Impact of perioperative blood transfusions on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for major urologic malignancies

Abstract

The association between allogeneic perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) and decreased survival among patients undergoing various oncological surgeries has been established in various malignant diseases, including colorectal, thoracic and hepatocellular cancer. However, when focusing on urologic tumors, the significance of PBT and its adverse effect remains debatable, mainly due to inconsistency between studies. Nevertheless, the rate of PBT remains high and may reach up to 62% in patients undergoing major urologic surgeries. Hence, the relatively high rate of PBT among related operations, along with the increasing prevalence of several urologic tumors, give this topic great significance in clinical practice. Indeed, recent retrospective studies, followed by systematic reviews in both prostate and bladder cancer surgery have supported the association that has been demonstrated in several malignancies, while other major urologic malignancies, including renal cell carcinoma and upper tract urothelial carcinoma, have also been addressed retrospectively. It is only a matter of time before the data will be sufficient for qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis. In the current study, we performed a literature review to define the association between PBT and the oncological outcomes in patients who undergo surgery for major urologic malignancies. We believe that the current review of the literature will increase awareness of the importance and relevance of this issue, as well as highlight the need for evidence-based standards for blood transfusion as well as more controlled transfusion thresholds.

Keywords

bladder cancer outcomes perioperative blood cell transfusion prostate cancer renal cell carcinoma survival upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Introduction

Perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (PBT) is often required in patients undergoing major cancer surgery. Lately, many studies have suggested that allogeneic PBT may increase the risk of infectious complications, reduce long-term survival as well as increase cancer recurrence and decrease long-term survival among patients undergoing oncological surgeries for various malignancies, including colorectal, thoracic and hepatocellular cancer.^1–6

The current literature regarding urological malignancies is somewhat inconsistent. While numerous recent studies have reported an adverse association between blood transfusions and survival after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer,^7,8 inconsistent data have been described in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa)^9–11 or nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC).^12–14 To date, the reported incidence of PBT in patients undergoing major urologic surgical procedures reaches up to 62%.^8,12,15 Therefore, determining the impact of transfusion among patients undergoing surgery for urologic malignancies remains highly clinically relevant.

This review was undertaken to address this critical issue. We performed a literature search to investigate the association between PBT and the clinical and oncological outcomes in patients who undergo surgery for major urologic malignancies. Review of the existing literature revealed an association between PBT and the oncological outcomes in patients who undergo surgery for major urologic malignancies. Hence, carefully restricted indications for PBT, alternative strategies for blood replacement and surgical techniques to minimize blood loss seems necessary.

Methods

Studies were identified by searches of electronic databases (Medline, Medline In-process, Embase and Cochrane Library databases). References cited in all full-text articles were also assessed for additional relevant articles. Search words included: ‘blood transfusion’, ‘urology’, ‘bladder cancer’, ‘prostate cancer’, ‘renal cell carcinoma’ and ‘upper tract urothelial carcinoma’.

Bladder cancer

Bladder cancer (BCa) is one of the most prevalent cancers in developed countries.^16,17 A RC with extended pelvic lymph node dissection remains the gold standard for treatment of muscle-invasive BCa and also in cases of high-risk nonmuscle-invasive BCa.^18,19 Despite being the treatment of choice, RC has relatively high complication rates. These include considerable blood loss and a consequent high transfusion rate. In recent years, numerous attempts have been made to reduce blood loss during RC. Several methods including hemostatic agents (topical and systemic),²⁰ adding epidural anesthesia to general anesthesia²¹ or new technical devices such as the bipolar apparatus (LigaSure), harmonic scalpel or a stapling apparatus and laparoscopic surgeries were suggested as useful tools to lessen blood loss and lower the need for transfusions.^22,23 However, although advances in surgical techniques have led to the reduced transfusion rates in some cystectomy series, open RC remains associated with a rather high transfusion rate. Recent reviews reported estimated intraoperative blood loss between 560 ml and 3,000 ml^24,25 and an incidence of at least one intraoperative blood unit transfusion in up to 67% of procedures^26,27 (Table 1). Laparoscopic RC and specifically robot-assisted laparoscopic RC (RARC) have recently become an alternative to open RC and were proven to be well tolerated and feasible with equivalent oncologic efficacy.²⁸ Cumulative analyses demonstrated that RARC might provide some advantages concerning estimated blood loss (EBL) and transfusion rates. Despite the significant decrease in EBL, transfusion rates are still relatively high and vary between 7% and 44% in most series²⁹ (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of studies in bladder cancer.

