Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy versus open nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Main Authors: Su Zhang, You Luo, Cheng Wang, Sheng-Jun Fu, Li Yang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: PeerJ Inc. 2016-05-01
• Series: PeerJ
• Subjects: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma; Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy; Open nephroureterectomy; Meta-analysis
• Online Access: https://peerj.com/articles/2063.pdf

Background. Several factors have been validated as predictors of disease recurrence in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. However, the oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches (open nephroureterectomy versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy, ONU vs LNU) remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the oncological outcomes associated with different surgical approaches. Methods. We conducted an electronic search of the PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Library electronic databases through November 2015, screened the retrieved references, collected and evaluated the relevant information. We extracted and synthesized the corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using Stata 13. Results. Twenty-one observational studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed no differences in the intravesical recurrence-free survival (IRFS), unspecified recurrence-free survival (UnRFS) and overall survival (OS) between LNUandONU. However, improvements in the extravesical recurrence free survival (ExRFS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) were observed inLNU. The pooled hazard ratios were 1.05 (95% CI [0.92–1.18]) for IRFS, 0.80 (95% CI [0.64–0.96]) for ExRFS, 1.10 (95% CI [0.93–1.28]) for UnRFS, 0.91 (95% CI [0.66–1.17]) for OS and 0.79 (95% CI [0.68–0.91]) for CSS. Conclusion. Based on current evidence, LNU could provide equivalent prognostic effects for upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and had better oncological control of ExRFS and CSS compared to ONU. However, considering all eligible studies with the intrinsic bias of retrospective study design, the results should be interpreted with caution. Prospective randomized trials are needed to verify these results.