The effect of perioperative blood transfusion on survival after renal cell carcinoma nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
blood transfusion
meta-analysis
renal cell carcinoma
survival
systematic review
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
08
11
2022
accepted:
06
02
2023
entrez:
6
3
2023
pubmed:
7
3
2023
medline:
7
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains controversial. Two meta-analyses in 2018 and 2019 reported the postoperative mortality of PBT patients with RCC, but they did not investigate the effect on the survival of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature to demonstrate whether PBT affected postoperative survival in RCC patients who received nephrectomy. Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. Studies comparing RCC patients with or without PBT following either RN or PN were included in this analysis. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS), as well as 95% confidence intervals, were considered as effect sizes. All data were processed using Stata 15.1. Ten retrospective studies involving 19,240 patients were included in this analysis, with the publication dates ranging from 2014 to 2022. Evidence revealed that PBT was significantly associated with the decline of OS (HR, 2.62; 95%CI: 1,98-3.46), RFS (HR, 2.55; 95%CI: 1.74-3.75), and CSS (HR, 3.15; 95%CI: 2.3-4.31) values. There was high heterogeneity among the study results due to the retrospective nature and the low quality of the included studies. Subgroup analysis findings suggested that the heterogeneity of this study might be caused by different tumor stages in the included articles. Evidence implied that PBT had no significant influence on RFS and CSS with or without robotic assistance, but it was still linked to worse OS (combined HR; 2.54 95% CI: 1.18, 5.47). Furthermore, the subgroup analysis with intraoperative blood loss lower than 800 ML revealed that PBT had no substantial impact on OS and CSS of postoperative RCC patients, whereas it was correlated with poor RFS (1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97). RCC patients undergoing PBT after nephrectomy had poorer survival. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022363106.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains controversial. Two meta-analyses in 2018 and 2019 reported the postoperative mortality of PBT patients with RCC, but they did not investigate the effect on the survival of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature to demonstrate whether PBT affected postoperative survival in RCC patients who received nephrectomy.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. Studies comparing RCC patients with or without PBT following either RN or PN were included in this analysis. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS), as well as 95% confidence intervals, were considered as effect sizes. All data were processed using Stata 15.1.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Ten retrospective studies involving 19,240 patients were included in this analysis, with the publication dates ranging from 2014 to 2022. Evidence revealed that PBT was significantly associated with the decline of OS (HR, 2.62; 95%CI: 1,98-3.46), RFS (HR, 2.55; 95%CI: 1.74-3.75), and CSS (HR, 3.15; 95%CI: 2.3-4.31) values. There was high heterogeneity among the study results due to the retrospective nature and the low quality of the included studies. Subgroup analysis findings suggested that the heterogeneity of this study might be caused by different tumor stages in the included articles. Evidence implied that PBT had no significant influence on RFS and CSS with or without robotic assistance, but it was still linked to worse OS (combined HR; 2.54 95% CI: 1.18, 5.47). Furthermore, the subgroup analysis with intraoperative blood loss lower than 800 ML revealed that PBT had no substantial impact on OS and CSS of postoperative RCC patients, whereas it was correlated with poor RFS (1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
RCC patients undergoing PBT after nephrectomy had poorer survival.
Systematic Review Registration
UNASSIGNED
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022363106.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36874080
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1092734
pmc: PMC9978807
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1092734Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Liu, Deng, Wen, Huang, Wang, Chen and Yang.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Ann Surg. 2012 Aug;256(2):235-44
pubmed: 22791100
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
Eur Urol Focus. 2016 Apr;2(1):86-91
pubmed: 28723456
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 4;9(1):1160
pubmed: 30718860
Blood Rev. 2007 Nov;21(6):327-48
pubmed: 17804128
Br J Anaesth. 2013 May;110(5):690-701
pubmed: 23599512
Urol Oncol. 2019 Apr;37(4):273-281
pubmed: 30737159
World J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jan 5;17(1):7
pubmed: 30611274
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015 Dec;13(6):562-7
pubmed: 26004301
J Cancer. 2016 May 12;7(8):965-72
pubmed: 27313787
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Apr;44(4):404-419
pubmed: 29398320
Science. 2006 Sep 29;313(5795):1960-4
pubmed: 17008531
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 16;10(6):e0130122
pubmed: 26080092
BMC Cancer. 2018 Jun 11;18(1):649
pubmed: 29890957
Korean J Urol. 2015 Apr;56(4):295-304
pubmed: 25874043
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Dec;22(13):4382-91
pubmed: 26293837
Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Jul;16(7):1832-42
pubmed: 19365625
Trials. 2007 Jun 07;8:16
pubmed: 17555582
Lancet. 1979 Jan 6;1(8106):20-2
pubmed: 83466
Eur Urol. 1994;26(2):145-8
pubmed: 7957470
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Jun;15(3):e421-e427
pubmed: 28089722
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Feb;17(1):e72-e79
pubmed: 30341027
Urol Oncol. 2018 Jan;36(1):12.e15-12.e20
pubmed: 28993059
J Cancer Res Ther. 2018 Sep;14(Supplement):S701-S707
pubmed: 30249890
Investig Clin Urol. 2020 Mar;61(2):136-145
pubmed: 32158964
N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 22;353(25):2654-66
pubmed: 16371631
J Endourol. 2008 Jun;22(6):1129-35
pubmed: 18498232
Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):799-810
pubmed: 30803729
Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug;25(8):1551-1561
pubmed: 32504136
BJU Int. 2014 Sep;114(3):368-74
pubmed: 24471825
PLoS One. 2016 May 09;11(5):e0154918
pubmed: 27159369
J Cancer Res Ther. 2016 Jan-Mar;12(1):146-9
pubmed: 27072228
Urology. 2004 Nov;64(5):919-24
pubmed: 15533478
Prog Urol. 2022 Jul;32(8-9):577-584
pubmed: 35523663
Urol Oncol. 2018 Aug;36(8):362.e1-362.e7
pubmed: 29793797
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD005033
pubmed: 16437512