Advertisement

Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Takehiro Iwata
  • Shoji Kimura
  • Beat Foerster
  • Nicola Fossati
  • Alberto Briganti
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz
  • Kilian M. Gust
  • Shin Egawa
  • Yasutomo Nasu
  • Mohammad Abufaraj
  • Shahrokh F. ShariatEmail author
Invited Review
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The efficacy of RARC in oncologic outcomes compared ORC is controversial. We assess potential differences in oncologic outcomes between robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC).

Methods

We performed the literature search systematically according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. A pooled meta-analysis was performed to assess the difference in oncologic outcomes between RARC and ORC, separately in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRCTs).

Results

Five RCTs and 28 NRCTs were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. There was no difference in the rate of overall positive surgical margin (PSM) in RCTs, while NRCTs showed a lower rate for RARC. There was no difference in the soft tissue PSM rate between RARC and ORC in both RCTs and NRCTs. There was no difference in the lymph node yield by standard and extended lymph node dissection between RARC and ORC in both RCTs and NRCTs. There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between RARC and ORC in both RCTs and NRCTs.

Conclusions

Based on the current evidence, there is no difference in the rate of PSMs, lymph node yield, recurrence rate and location as well as short-term survival outcomes between RARC and ORC in RCTs. In NRCTs, only PSM rates were better for RARC compared to ORC, but this was likely due to selection and reporting bias which are inherent to retrospective study designs.

Keywords

Oncologic outcome Open radical cystectomy Positive surgical margin Robot-assisted radical cystectomy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of all study participants and staff.

Author contributions

TI: Project development, Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing. SK: Project development, Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing. BF: Project development, Data collection, Data analysis. NF: Manuscript writing (Performed writing discussion section). AB: Manuscript writing (Performed editing introduction and discussion section). PIK: Manuscript writing (Performed critical editing result section). KMG: Manuscript writing (Performed writing result section and editing discussion section). SE: Manuscript writing (Performed writing discussion section). YN: Manuscript writing (Performed critical editing discussion section). MA: Project development, Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing. SFS: Project development, Manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

None declared.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The authors have no ethical conflicts to disclose.

Informed consent

The ethical approval was unnecessary because this study based on summary and analysis of the results of previous studies.

