Evidence Hub

A Phase III Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare the Efficacy of Robotically Assisted Radical Cystectomy (RARC) and Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion With Open Radical Cystectomy (ORC) in Patients With Bladder Cancer

ClinicalTrials.gov · COMPLETED, 2021

339 participants

Abstract

This is a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the outcomes from Intracorporeal RARC (iRARC) with open radical cystectomy (ORC) in patients with bladder cancer. The study will recruit patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) or muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who have selected radical cystectomy for the treatment of bladder cancer. The time of interest for measurement of the primary outcomes will be 90 days post-surgery.

Eligible patients will include those receiving neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (typically gemcitabine and cisplatin) and those having either an ileal conduit or a neo-bladder reconstruction.

Patients who have selected radical cystectomy after appropriate counselling and following a specialist multi-disciplinary team (SMDT) recommendation, will be approached and asked to consent for this study.

Consenting participants will be randomised 1:1 to either iRARC or ORC. Patients will be followed for a minimum of 90 days post-surgery.

The study will be conducted in National Health Service (NHS) Trusts designated as Cancer Centres.

Patients will be stratified by

* Type of urinary diversion (Continent diversion or ileal conduit)

* Performance status

* Centre Trial assessments will be conducted at baseline (before surgery), whilst participants are on admission and then 5, 12, 26 weeks,1 year and 18 months post surgery.

Conditions: Bladder Cancer.

Primary outcome: Days at home within 90 days of the surgery.

Enrollment: 339…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 339 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free