Study	Year	n	YOS	% PBT	Median FU (m)	Survival analysis (HR, 95% CI)
					Median FU (m)	Disease recurrence	Cancer-specific mortality	All-cause mortality
Abel and colleagues³²	2014	360	2003–2012	67	18.7	Not significant 1.25 (0.9–1.9)	Not significant 1.45 (0.97–2.2)	Not significant 1.2 (0.9–1.7)
Gierth and colleagues³³	2014	684	1995–2010	61.8	50	Not significant 1.16 (0.9–1.5)	Significant 1.35 (1.0–1.8)	Significant 1.8 (1.45–2.3)
Kluth and colleagues³⁴	2014	2,895	1998–2010	39	36.1	Not significant 1.13 (0.99–1.3)	Not significant 1.1 (0.96–1.3)	Not significant 1.1 (0.99–1.2)
Linder, and colleagues⁸	2013	2,060	1980–2005	62	10.9 (y)	Significant 1.2 (1.01–1.4)	Significant 1.3 (1.1–1.57)	Significant 1.3 (1.1–1.45)
Morgan and colleagues¹⁵	2013	777	2000–2008	42	25	N/A	N/A	Significant 1.17 (1.01–1.4)
Sadeghi and colleagues³⁵	2012	638	1989–2010	32.8	25.5	N/A	Not significant 1.2 (0.85–1.7)	Not significant 1.15 (0.9–1.45)
Soubra and colleagues¹³	2015	5,462	1992–2009	20.4	21	N/A	Not significant 1.05 (0.9–1.2)	Not significant 1.1 (0.99–1.2)
Siemens and colleagues³⁰	2017	2,593	2000–2008	62	^* 60	N/A	Significant 1.39 (1.23–1.56)	Significant 1.33 (1.20–1.48)

CI, confidence interval; FU, follow up; HR, hazard ratio; N/A, not available, PBT, perioperative blood transfusion; YOS, year of surgery.

data reported, 5 year survival.

To date, the 5-year overall survival following surgery for BCa is far from optimal, ranging from 42% to 58% (based on preoperative disease stage). Over recent decades, several clinical and pathological parameters have been described as possible risk factors for disease progression and recurrence. Given the known effect of blood transfusion on survival in other malignancies, PBT has been proposed as a possible risk factor of poor survival following RC, and indeed, several observational studies managed to demonstrate an association between PBT and increased morbidity and mortality after RC.⁸ Notably, Linder and colleagues revealed that receipt of PBT was associated with poorer recurrence-free survival (RFS; 58% versus 64%; p = 0.01), cancer-specific survival (CSS; 59% versus 72%; p < 0.001), and overall survival (OS; 45% versus 63%; p < 0.001). In support of these findings, Siemens and colleagues demonstrated worse OS and CSS at 5 years among patients with PBT following RC.³⁰ However, other studies failed to show this correlation and questioned the validity of this association, suggesting that the clinical or pathological features (such as pathological tumor stage or older age) of patients who received PBT, rather than PBT itself, lead to worse outcomes (acting as confounders;¹⁵ Table 1). Trying to clarify this debate, a few studies have tried to summarize the available data in the form of a systematic review (with meta-analysis). The first to conduct such study was You-Lin Wang and colleagues,⁷ who reviewed the outcomes available from six previous studies and concluded that PBT was associated with poorer risks of CSS, OS and RFS. A more recent study by Cata and colleagues³¹ included eight studies and supported previous results by suggesting that PBT may be associated with a 27%, 29% and 12% reduction in OS, CSS and RFS, respectively, in patients undergoing RC. Given the study limitations, Cata and colleagues rightfully concluded that a well-designed prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed.