Supplementary material

345_2019_2708_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (24.9 mb)
Supplementary Figure1. Forest plots showing the comparison of (A) overall positive surgical margin pathological T1-2 and (B) overall positive surgical margin pathological T3-4 between RARC and ORC. CI: confidence interval; M–H: Mantel–Haenszel test; ORC: open radical cystectomy; RARC: robot-assisted radical cystectomy; SD: standard deviation (TIFF 25505 kb)
345_2019_2708_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (24.9 mb)
Supplementary Figure2. Forest plots showing the comparison of (A) standard lymph node yield and (B) extended lymph node yield between RARC and ORC. CI: confidence interval; ORC: open radical cystectomy; RARC: robot-assisted radical cystectomy; SD: standard deviation (TIFF 25505 kb)
345_2019_2708_MOESM3_ESM.tiff (24.9 mb)
Supplementary Figure3. Forest plots showing the comparison of (A) local recurrence and (B) distant recurrence between RARC and ORC. CI: confidence interval; M-H: Mantel–Haenszel test; ORC: open radical cystectomy; RARC: robot-assisted radical cystectomy; SD: standard deviation (TIFF 25505 kb)
345_2019_2708_MOESM4_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 19 kb)
345_2019_2708_MOESM5_ESM.doc (71 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOC 71 kb)
345_2019_2708_MOESM6_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (DOCX 24 kb)
345_2019_2708_MOESM7_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Alfred Witjes J, Lebret T, Comperat EM, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Bruins HM et al (2017) Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol 71(3):462–475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.020 (Epub 2016/07/05) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babjuk M, Bohle A, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Comperat EM et al (2017) EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol 71(3):447–461.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.041 (Epub 2016/06/22) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Shoma AM, El-Tabey NA et al (2003) Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int 92(3):232–236 (Epub 2003/07/31) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hu JC, Chughtai B, O’Malley P, Halpern JA, Mao J, Scherr DS et al (2016) Perioperative outcomes, health care costs, and survival after robotic-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a National Comparative Effectiveness Study. Eur Urol 70(1):195–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.028 (Epub 2016/05/03) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leow JJ, Reese SW, Jiang W, Lipsitz SR, Bellmunt J, Quoc-Dien T et al (2014) Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol 66(3):569–576.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.029 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Palapattu GS, Lotan Y, Rogers CG, Amiel GE et al (2006) Outcomes of radical cystectomy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a contemporary series from the Bladder Cancer Research Consortium. J Urol 176(6 Pt 1):2414–2422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.004 (discussion 22, Epub 2006/11/07) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cote R, Groshen S, Feng AC, Boyd S et al (2001) Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1,054 patients. J Clin Oncol 19(3):666–675.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.3.666 (Epub 2001/02/07) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herr HW, Faulkner JR, Grossman HB, Natale RB, deVere White R, Sarosdy MF et al (2004) Surgical factors influence bladder cancer outcomes: a cooperative group report. J Clin Oncol 22(14):2781–2789.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.11.024 (Epub 2004/06/17) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rink M, Lee DJ, Kent M, Xylinas E, Fritsche H-M, Babjuk M et al (2013) Predictors of cancer-specific mortality after disease recurrence following radical cystectomy. BJU Int 111(3b):E30–E36.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11433.x Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sonpavde G, Khan MM, Lerner SP, Svatek RS, Novara G, Karakiewicz PI et al (2011) Disease-free survival at 2 or 3 years correlates with 5-year overall survival of patients undergoing radical cystectomy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol 185(2):456–461.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.110 (Epub 2010/12/21) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Marzouk KH, Sjoberg DD, Lee J, Donat SM et al (2018) Randomized trial comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy:oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.030 (Epub 2018/05/23)
  12. 12.
    Parekh DJ, Reis IM, Castle EP, Gonzalgo ML, Woods ME, Svatek RS et al (2018) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet (London, England) 391(10139):2525–2536.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30996-6 (Epub 2018/07/07) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niegisch G, Nini A, Michalski R, Henn A, Mally D, Albers P et al (2018) Comparison of 2-year oncological outcome and early recurrence patterns in patients with urothelial bladder carcinoma treated with open or robot-assisted radical cystectomy with an extracorporeal urinary diversion. Urologia Internationalis.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000491588 (Epub 2018/07/26)
  14. 14.
    Hanna N, Leow JJ, Sun M, Friedlander DF, Seisen T, Abdollah F, et al (2018) Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted vs. open radical cystectomy. Urol Oncol –Semin Original Invest.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.09.018
  15. 15.
    Simone G, Tuderti G, Misuraca L, Anceschi U, Ferriero M, Minisola F et al (2018) Perioperative and mid-term oncologic outcomes of robotic assisted radical cystectomy with totally intracorporeal neobladder: Results of a propensity score matched comparison with open cohort from a single-centre series. Eur J Surg Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.04.006
