Source
BMC Cancer. 9/3/2018, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p1-9. 9p. 1 Diagram, 2 Charts.
Abstract
Background: Despite the fact that the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is not yet proven, and open radical (ORC) cystectomy is recommended as the standard of care in patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder cancer, the use of RARC is still increasing. The objective of the current ongoing comparative effectiveness trial therefore is to study the (cost-)effectiveness of RARC compared to ORC, both in terms of objective (complication rates, oncological outcomes) and patient-reported (health-related quality of life) outcome measures.Methods: This study is designed as a non-randomized, multicentre comparative effectiveness trial. Centres with an annual caseload of > 20 radical cystectomies can include patients after informed consent has been given. Centres that perform RARC must have passed the (initial) learning curve of 40 cases. A total of 338 (2 × 169) patients will be enrolled from 23 participating centres (12 ORC, 10 RARC and 1 LRC). Follow-up visits will be scheduled at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. During each follow-up visit, clinical data and health-related quality of life questionnaires will be administered. Costs will be studied using a monthly resource usage questionnaire. Impact on complications and quality of life will be calculated as the average difference between the groups with 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for potential baseline differences by means of propensity score matching.Discussion: This study aims to contribute to the development of evidence-based guidelines regarding the most cost-effective surgical technique for radical cystectomy.Trial Registration: Nederlands Trial Register/Dutch Trial Registry, trial identifying number: NTR5362. Registered on 14 August 2015. ( http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5362 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]