Kidney cancer

RCC accounts for 2–3% of all malignancies in adults. During recent decades, the incidence of RCC has been increased globally.³⁶ The increasing trend may be related to a decrease in the average size of tumors at presentation.³⁷ On the other hand, the rate of RCC-related mortality has increased steadily.³⁸ To date, the most potentially effective treatment for patients with localized and locally advanced renal masses (cT1–T3) is surgical resection by either partial or radical nephrectomy (PN and RN, respectively). Reported blood transfusion rates after nephrectomy (including PN or RN) show considerable variability ranging from 3.5% to almost 30%.^12,39 These are due to the diversity of procedures, including highly technical operations (laparoscopic or robot-assisted PN) or complex open radical cases in which partial resection is unfeasible due to an unfavorable tumor location or locally advanced tumor growth. Given these factors, as well as the high variability of PBT rate, joined with the increasing data on the adverse effect of PBT in patients undergoing cancer surgery, the risk of bleeding has become one of the most serious complications during and following nephrectomy. Several risk factors for hemorrhage during nephrectomy have been documented, including patient age, high Charlson score, low preoperative hemoglobin level, bigger lesion size, central renal lesions and surgeon/hospital volume quartile.^39,40 Simultaneously, inconsistent results have been reported regarding the association of PBT with RCC recurrence and CSS after nephrectomy (Table 2). While Moffat and colleagues⁴¹ did not detect a significant difference in CSS, Manyonda and colleagues⁴² and Mermershtain and colleagues⁴³ noted that the 5-year CSS was significantly lower in patients who received PBT during PN or RN. Edna and colleagues⁴⁴ supported these findings and reported that the number of blood units administrated (>4 units) was also associated with RCC-related mortality. Nevertheless, most early studies examining the effects of PBT on patients undergoing PN or RN were inadequate mainly due to small sample sizes and early patient cohorts. Recently, few large contemporary cohorts, with long-term postoperative follow up began to appear. Linder and colleagues¹² for example, have assessed the relationship between PBT and survival in 2,318 patients with RCC treated with nephrectomy. In this series, the PBT rate was 21% and was associated with poorer OS based on log-rank analyses (56% versus 82%; p < 0.001) but not CSS.¹² On the other hand, in a larger series by Soubra and colleagues¹³ on 14,379 patients with RCC, PBT was associated with better CSS and OS; however, the last was limited given the lack of data regarding additional possible confounders such as tumor size, preoperative hemoglobin, presence of necrosis and capsular invasion, tumor stage and grade.^45,46 A recent study by Abu-Ghanem and colleagues supported these results and indicated an association between PBT administration and adverse RFS (92% versus 81%, p < 0.01), CSS (95% versus 85%, p < 0.001), and OS (81% versus 73%, p < 0.001) in patients undergoing nephrectomy for RCC. Notably, in response to the last issue, Abu-Ghanem and colleagues conducted a multivariate analysis to include the additional clinicopathological variables and discovered that PBT remained significantly associated with increased risks of disease-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.1, p = 0.02], metastatic progression (HR = 2.4, p = 0.007), CSS (HR = 2.5, p = 0.02) and OS (HR = 2.2, p = 0.001).⁴⁷ Abu-Ghanem and colleagues mentioned that the main effect on prognosis appears only after a follow up of at least 4–5 years.⁴⁷

Table 2.

