| Literature DB >> 26942040 |
Juan P Cata1, Javier Lasala2, Greg Pratt3, Lei Feng4, Jay B Shah5.
Abstract
Background. Perioperative blood transfusions are associated with poor survival in patients with solid tumors including bladder cancer. Objective. To investigate the impact of perioperative blood transfusions on oncological outcomes after radical cystectomy. Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting and Participants. Adult patients who underwent radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Intervention. Packed red blood cells transfusion during or after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). We calculated the pooled hazard ratio (HR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals by random and fixed effects models. Results and Limitation. Eight, seven, and five studies were included in the OS, CSS, and RFS analysis, respectively. Blood transfusions were associated with 27%, 29%, and 12% reduction in OS, CSS, and RFS, respectively. A sensitivity analysis supported the association. This study has several limitations; however the main problem is that it included only retrospective studies. Conclusions. Perioperative BT may be associated with reduced RFS, CSS, and OS in patients undergoing RC for BC. A randomized controlled study is needed to determine the causality between the administration of blood transfusions and bladder cancer recurrence.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26942040 PMCID: PMC4752988 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9876394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Blood Transfus ISSN: 2090-9195
Figure 1Flow diagram.
Figure 2(a) Forrest plot for overall survival. (b) Forrest plot for cancer-specific survival. (c) Forrest plot for recurrence-free survival. HR: hazard ratio. CI: confidence interval.
Figure 3Funnel plots for outcomes.
Sensitivity analysis.
| Study | Study influence analysis OS | Study influence analysis CSS | Study influence analysis RFS | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI for HR |
|
| HR | 95% CI for HR |
|
| HR | 95% CI for HR |
|
| |
| Omitting Kluth et al. [ | 1.30 | 1.16–1.45 | 0.0151 | 67.5 | 1.34 | 1.15–1.55 | 0.021 | 59.8 | 1.26 | 1.14–1.39 | 0 | 0 |
| Omitting Linder et al. [ | 1.27 | 1.13–1.42 | 0.0168 | 71.4 | 1.29 | 1.11–1.49 | 0.0227 | 64.6 | 1.22 | 1.11–.133 | 0.0005 | 3.9 |
| Omitting Moschini et al. [ | 1.26 | 1.13–1.39 | 0.0137 | 71.0 | 1.25 | 1.10–1.41 | 0.0144 | 57.3 | 1.21 | 1.10–1.32 | 0.0003 | 2.4 |
| Omitting Morgan et al. [ | 1.29 | 1.15–1.44 | 0.0164 | 72.1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Omitting Abel et al. [ | 1.26 | 1.14–1.39 | 0.0136 | 71.0 | 1.26 | 1.11–1.43 | 0.0163 | 61.7 | 1.26 | 1.14–1.39 | 0 | 0 |
| Omitting Abel et al. [ | 1.25 | 1.12–1.38 | 0.0128 | 67.1 | 1.24 | 1.10–1.40 | 0.0128 | 52.8 | 1.22 | 1.11–.133 | 0.0005 | 3.9 |
| Omitting Soubra et al. [ | 1.30 | 1.16–1.45 | 0.0153 | 66.4 | 1.34 | 1.18–1.52 | 0.0137 | 49.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Omitting Sadeghi et al. [ | 1.28 | 1.15–1.43 | 0.0149 | 72.1 | 1.30 | 1.13–1.49 | 0.0205 | 66.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Omitting Gierth et al. [ | 1.20 | 1.12–1.30 | 0.0043 | 42.4 | 1.28 | 1.12–1.47 | 0.0201 | 65.2 | 1.21 | 1.10–1.32 | 0.0003 | 2.4 |
The summary HR when all studies are included was 1.27 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.40) with τ 2 = 0.0134, I 2 = 68.3%. The HR of transfusion ranged from 1.20 to 1.30 for the pooled meta-analysis and all omitted meta-analyses.
The summary HR when all studies are included was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.46) with τ 2 = 0.0176, I 2 = 60.7%. The HR of transfusion ranged from 1.24 to 1.34 for the pooled meta-analysis and all omitted meta-analyses.
The summary HR when all studies are included was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.31) with τ 2 = 0, I 2 = 0%. The HR of transfusion ranged from 1.18 to 1.26 for the pooled meta-analysis and all omitted meta-analyses.
| Author | Year | Ottawa-Newcastle score |
|
|
| Hazard ratio | 95% CI for HR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kluth et al. [ | 2014 | 8.00 | 2895 | 1128 | 1767 | 1.1 | 0.99–1.22 |
|
Linder et al. [ | 2013 | 9.00 | 2060 | 1279 | 781 | 1.27 | 1.12–1.45 |
|
Moschini et al. [ | 2015 | 7.00 | 1373 | 463 | 910 | 1.45 | 1.02–2.08 |
| Morgan et al. [ | 2013 | 7.00 | 777 | 323 | 454 | 1.17 | 1.01–1.36 |
| Abel et al. [ | 2014 | 7.00 | 281 | 162 | 119 | 1.49 | 1.00–2.25 |
| Abel et al. [ | 2014 | 7.00 | 1485 | 815 | 670 | 1.4 | 1.2–1.62 |
|
Soubra et al. [ | 2015 | 8.00 | 5462 | 1139 | 4323 | 1.109 | 1.011–1.21 |
| Sadeghi et al. [ | 2012 | 7.00 | 638 | 209 | 429 | 1.15 | 0.91–1.45 |
| Gierth et al. [ | 2015 | 7.00 | 684 | 423 | 261 | 1.822 | 1.45–2.29 |
| Author | Year | Ottawa-Newcastle score |
|
|
| Hazard ratio | 95% CI for HR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kluth et al. [ | 2014 | 8.00 | 2895 | 1128 | 1767 | 1.1 | 0.96–1.27 |
| Linder et al. [ | 2013 | 9.00 | 2060 | 1279 | 781 | 1.31 | 1.1–1.57 |
| Moschini et al. [ | 2015 | 7.00 | 1373 | 463 | 910 | 1.6 | 1.2–2.26 |
| Abel et al. [ | 2014 | 7.00 | 281 | 162 | 119 | 1.77 | 1.06–2.94 |
| Abel et al. [ | 2014 | 7.00 | 1485 | 815 | 670 | 1.55 | 1.24–1.94 |
| Soubra et al. [ | 2015 | 8.00 | 5462 | 1139 | 4323 | 1.052 | 0.919–1.204 |
| Sadeghi et al. [ | 2012 | 7.00 | 638 | 209 | 429 | 1.2 | 0.85–1.69 |
| Gierth et al. [ | 2015 | 7.00 | 684 | 423 | 261 | 1.35 | 1.015–1.795 |
| Author | Year | Ottawa-Newcastle score |
|
|
| Hazard ratio | 95% CI for HR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kluth et al. [ | 2014 | 8.00 | 2895 | 1128 | 1767 | 1.13 | 0.99–1.28 |
| Linder et al. [ | 2013 | 9.00 | 2060 | 1279 | 781 | 1.20 | 1.01–1.42 |
| Moschini et al. [ | 2015 | 7.00 | 1373 | 463 | 910 | 1.24 | 1.03–1.65 |
| Abel et al. [ | 2014 | 7.00 | 281 | 162 | 119 | 1.45 | 0.84–2.51 |
| Abel et al. [ | 2014 | 7.00 | 1485 | 815 | 670 | 1.45 | 1.16–1.81 |
| Gierth et al. [ | 2015 | 7.00 | 684 | 423 | 261 | 1.16 | 0.886–1.519 |
CI: confidence interval. HR: hazard ratio.