the Treatment of Bladder Cancer. J Endourol. 2013;27:1083–95. [DOI] [PubMed]

16.

Li K, Yang X, Zhuang J, Cai L, Han J, Yu H, et al. External validation of Pentafecta in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from a high-volume center. BMC Urol. 2022;22:41. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

Lu K, Peng X, Lan K, Zhang F, Cheng Y, Yang H. Low pneumoperitoneum pressure facilitates postoperative pain relief and gastrointestinal function recovery in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2025;15:1665112. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

18.

Hamid M, Zaman S, Mostafa OES, Deutsch A, Bird J, Kawesha A, et al. Low vs. conventional intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2024;410:12. [DOI] [PubMed]

19.

Katayama S, Mori K, Pradere B, Mostafaei H, Schuettfort VM, Quhal F, et al. Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal urinary diversion in robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2021;26:1587–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

20.

Faraj KS, Rose KM, Navaratnam AK, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Eversman S, Singh V, et al. Effect of intracorporeal urinary diversion on the incidence of benign ureteroenteric stricture after cystectomy. Int J Urol. 2021;28:593–7. [DOI] [PubMed]

21.

You C, Du Y, Wang H, Peng L, Wei T, Zhang X, et al. Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion: A New Standard of Urinary Diversion. J Endourol. 2021;35:473–82. [DOI] [PubMed]

22.

Piazza P, Barretta A, Bravi CA, Mottaran A, Sarchi L, Paciotti M, et al. Impact of cumulative smoking exposure on morbidity after robot‐assisted radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2026;137:684–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

23.

Barretta A, Piazza P, Catanzaro C, Mottaran A, Presutti M, Ercolino A, et al. Is there still a role for ureteric frozen section analysis during radical cystectomy? BJU Int. 2025;137:659–66. [DOI] [PubMed]