Summary of studies in renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Study	Year	n	YOS	OP type	% PBT	Median FU (m)	Survival analysis (HR, 95% CI)
						Median FU (m)	Disease recurrence	Cancer-specific mortality	All-cause mortality
Abu-Ghanem and colleagues⁴⁹	2017	1,159	1987–2013	PN, RN	17	63.2	Significant 2.1 (1.1–3.9)	Significant 2.8 (1.3–5.9)	Significant 2.2 (1.4–3.5)
Edna and colleagues⁴⁴*>4 units	1992	201	1974–1987	RN	77	N/A	N/A	Significant 2.0 (1.2–3.2)	N/A
Jakobsen and colleagues⁵⁰	1994	208	1982–1994	RN	24	N/A	N/A	N/A	Not significant
Linder and colleagues¹²	2014	2,318	1990–2006	PN, RN	21	9.1 (y)	Not significant 1.04 (N/A)	Not significant 1.15 (0.9–1.5)	Significant 1.2 (1.04–1.5)
Manyonda and colleagues⁴²	1986	80	1975–1985	RN	69	N/A	N/A	N/A	Significant (N/A)
Mermershtain and colleagues⁴³	2003	99	1990–1998	RN	14	57	Significant (N/A)	N/A	N/A
Moffat and colleagues⁴¹	1987	126	1973–1985	RN	63	N/A	N/A	N/A	Not significant
Park and colleagues¹⁴	2016	3,832	N/A	PN, RN	11.7	42	Not significant	Not significant	Not significant
Soubra and colleagues¹³	2015	14,379	1992–2009	PN, RN	10.4	39	N/A	Significant 1.36 (1.2–1.6)	Significant 1.4 (1.3–1.5)
Soria and colleagues⁵¹	2016	648	2004–2014	PN, RN	10	63	N/A	Significant 2.3 (1.3–4.1)	Significant 1.86 (1.2–2.9)

CI, confidence interval; FU, follow up; HR, hazard ratio; N/A, not available; OP, operation; PBT, perioperative blood transfusion; YOS, year of surgery.

As opposed to these studies, a multicenter study by Park and colleagues found no association between PBT and prognosis in patients with RCC, following propensity score matching analysis.¹⁴ Recently, Arcaniolo and colleagues⁴⁸ addressed this debate by conducting a systematic review and pooled analysis of the outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for RCC. By including most of the current evidence, the authors suggest that the use of PBT may be associated with worse oncologic outcomes in patients with RCC undergoing nephrectomy. Notably, the authors concluded that their results should be interpreted with caution, given the intrinsic limitations.⁴⁸ Therefore, further validation by a large cohort of patients, preferably a well-designed RCT is still required.

Prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is one of the most prevalent solid tumors in men. With growing awareness of the disease leading to higher uptake of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, more patients are being diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.⁵²

At present, radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the principal management options for localized disease. Historically, RP and particularly open RP (ORP) is associated with substantial operative blood loss and high risk of PBT.⁵³

Earlier studies found various preoperative characteristics that predict increased EBL including higher body mass index, prostate volume, operative time, lymph node dissection status and neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. However, parallel to, or maybe due to robust analysis examining all frequently available preoperative factors, the rate of blood loss during open RP has been noticeably reduced in the past decade.⁵⁴ Optional explanations include better control of the dorsal venous complex and operative approach. In recent years, the inconsistency in ORP outcomes accelerated the development of less invasive treatment alternatives including laparoscopic RP (LRP) and robotic-assisted LRP (RALP). Despite the relatively low popularity of LRP (mainly due to technical complexity and limited ergonomics), RALP quickly became the standards of care at many centers worldwide.⁵⁵ Despite an existing debate regarding the functional and oncological outcomes following RALP in comparison with ORP, there is compelling evidence that RALP is associated with less blood loss and blood transfusion rate. It has been suggested that the positive pressure of the pneumoperitoneum, head-down position as well as meticulous hemostasis, all have a role in reducing intraoperative bleeding.^55,56

However, despite the significant decrease in PBT rate following RP, the risk of bleeding remains a major concern, mainly since intraoperative bleeding can have an effect on perioperative morbidity, primarily, transfusion requirements.

Given the previously described association between PBT and cancer prognosis and the risk of bleeding following RP, it is evident that the adverse effect of PBT will be investigated in PCa patients. Like with RCC, most studies presented conflicting results (Table 3). To obtain more conclusive results, Su-Liang Li and colleagues⁵⁷ have recently conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. In their study, Su-Liang Li and colleagues included 10 published studies and a total of 26,698 patients and concluded that allogeneic PBT was associated with reduced biochemical RFS (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01–1.16; p = 0.02), OS (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.24–1.64; p < 0.01) and CSS (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.18–2.56; p = 0.005) in patients undergoing RP. These findings provide further support for the role of PBT in cancer outcome and the need for better blood conservation strategies.

Table 3.

Summary of studies in prostate cancer (PCa).