  16. 16.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 6(7):e1000100.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 (Epub 2009/07/22) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruins HM, Veskimae E, Hernandez V, Imamura M, Neuberger MM, Dahm P et al (2014) The impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 66(6):1065–1077.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.031 (Epub 2014/07/31) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-13 (Epub 2005/04/21) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 343:d5928.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 (Epub 2011/10/20) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan MS, Gan C, Ahmed K, Ismail AF, Watkins J, Summers JA et al (2016) A single-centre early phase randomised controlled three-arm trial of open, robotic, and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (CORAL). Eur Urol 69(4):613–621.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.038 (Epub 2015/08/15) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS (2010) Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol 57(2):196–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.024 (Epub 2015/08/15) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parekh DJ, Messer J, Fitzgerald J, Ercole B, Svatek R (2013) Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol 189(2):474–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.077 (Epub 2012/09/29) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abaza R, Dangle PP, Gong MC, Bahnson RR, Pohar KS (2012) Quality of lymphadenectomy is equivalent with robotic and open cystectomy using an extended template. J Urol 187(4):1200–1204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.092 (Epub 2012/02/22) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahdoot M, Almario L, Araya H, Busch J, Conti S, Gonzalgo ML (2014) Oncologic outcomes between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: a propensity score matched analysis. World J Urol 32(6):1441–1446.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1242-4 (Epub 2014/01/29) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Atmaca AF, Canda AE, Gok B, Akbulut Z, Altinova S, Balbay MD (2015) Open versus robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal Studer diversion. JSLS. 19(1):e2014.00193.  https://doi.org/10.4293/jsls.2014.00193 (Epub 2015/04/08)
  26. 26.
    Cusano A, Haddock P Jr, Jackson M, Staff I, Wagner J, Meraney A (2016) A comparison of preliminary oncologic outcome and postoperative complications between patients undergoing either open or robotic radical cystectomy. Int Braz J Urol 42(4):663–670.  https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.Ibju.2015.0393 (Epub 2016/08/27) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Galich A, Sterrett S, Nazemi T, Pohlman G, Smith L, Balaji KC (2006) Comparative analysis of early perioperative outcomes following radical cystectomy by either the robotic or open method. JSLS 10(2):145–150 (Epub 2006/08/03) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gandaglia G, Karl A, Novara G, de Groote R, Buchner A, D’Hondt F et al (2016) Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted vs. open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer patients: a comparison of two high-volume referral centers. Ejso. 42(11):1736–1743.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.254 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gondo T, Yoshioka K, Nakagami Y, Okubo H, Hashimoto T, Satake N et al (2012) Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative and pathologic outcomes in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 42(7):625–631.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hys062 (Epub 2012/05/15) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iwamoto H, Yumioka T, Yamaguchi N, Masago T, Morizane S, Honda M et al (2016) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy is a promising alternative to open surgery in the Japanese population with a high rate of octogenarians. Int J Clin Oncol 21(4):756–763.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-016-0950-8 (Epub 2016/01/23) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kader AK, Richards KA, Krane LS, Pettus JA, Smith JJ, Hemal AK (2013) Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy: comparison of complications and perioperative oncological outcomes in 200 patients. BJU Int 112(4):E290–E294.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12167 (Epub 2013/07/03) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khan MS, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Rimington P, Coker B, Murphy D et al (2012) A dual-centre, cohort comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. Int J Clin Pract 66(7):656–662.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02888.x Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Knox ML, El-Galley R, Busby JE (2013) Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: identification of patients who benefit from the robotic approach. J Endourol 27(1):40–44.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0168 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koie T, Ohyama C, Yamamoto H, Imai A, Hatakeyama S, Yoneyama T et al (2017) The feasibility and effectiveness of robot-assisted radical cystectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 47(3):252–256.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyw191 (Epub 2016/12/17) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maes AA, Brunkhorst LW, Gavin PW, Todd SP, Maatman TJ (2013) Comparison of robotic-assisted and open radical cystectomy in a community-based, non-tertiary health care setting. J Robot Surg 7(4):359–363.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-013-0401-8 (Epub 2013/12/01) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Matulewicz RS, DeLancey JO, Manjunath A, Tse J, Kundu SD, Meeks JJ (2016) National comparison of oncologic quality indicators between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. Urol Oncol 34(10):431.e9.e15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.05.005 (Epub 2016/06/07)
  37. 37.
    Musch M, Janowski M, Steves A, Roggenbuck U, Boergers A, Davoudi Y et al (2014) Comparison of early postoperative morbidity after robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy: results of a prospective observational study. BJU Int 113(3):458–467.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12374 (Epub 2013/09/24) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Necchi A, Pond GR, Smaldone MC, Pal SK, Chan K, Wong YN et al (2017) Robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy in patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: the oncologist’s perspective from a multicentre study. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.03.011
  39. 39.
