Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT03434132

Open Versus Robot Assisted Radical Cystectomy With Totally Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion.

This prospective randomized study is designed to provide high level of evidence supporting superiority of robot assisted (RA) versus open (O) radical cystectomy (RC). The primary endpoint is a 50% reduction of transfusion rate, several perioperative outcomes potentially linked to a reduced invasiveness are considered as secondary endpoints. Investigators hypothesis is that the reduced invasiveness of RARC might turn into a higher adherence to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols (early bowel recovery, reduced need for painkillers and insertion of nasogastric tube) and consequently to shorter hospital stay and to faster return to daily activities. These data will be taken into account in a matched cost analysis between arms. Secondary aims include a between arm matched comparison of perioperative complications, oncologic outcomes (2-yr disease free survival is an accepted surrogate of long term oncologic effectiveness of RC) and functional outcomes (daytime and nighttime continence).

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

About this study

Despite encouraging data deriving from colorectal surgery, evidences in favor to ERAS protocols following RARC are poor. Moreover, according to a recent survey of surgeons with a specialist interest in RC, the adherence to ERAS protocols is <20% [1].

Retrospective and preliminary data from the robotic consortium have supported oncologic effectiveness of RARC; however in the only prospective randomized trial comparing RARC and ORC urinary diversions were performed extracorporeally, potentially impairing the benefits of minimally invasive surgery [2].

Robot assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has the aim of providing adequate cancer control while minimizing invasiveness of open radical cystectomy (ORC). The primary end-point of this trial is to demonstrate a reduction of perioperative transfusion rate in RARC arm by 50% compared to ORC arm.

ERAS protocols may significantly contribute to shortening length of hospital stay, a key outcome in this clinical setting of patients receiving RC, being the mean length of hospital stay around 14 days in Italy. Investigators' hypothesis is that the reduced invasiveness of RARC might contribute to an increased adoption of ERAS protocols (reduced need for reinsertion of nasogastric tube, shorter time to first flatus, to mobilization, to regular diet and finally shorter duration of hospital stay).

Assessment of oncologic outcomes of RARC, although not the primary endpoint of the present study, is certainly an outcome of interest. The expected duration of enrollment (18 mo) should provide 2-yr oncologic outcomes for about 66% of patients. Two-year recurrence free survival has been reported as a valid surrogate marker of long term oncologic survival after RC.

Specific Aim 1:To demonstrate superiority of RARC versus ORC in terms of 50% reduction of perioperative transfusion rates.

Specific Aim 2:

To evaluate invasiveness of both surgical approaches by assessing the adherence to ERAS protocols in both and the incidence of perioperative and 30-d, 90d, 180d complications, readmission rates (30d, 90d). Cost analysis will assess the potential impact of shorter hospital stay on overall costs of robotic procedures.

Specific Aim 3:

To assess quality of life at 6-mo, 12-mo and 24-mo follow-up evaluation and to perform a matched comparison of oncologic and functional outcomes between two arms.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients with muscle invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma (and variant histologies) of the bladder or high grade non muscle invasive BCG recurrent/refractory disease.

Exclusion criteria

  • Cystectomy without curative intent (palliative, salvage).
  • Patients unfit for robotic cystectomy.

Treatment and study plan

Open or robotic radical cystectomy

Procedure

ORC and orthotopic ileal neobladder is performed as previously described. A separate package PLND is performed as in open as in robotic surgery. RARC is performed replicating open surgical procedure.

The orthotopic ileal neobladder model used is the 'vescica ileale padovana' as previously described. An ileal segment, approximately 42 cm long, is chosen at a minimum distance of 20cm far from ileo-cecal valve. A latero-lateral ileal anastomosis is performed with staplers to restore bowel continuity.

For ileal conduit, a 20cm ileal segment (approximately 20 cm long) at a minimum distance of 20 cm from ileo-cecal valve is isolated and transected with staplers. Bowel continuity is restored as previously described. The ileal loop on its distal edge is extracted through abdomen wall at the previously identified stoma point and fixed to abdomen fascia. The ureters are spatulated and a latero-lateral anastomosis according to Wallace 1 technique is performed.

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of participants requiring perioperative transfusions.

    Time frame: 30 days

    50% reduction of perioperative transfusion rates in robotic arm.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of participants requiring insertion of nasogastric tube

    Time frame: 30 days

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  2. Incidence of Clavien grade 1-2 perioperative complications at 30-d evaluation.

    Time frame: 30 days

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  3. Incidence of Clavien grade 1-2 perioperative complications at 90-d evaluation.

    Time frame: 90 days

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  4. Incidence of Clavien grade 1-2 perioperative complications at 180-d evaluation.

    Time frame: 180 days

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  5. Incidence of patients requiring readmission.

    Time frame: 90 days

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  6. Cost analysis.

    Time frame: 30 days

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

Other outcomes

  1. Assessment of quality of life at 6-mo follow-up with self-administered EORTC QLQ-BLM30 questionnaire

    Time frame: 6 months

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  2. Assessment of quality of life at 6-mo follow-up with self-administered EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire

    Time frame: 6 months

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  3. Assessment of quality of life at 12-mo follow-up with self-administered EORTC QLQ-BLM30 questionnaire

    Time frame: 12 months

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  4. Assessment of quality of life at 12-mo follow-up with self-administered EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire

    Time frame: 12 months

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  5. Assessment of quality of life at 24-mo follow-up with self-administered EORTC QLQ-BLM30 questionnaire

    Time frame: 24 months

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  6. Assessment of quality of life at 24-mo follow-up with self-administered EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire

    Time frame: 24 months

    Comparison between open and robotic arms.

  7. Disease free survival

    Time frame: 24 months

    Comparison between open and robitic arms

  8. Cancer specific survival

    Time frame: 24 months

    Comparison between open and robitic arms

  9. Overall survival

    Time frame: 24 months

    Comparison between open and robitic arms

  10. Assessment of urinary continence with pad test.

    Time frame: 12 months

    Comparison between open and robotic arms

  11. Assessment of urinary continence with pad test.

    Time frame: 24 months

    Comparison between open and robotic arms

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Regina Elena Cancer Institute

Other

Collaborators

  • Ministero della Salute, Italy

Registry information

Official study title

Open Versus Robot Assisted Radical Cystectomy With Totally Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion. Single Centre Prospective Randomized Trial.

Important dates

Study start
2018
Primary completion
2020
Study completion
2022
First posted
Feb 15, 2018
Registry last updated
Jan 19, 2023

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.