Study	Year	n	YOS	% PBT	Median FU (m)	Survival analysis (HR, 95% CI)
					Median FU (m)	Disease recurrence	Cancer-specific mortality	All-cause mortality
Boehm and colleagues⁶²*Allogeneic	2015	11,723	1992–2011	10.4	49	Not significant 0.99 (0.8–1.2)	Not significant 1.3 (0.7–2.2)	Not significant 1.4 (0.9–2.1)
Chalfin and colleagues⁶³*Allogeneic	2014	7,443	1994–2012	3.5	6 (y)	Not significant 1.02 (0.7–1.4)	Not significant 1.5 (0.5–4.6)	Not significant 1.55 (0.9–2.5)
Eickhoff and colleagues⁶⁴	1991	156	1978–1986	38	N/A	N/A	0.6 (0.3–1.2)	N/A
Ford and colleagues⁶⁵*Allogeneic	2008	611	1987–2005	19	44	Not significant 1.05 (0.49– 2.2)	N/A	N/A
Kim and colleagues¹¹	2016	2,713	1993–2014	16.5	60.2	Significant 1.3 (1.01–1.8)	Significant 4.6 (1.6–13.3)	Significant 2.3 (1.4–3.8)
McClinton and colleagues⁶⁶	1990	246	1977–1982	29	N/A	N/A	N/A	Significant
Oefelein and colleagues⁶⁷*Allogeneic	1995	251	1980–1990	89.2	6.1 (y)	Significant 1.08 (1.0–1.16)	Significant 1.25 (1.1–7.04)	N/A
Paul and colleagues¹⁰	2006	1,412	1984–2003	56.7	58.2	Not significant	Not significant	Not significant
Yeoh and colleagues⁶⁸	2014	5,110	1991–2005	16.4	9.4–10.2 (y)	Not significant 0.9 (0.4–2)	Not significant 1.7 (0.4–6.5)	Not significant 1.2 (0.9–1.7)

CI, confidence interval; FU, follow up; HR, hazard ratio; N/A, not available; PBT, perioperative blood transfusion; YOS, year of surgery.

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is uncommon and accounts for only 5–10% of urothelial carcinomas. To date, radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is the gold-standard treatment in patients with normal contralateral kidney and high-grade/invasive pelvicocaliceal or ureteral tumors.⁵⁸ Despite significant progress in surgical and medical management, RNU is still associated with a relatively high rate of PBT, which reaches up to 10–15% in large series.⁵⁹ Interestingly, although roughly 20% of patients who undergo RNU for UTUC require PBT, only a few recent studies have investigated the possible association between PBT and CSS in patients with UTUC undergoing RNU (Table 4). Rieken and colleagues⁶⁰ were the first to examine this association in a retrospective analysis of 2,492 patients at 23 institutions between 1987 and 2007, all treated with nephroureterectomy for UTUC. In their cohort, the PBT rate was approximately 20.5%; PBT was found associated with worse RFS, CSS and OS in univariable but not in multivariable Cox regression analysis. Following this study, Rink and colleagues⁶¹ conducted similar analysis on 285 patients from three German academic institutions and reported a PBT rate of 28.4%, and demonstrated, on a mean follow up of 52 months, that PBT was a risk factor for worse OS but not CSS or RFS in patients with UTUC treated with RNU (HR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.055–2.428; p = 0.027).

Table 4.

Summary of studies in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).

Study	Year	n	YOS	% PBT	Median FU (m)	Survival analysis (HR, 95% CI)
					Median FU (m)	Disease recurrence	Cancer-specific mortality	All-cause mortality
Rieken and colleagues⁶⁰	2014	2,492	1987–2007	20.5	36	Not significant 1.1 (0.9–1.3)	Not significant 1.09 (0.9–1.3)	Not significant 1.09 (0.9–1.3)
Rink and colleagues⁶¹	2016	285	1992–2012	28.4	30	Not significant 1.16 (0.7–1.8)	Not significant 1.2 (0.7–2.0)	Significant 1.5 (1.1–2.2)

CI, confidence interval; FU, follow up; HR, hazard ratio; PBT, perioperative blood transfusion; YOS, year of surgery.