    Nepple KG, Strope SA, Grubb RL 3rd, Kibel AS (2013) Early oncologic outcomes of robotic vs open radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer. Urol Oncol 31(6):894–898.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.06.009 (Epub 2011/08/02) Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nguyen DP, Al Awamlh BAH, Wu X, O’Malley P, Inoyatov IM, Ayangbesan A et al (2015) Recurrence patterns after open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol 68(3):399–405.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.003 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Panwar P, Mavuduru R, Mete U, Kumar S, Bora G, Devana S et al (2018) Perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical cystectomy: a single-center experience. Indian J Urol 34(2):115–121.  https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.IJU_166_17 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pruthi RS, Wallen EM (2007) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystoprostatectomy: operative and pathological outcomes. J Urol 178(3 Pt 1):814–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.040 (Epub 2007/07/17) Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ram D, Rajappa SK, Rawal S, Singh A, Singh PB, Dewan AK (2018) Is robot-assisted radical cystectomy superior to standard open radical cystectomy? An Indian perspective. J Minim Access Surg. 14(4):298–303.  https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_150_17 (Epub 2018/02/28) Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rhee JJ, Lebeau S, Smolkin M, Theodorescu D (2006) Radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion: early prospective evaluation of the impact of robotic assistance. BJU Int 98(5):1059–1063.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06372.x (Epub 2006/06/27) Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sharma P, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Poch MA, Pow-Sang JM, Sexton WJ, Spiess PE et al (2017) Surgical control and margin status after robotic and open cystectomy in high-risk cases: caution or equivalence? World J Urol 35(4):657–663.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1915-2 (Epub 2016/08/09) Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Styn NR, Montgomery JS, Wood DP, Hafez KS, Lee CT, Tallman C et al (2012) Matched comparison of robotic-assisted and open radical cystectomy. Urology. 79(6):1303–1308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.055 (Epub 2012/04/21) Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tan WS, Sridhar A, Ellis G, Lamb B, Goldstraw M, Nathan S et al (2016) Analysis of open and intracorporeal robotic assisted radical cystectomy shows no significant difference in recurrence patterns and oncological outcomes. Urol Oncol 34(6):257.e1–257.e9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.010 (Epub 2016/03/13) Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dotan ZA, Kavanagh K, Yossepowitch O, Kaag M, Olgac S, Donat M et al (2007) Positive surgical margins in soft tissue following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and cancer specific survival. J Urol 178(6):2308–2312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.023 (discussion 13, Epub 2007/10/16) Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Novara G, Svatek RS, Karakiewicz PI, Skinner E, Ficarra V, Fradet Y et al (2010) Soft tissue surgical margin status is a powerful predictor of outcomes after radical cystectomy: a multicenter study of more than 4,400 patients. J Urol 183(6):2165–2170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.021 (Epub 2010/04/20) Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wilson TG, Guru K, Rosen RC, Wiklund P, Annerstedt M, Bochner BH et al (2015) Best practices in robot-assisted radical cystectomy and urinary reconstruction: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 67(3):363–375.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.009 (Epub 2015/01/15) Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    D N, C B, JK. A. Catalogue of Bias Collaboration. 2017. https://catalogofbias.org/biases/selection-bias/
  52. 52.
    Leow JJ, Bedke J, Chamie K, Collins JW, Daneshmand S, Grivas P et al (2019) SIU-ICUD consultation on bladder cancer: treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. World J Urol 37(1):61–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2606-y (Epub 2019/01/27) Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Williams SB, Ray-Zack MD, Hudgins HK, Oldenburg J, Trinh Q-D, Nguyen PL et al (2018) Impact of centralizing care for genitourinary malignancies to high-volume providers: a systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.006
  54. 54.
    Bochner BH, Herr HW, Reuter VE (2001) Impact of separate versus en bloc pelvic lymph node dissection on the number of lymph nodes retrieved in cystectomy specimens. J Urol 166(6):2295–2296 (Epub 2001/11/07) Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Huguet J (2013) Follow-up after radical cystectomy based on patterns of tumour recurrence and its risk factors. Actas Urol Esp 37(6):376–382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2013.01.005 (Epub 2013/04/25) Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yin M, Joshi M, Meijer RP, Glantz M, Holder S, Harvey HA et al (2016) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and two-step meta-analysis. Oncologist 21(6):708–715.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0440 (Epub 2016/04/08) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takehiro Iwata
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shoji Kimura
    • 1
    • 3
  • Beat Foerster
    • 1
    • 4
  • Nicola Fossati
    • 5
  • Alberto Briganti
    • 5
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz
    • 6
  • Kilian M. Gust
    • 1
  • Shin Egawa
    • 3
  • Yasutomo Nasu
    • 2
  • Mohammad Abufaraj
    • 1
    • 7
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
    • 1
    • 8
    • 9
    • 10
    • 11
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General HospitalMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of UrologyOkayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical SciencesOkayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of UrologyJikei University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Department of UrologyKantonsspital WinterthurWinterthurSwitzerland
  5. 5.Division of Oncology, Unit of UrologyURI, IRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
  6. 6.Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montreal Health CenterMontrealCanada
  7. 7.Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University HospitalThe University of JordanAmmanJordan
  8. 8.Department of UrologyWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  9. 9.Department of UrologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  10. 10.Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and AndrologyViennaAustria
  11. 11.Insitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M.Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations