Robot-assisted vs ultrasonography-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block vs local anaesthesia in urology: results of the UROTAP randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively analyse robotically administered transperitoneal transversus abdominis plane (robot-assisted transversus abdominis plane [RTAP]) compared with both ultrasonography-guided transversus abdominis plane (UTAP) and local anaesthesia (LA) with regard to pain control and narcotic use in patients undergoing robot-assisted prostatectomy (RARP) or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing RARP or RAPN were randomized in a single-blind 2:2:1 fashion to RTAP:UTAP:LA, with the study powered to evaluate superiority of UTAP to LA and non-inferiority of RTAP to UTAP. We compared time to deliver the block, operating room time, postoperative pain scores using the visual analogue scale, and intra-operative and postoperative analgesia consumption. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were randomized and received treatment. There was no significant difference in patient baseline characteristics. UTAP did not demonstrate superiority to LA in terms of pain control. RTAP and LA were faster to administer than UTAP (time to perform block 2.5 vs 2.5 vs 6.25 min; P < 0.001). There was no difference in postoperative narcotic, acetaminophen, ketorolac or ondansetron requirements among the three groups (P > 0.05). The study was terminated early due to the unexpected efficacy of LA. CONCLUSION: This study showed that UTAP and RTAP do not provide superior pain control to LA. The efficiency, effectiveness, and ease of administration of LA make it an excellent option for first-line therapy for postoperative analgesia.

Systemic adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma: Any hope for future clinical trials?

The role of adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after surgical resection has been evaluated in numerous randomized and nonrandomized studies using systemic therapies with distinct mechanisms of action. However, adjuvant therapy has not demonstrated definitive benefit to date and guidelines currently do not support its use. Continued advancement in the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis in RCC is critical, which would lead to identification of new therapeutic targets, as well as novel prognostic and predictive biomarkers, in hopes of improving outcomes in this lethal disease. Herein we summarize the results of randomized studies of the adjuvant treatments of RCC, in hopes to direct future effort in the development of treatment of this disease.

Does timing of cytoreductive nephrectomy impact patient survival with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor era? A multi-institutional study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who underwent primary cytoreductive nephrectomy (CRN), followed by adjuvant sunitinib therapy, vs those who underwent primary sunitinib therapy before planned CRN. METHODS: This was a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 35 mRCC patients from June 2005 to August 2009 (median follow-up, 28.5 months): 17 underwent primary CRN, followed by adjuvant sunitinib (group 1); 18 underwent primary sunitinib therapy, followed by planned CRN (group 2). Response to therapy was determined using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Group 2 patients who had partial response (PR)/stable disease (SD) proceeded to CRN (group 2 +CRN). Group 2 patients who progressed were treated with salvage systemic therapy (group 2 no-CRN). Primary and secondary outcomes were disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patient demographic and tumor characteristics were similar. The groups had similar rates of DSS and OS on univariate analysis (P = .318 and P = .181). In group 2, 11 (61%) had PR/DS; 7 (39%) progressed. Mean times to disease-specific death in group 1, group 2 (+CRN), and group 2 (no-CRN) were 29.2, 4.6, and 28.7 months, respectively (P = .025). Kaplan-Meier analysis of DSS and OS demonstrated significant improvement in group 2 (+CRN) vs group 1 vs group 2 (no-CRN; P <.001), which remained significant on multivariate regression. CONCLUSION: Nonresponders to primary sunitinib therapy had a poor prognosis. Offering CRN, if safely feasible, combined with sunitinib, was associated with improved disease-specific outcome in mRCC. Responders to primary sunitinib who underwent CRN had better DSS and OS than patients who underwent primary CRN, followed by sunitinib. Further investigation is required to assess the role, timing, and sequencing of targeted therapy and CRN in treatment of mRCC.