Given these inconsistent results, it may appear likely that in patients undergoing RNU for UTUC, the conditions requiring a PBT are predictors of outcome and not PBT itself. Continuing with this line of thought, a recent systematic review, and meta-analysis by Fei Luo and colleagues⁶⁹ recently investigated whether preoperative anemia itself (rather than PBT administration) is an independent risk factor for UTUC following RNU. They showed that among patients with UTUC, those with preoperative anemia had significantly poorer CSS, RFS and OS following radical curative therapy. They then concluded that perioperative anemia might be useful as a useful prognostic predictor for patients with UTUC undergoing RNU. Given the paucity of data, future research is warranted for a better assessment of the prognostic implications of PBT in patients with UTUC.

Association of outcomes with the timing of perioperative transfusion

Concurrently, the immunosuppressive effect of blood transfusion is being explored, and additional mechanisms are being suggested to explain this association. Interestingly, some of the proposed mechanisms, including immune function impairment from anesthetic agents,⁷⁰ or decreased host immunity caused by tissue injury are likely to have an added effect during surgery.⁷¹ Hence, suggesting that intraoperative transfusion may potentially have a more significant impact on

patient outcomes. In support of this idea, a few recent studies by Abel and colleagues³² and Moschini and colleagues^72–74 have addressed this issue in patients undergoing BCa surgery and found that patients who received intraoperative, but not postoperative blood transfusion had inferior survival outcomes. Recently, we investigated this association and demonstrated that intraoperative, but not postoperative blood transfusion, was associated with poorer risk of recurrence and cancer-specific mortality in patients undergoing nephrectomy for RCC.⁴⁹ On the contrary, a recent study by Bagrodia and colleagues indicated that blood transfusion administration was not associated with clinical or oncological outcomes in patients with UTUC, regardless of timing (either intraoperatively or postoperatively).⁷⁵ Nevertheless, there is still a scarcity of data regarding the timing of transfusion and its effect on oncological outcomes in other malignancies, and further studies are required (Table 5).

Table 5.

Summary of studies stratified by timing of perioperative blood transfusion.

Study	Operation	Year	n	% PBT		Survival analysis (HR, 95% CI)
				Intra-OP	Post-OP	Intra-OP			Post-OP
						Disease recurrence	Cancer-specific mortality	All-cause mortality	Disease recurrence	Cancer-specific mortality	All-cause mortality
Abel and colleagues³²	RC	2014	360	18	22	NS 1.45 (0.8–2.5)	Sig 1.8 (1.1–2.9)	NS 1.5 (1.0–2.2)	NS 1.1 (0.7–1.2)	NS 1.05 (0.6–2)	NS 0.9 (0.5–1.5)
			1,770	23.4	16.1	Sig 1.45 (1.2–1.8)	Sig 1.55 (1.2–1.9)	Sig 1.4 (1.2–1.6)	NS0.9(0.7–1.2)	NS0.9(0.7–1.2)	NS1.1(0.9–1.3)
Moschini and colleagues⁷²	RC	2015	1,490	21.6	6.5	Sig 1.2 (1.03–1.6)	Sig 1.6 (1.2–2.3)	Sig 1.45 (1.02–2.1)	NS1.5(0.8–2.9)	NS1.6(0.8–3.2)	NS1.4(0.7–2.6)
Moschini and colleagues⁷³	RC	2016	728	N/A	N/A	Sig 1.4 (1.1–1.97)	Sig 1.6 (1.1–2.3)	Sig 1.5 (1.1–2.1)	NS1.8 (0.9–3)	NS1.7(0.96–3)	NS1.6(0.95–2.8)
Moschini and colleagues⁷⁴	RC	2017	1,081	11.3	7	^aNS1.15(0.7–1.8)	N/A	N/A	^aNS1.3(0.8–2)	N/A	N/A
			433	28.2	6.5	^aNS1.2(0.6–2.5)	N/A	N/A	^aNS1.55(0.8–2.9)	N/A	N/A
Abu-Ghanem and colleagues⁴⁹	RN, PN	2018	1,168	11.8	6.9	Sig 2.4 (1.2–4.8)	Sig 3.5 (1.6–7.7)	Sig 2.1 (1.3–3.5)	^aNS2(0.8–4.8)	NS1.4(0.4–4.9)	Sig 2.4 (1.3–4.4)
Bagrodia and colleagues⁷⁵	RNU	2018	402	6.7	10.9	N/A	N/A	NS0.95 (0.5–1.78)	N/A	N/A	N/A

CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IntBT, intraoperative blood transfusion; N/A, not available; NS, not statistically significant; OP, operative; PBT, perioperative blood transfusion; PN, partial nephrectomy; PoBT, postoperative blood transfusion; RC, radical cystectomy; RN, radical nephrectomy; RNU, radical nephroureterectomy; Sig, statistically significant.

