Trial reportBJU international2025
An international multicentre randomised controlled trial of en bloc resection of bladder tumour vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour: first results of the en bloc resection of urothelium carcinoma of the bladder (EBRUC) II trial.
Trial report in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- En bloc versus conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an expanded and updated systematic review and meta-analysis reconciling contemporary evidence on oncological, pathological, and safety outcomes.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Evaluation of thulium laser endoscopic en bloc resection versus conventional trans-urethral en bloc resection of primary non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a randomized controlled trial.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- En bloc versus conventional resection of primary bladder tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Review
- Preliminary Experience of Transurethral Thulium Laser En Bloc Resection of Paraganglioma of the Urinary Bladder.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Bladder-sparing therapy for high-tumor-burden non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: outcomes from high-tumor-burden NMIBC program.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Chemotherapy-enhanced endoscopic submucosal En Bloc dissection vs. conventional TURBT for NMIBC: a comparative study.International urology and nephrology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the safety and oncological advantages of en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) vs conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour (cTURBT) in terms of resection quality, staging quality, and safety. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a single-blinded randomised controlled trial at seven European hospitals with the following inclusion criteria: first diagnosis of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, no singular carcinoma in situ, and tumour size >4.3 mm. Patients were randomised intraoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to either the ERBT or cTURBT group. Outcome analysis was performed using the chi-square test, t-test, and multivariate regression analysis.
resultsA total of 97 patients were randomised into the study (cTURBT = 40, ERBT = 57). A switch to cTURBT was necessary in two patients (3.5%) and 11.5% of the screened patients were preoperatively excluded for ERBT. There was no difference in the specimen presence of detrusor muscle with 73.7% in cTURBT and 67.3% in ERBT specimens (P = 0.69). There were no significant differences in mean operative time (ERBT 27.6 vs cTURBT 25.4 min, P = 0.450) or mean resection time (ERBT 16.3 vs cTURBT 15.5 min, P = 0.732). Overall the complication rate did not differ significantly (ERBT 18.2% vs cTURBT 7.5%, P = 0.142). Bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group (ERBT seven vs cTURBT none, P = 0.020). R0 status was reported more often after ERBT, whilst a second resection was significantly less frequent after ERBT (P = 0.018). Recurrence rates were comparable for both techniques after 6 months of follow-up.
conclusionThe feasibility of ERBT is higher than previously reported. Whereas other perioperative and safety parameters are comparable to cTURBT, bladder perforations occurred significantly more often in the ERBT group and raised safety concerns. This is why this trial was terminated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.