Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Role of Perioperative Blood Transfusion in Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy for Urothelial Carcinoma.
Bladder cancer
blood transfusion
outcome
perioperative
radical cystectomy
red blood cells
urothelial carcinoma
Journal
Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
ISSN: 2352-3735
Titre abrégé: Bladder Cancer
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101668567
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
12
01
2021
accepted:
22
04
2022
medline:
15
9
2022
pubmed:
15
9
2022
entrez:
12
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The impact of perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion on oncological outcomes after RC is not clearly established as the existing publications show conflicting results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the prognostic role of perioperative RBC transfusion on oncological outcomes after RC. Systematic online search on PubMed was conducted, based on PRISMA criteria for publications reporting on RBC transfusion during RC. Publications with the following criteria were included: (I) reported data on perioperative blood transfusion; (II) Reported Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% -confidence interval (CI) for the impact of transfusion on survival outcomes. Primary outcome was the impact of perioperative RBC transfusion on recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Risk of bias assessment was performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software. From 27 primarily identified publications, 19 eligible articles including 22897 patients were selected. Perioperative RBC transfusion showed no impact on RFS ( In this meta-analysis, we found perioperative blood transfusion to be a significant predictor only for worse CSS and OS but not for RFS. This effect may be determined by differences in tumor stages and patient comorbidities for which this meta-analysis cannot control due to lack of respective raw data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The impact of perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion on oncological outcomes after RC is not clearly established as the existing publications show conflicting results.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the prognostic role of perioperative RBC transfusion on oncological outcomes after RC.
METHODS
METHODS
Systematic online search on PubMed was conducted, based on PRISMA criteria for publications reporting on RBC transfusion during RC. Publications with the following criteria were included: (I) reported data on perioperative blood transfusion; (II) Reported Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% -confidence interval (CI) for the impact of transfusion on survival outcomes. Primary outcome was the impact of perioperative RBC transfusion on recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Risk of bias assessment was performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From 27 primarily identified publications, 19 eligible articles including 22897 patients were selected. Perioperative RBC transfusion showed no impact on RFS (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis, we found perioperative blood transfusion to be a significant predictor only for worse CSS and OS but not for RFS. This effect may be determined by differences in tumor stages and patient comorbidities for which this meta-analysis cannot control due to lack of respective raw data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38993684
doi: 10.3233/BLC-201534
pii: BLC201534
pmc: PMC11181769
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
315-327Informations de copyright
© 2022 – The authors. Published by IOS Press.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
G.G. is an Editorial Board member of this journal, but was not involved in the peer-review process nor had access to any information regarding its peer-review. M.K., O.F., L.E., T.G., E.X. and C.G.S. have no conflicts of interest concerning the manuscript. G.G. reports advisory board activities for MSD, Astellas, Ipsen, Bayer, Leo Pharma and receipt of speaker’s honoraria from MSD, Ipsen, Erbe, Pierre Fabre, Roche.