OBJECTIVE: Perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion (PRBCT) has been implicated as a negative prognostic marker in surgical oncology. There is a paucity of evidence on the impact of PRBCT on outcomes in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We assessed whether PRBCT is an independent risk factor of recurrence and death from EOC. METHODS: Perioperative patient characteristics and process-of-care variables (defined by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) were retrospectively abstracted from 587 women who underwent primary EOC staging between January 2, 2003, and December 29, 2008. Associations with receipt of PRBCT were evaluated using univariate logistic regression models. The associations between receipt of PRBCT and disease-free survival and overall survival were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and using propensity score matching and stratification, respectively. RESULTS: The rate of PRBCT was 77.0%. The mean ± SD units transfused was 4.1 ± 3.1 U. In the univariate analysis, receipt of PRBCT was significantly associated with older age, advanced stage (≥ IIIA), undergoing splenectomy, higher surgical complexity, serous histologic diagnosis, greater estimated blood loss, longer operating time, the presence of residual disease, and lower preoperative albumin and hemoglobin. Perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion was not associated with an increased risk for recurrence or death, in an analysis adjusting for other risk factors in a multivariable model or in an analysis using propensity score matching or stratification to control for differences between the patients with and without PRBCT. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion does not seem to be directly associated with recurrence and death in EOC. However, lower preoperative hemoglobin was associated with a higher risk for recurrence. The need for PRBCT seems to be a stronger prognostic indicator than the receipt of PRBCT.
OBJECTIVE: Perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion (PRBCT) has been implicated as a negative prognostic marker in surgical oncology. There is a paucity of evidence on the impact of PRBCT on outcomes in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We assessed whether PRBCT is an independent risk factor of recurrence and death from EOC. METHODS: Perioperative patient characteristics and process-of-care variables (defined by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) were retrospectively abstracted from 587 women who underwent primary EOC staging between January 2, 2003, and December 29, 2008. Associations with receipt of PRBCT were evaluated using univariate logistic regression models. The associations between receipt of PRBCT and disease-free survival and overall survival were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and using propensity score matching and stratification, respectively. RESULTS: The rate of PRBCT was 77.0%. The mean ± SD units transfused was 4.1 ± 3.1 U. In the univariate analysis, receipt of PRBCT was significantly associated with older age, advanced stage (≥ IIIA), undergoing splenectomy, higher surgical complexity, serous histologic diagnosis, greater estimated blood loss, longer operating time, the presence of residual disease, and lower preoperative albumin and hemoglobin. Perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion was not associated with an increased risk for recurrence or death, in an analysis adjusting for other risk factors in a multivariable model or in an analysis using propensity score matching or stratification to control for differences between the patients with and without PRBCT. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion does not seem to be directly associated with recurrence and death in EOC. However, lower preoperative hemoglobin was associated with a higher risk for recurrence. The need for PRBCT seems to be a stronger prognostic indicator than the receipt of PRBCT.
Authors: A Obermair; E Petru; G Windbichler; C Peters-Engl; A H Graf; W Stummvoll; A Kaider; S Kurschel; H Kölbl; P Sevelda Journal: Oncol Rep Date: 2000 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.906
Authors: Jürgen Weitz; Michael D'Angelica; Mithat Gonen; David Klimstra; Daniel G Coit; Murray F Brennan; Martin S Karpeh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J H Choi; H C Chung; N C Yoo; H R Lee; K H Lee; J H Kim; J K Roh; J S Min; K S Lee; B S Kim Journal: Oncology Date: 1995 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Lauren S Prescott; Thomas A Aloia; Alaina J Brown; Jolyn S Taylor; Mark F Munsell; Charlotte C Sun; Kathleen M Schmeler; Charles F Levenback; Diane C Bodurka Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Lauren S Prescott; Jolyn S Taylor; Ahmed Enbaya; Claire A Marten; Keith N Myers; Larissa A Meyer; Pedro T Ramirez; Charles F Levenback; Diane C Bodurka; Kathleen M Schmeler Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Cheng-Fei Liu; Shu-Yan Liu; Xiao-Yun Min; Yuan-Yuan Ji; Na Wang; Dan Liu; Ning Ma; Zong-Fang Li; Ke Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christopher G Smith; Daniel L Davenport; Justin Gorski; Anthony McDowell; Brian T Burgess; Tricia I Fredericks; Lauren A Baldwin; Rachel W Miller; Christopher P DeSimone; Charles S Dietrich; Holly H Gallion; Edward J Pavlik; John R van Nagell; Frederick R Ueland Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2019-07-03
Authors: Khadra Galaal; Alberto Lopes; Colin Pritchard; Andrew Barton; Jennifer Wingham; Elsa M R Marques; John Faulds; Joanne Palmer; Patricia Jane Vickery; Catherine Ralph; Nicole Ferreira; Paul Ewings Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 2.692