4.6 Article

The RAZOR (randomized open vs robotic cystectomy) trial: study design and trial update

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 115, Issue 2, Pages 198-205

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12699

Keywords

bladder cancer; cystectomy; robotics; clinical trials

Funding

  1. Janssen
  2. GE Healthcare
  3. Intuitive Surgical
  4. Photocure Inc.
  5. Photocure
  6. Journal of Urology Editorial Board
  7. American Board of Urology Exam Committee
  8. LBS Labcorp

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of the RAZOR (randomized open vs robotic cystectomy) study is to compare open radical cystectomy (ORC) vs robot-assisted RC (RARC), pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and urinary diversion for oncological outcomes, complications and health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures with a primary endpoint of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). RAZOR is a multi-institutional, randomized, non-inferior, phase III trial that will enrol at least 320 patients with T1-T4, N0-N1, M0 bladder cancer with approximate to 160 patients in both the RARC and ORC arms at 15 participating institutions. Data will be collected prospectively at each institution for cancer outcomes, complications of surgery and HRQL measures, and then submitted to trial data management services Cancer Research and Biostatistics (CRAB) for final analyses. To date, 306 patients have been randomized and accrual to the RAZOR trial is expected to conclude in 2014. In this study, we report the RAZOR trial experimental design, objectives, data safety, and monitoring, and accrual update. The RAZOR trial is a landmark study in urological oncology, randomizing T1-T4, N0-N1, M0 patients with bladder cancer to ORC vs RARC, PLND and urinary diversion. RAZOR is a multi-institutional, non-inferiority trial evaluating cancer outcomes, surgical complications and HRQL measures of ORC vs RARC with a primary endpoint of 2-year PFS. Full data from the RAZOR trial are not expected until 2016-2017.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available