Exploration of Targeted Anti-tumor Therapy

Table 2. IPTW-adjusted outcomes of patients treated with ORC, LRC, and RARC.

Variables	ORC	LRC	RARC	P value
Overall	107.2	34.5	31.6
Operative time category
Blood loss, mL, mean ± SD	2,913 ± 2,997	889 ± 738	380 ± 513	< 0.01
Operation time, min, mean ± SD	506 ± 109	566 ± 135	479 ± 98	< 0.01
Pneumoperitoneum time, min, mean ± SD	−	239 ± 95	352 ± 115	< 0.01
Console time, min, mean ± SD	−	−	336 ± 123	NA
Operative method
ICUD				< 0.01
Yes	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	24.9 (79%)
No	107.2 (100%)	34.5 (100%)	6.7 (21%)
UD				0.13
Ileal conduit	102.5 (96%)	34.5 (100%)	27.8 (88%)
Neobladder	4.7 (4.4%)	0 (0.0%)	3.8 (12%)
Outcomes
Pentafecta achievement	28.5 (27%)	16.5 (48%)	20.2 (64%)	< 0.01
Trifecta achievement	33.0 (31%)	16.5 (48%)	20.2 (64%)	< 0.01
Positive soft tissue surgical margins	5.6 (5.2%)	4.1 (12%)	0.0 (0.0%)	< 0.05
Number of LNs dissected, mean ± SD	18 ± 10	18 ± 10	18 ± 15	0.99
Lymphadenectomy of ≥ 16 LNs	50.4 (47%)	20.0 (58%)	23.2 (73%)	0.16
Major complications at 90 days	46.7 (44%)	10.9 (32%)	5.1 (16%)	0.09
Long-term UD-related sequelae within 12 months	14.5 (14%)	2.4 (7.1%)	0.5 (1.5%)	0.09
UD-fistulae	0.0 (0.0%)	0.0 (0.0%)	0.0 (0.0%)	NA
UD-urothelial stricture	11.8 (11%)	2.2 (6.3%)	0.2 (0.7%)	0.13
UD-parastomal hernia	3.3 (3.1%)	0.3 (0.8%)	0.3 (0.8%)	0.19
Local recurrence ≤ 12 months after RC	35.3 (33%)	8.0 (23%)	6.5 (21%)	0.45
Postoperative complications
Pelvic abscess				< 0.01
Minor	1.0 (0.9%)	1.2 (3.6%)	0.2 (0.8%)
Major	23.8 (22%)	0.0 (0.0%)	0.2 (0.7%)
No	82.5 (77%)	33.2 (96%)	31.2 (99%)
Gastrointestinal anastomotic leak				NA
Minor	1.2 (1.3%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Major	6.5 (6.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
No	99.5 (93%)	34.4 (100%)	31.6 (100%)
Obstructive ileus				0.18
Minor	18.9 (18%)	7.2 (21%)	0.3 (0.9%)
Major	7.5 (7.0%)	4.1 (12%)	1.1 (3.4%)
No	80.8 (75%)	23.1 (67%)	30.3 (96%)
Paralytic ileus				< 0.01
Minor	19.9 (19%)	2.7 (7.9%)	2.5 (7.8%)
Major	3.0 (2.8%)	9.5 (28%)	2.2 (7.0%)
No	84.3 (79%)	22.3 (65%)	26.9 (85%)

Return to article view

IPTW: inverse probability of treatment weighting; LN: lymph node; LRC: laparoscopic radical cystectomy; ORC: open radical cystectomy; RARC: robot-assisted radical cystectomy; RC: radical cystectomy; UD: urinary diversion.

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]