Distant recurrence.

Discussion

Several retrospective studies have examined the question of whether PBTs are associated with a higher risk of cancer recurrence following surgery. Overall findings suggest that having a PBT during uro-oncology surgery is associated with adverse oncological outcomes (Figure 1). While the association between prognosis and PBT has been established over the years in various malignant diseases, including several Cochrane studies, when focusing on urological tumors, the question regarding the significance of PBT and its adverse effect has hardly been examined. Over the years, only small, retrospective and mostly old studies have been conducted. However, just recently, there has been a renewed rejuvenation and the subject of PBT in urologic tumors has become a relevant research query. One of the expressions of the rising popularity of the matter is reflected in the recent systematic reviews published, whose primary purpose is to try to summarize the small studies that have emerged over the years to form one crucial conclusion. Systematic reviews in both prostate and BCa surgery have supported the association that has been demonstrated in several malignancies, including colon, thoracic and hepatocellular cancer. It seems that although similar analysis is lacking in other major urologic malignancies, it is only a matter of time before further retrospective studies, followed by systematic reviews will address other tumors, mainly UTUC and RCC. These potentially deleterious effects of allogeneic blood transfusion have been explained by several hypothesized mechanisms, primarily via the induction of immunosuppression.

Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier survival analysis assessing distant recurrence in the testing (a) and in validation (b) cohorts of patients treated with radical cystectomy, nephrectomy and radical nephroureterectomy owing to bladder cancer, renal cancer and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (respectively).

Nevertheless, it has been previously argued, that in the absence of a well-designed RCT, there is no convincing evidence to conclude that red blood cell transfusion to patients undergoing cancer surgery worsens oncological outcomes. Limitations of the retrospective design are mainly attributable to the potential confounding variables or simply incomplete data cohorts. Furthermore, the lack of conclusive guidelines regarding indications for PBT implies some flaws in the previous study design. The decision of whether or not to transfuse is often based on various clinical and laboratory variables, including patient hemodynamic stability, preoperative hemoglobin values and EBL during surgery. However, although many data exist on the best timing of transfusion, substantial variability still exists. One of the potential reasons relates to the fact that the decision to deliver blood transfusion is often derived from clinical judgment and services routines and sometimes exclusively on the primary care physicians’ discretionary decision. This practice is mainly problematic in the intraoperative setting, in which different providers (surgeon or anesthetist) may often base their decision to deliver blood only on routines, experience, or simply ‘intuition’; however, in the presence of existing data, even if it is difficult to ascertain this association at the highest level of evidence, one can still draw a few conclusions:

Clear transfusion thresholds should be applied.

Evidence-based guidelines regarding the indications and timing of PBT are needed.

Alternatives to allogeneic blood transfusions should be explored to minimize the rate of PBT during cancer surgeries.

To date, there are no specific transfusion thresholds nor clear indications for blood administration. We believe that the current review of the literature, emphasizes the need for better blood delivery standards to minimize perioperative blood administration and to avoid the possible ‘abuse’ of blood products.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

ORCID iD

Yasmin Abu-Ghanem

References

Bernard

Davenport

Chang

et al. Intraoperative transfusion of 1 U to 2 U packed red blood cells is associated with increased 30-day mortality, surgical-site infection, pneumonia, and sepsis in general surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208: 931–937.e2.

Rawn

. The silent risks of blood transfusion. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2008; 21: 664–668.

Acheson

Brookes

Spahn

. Effects of allogeneic red blood cell transfusions on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2012; 256: 235–244.

Cata

Wang

Gottumukkala

et al. Inflammatory response, immunosuppression, and cancer recurrence after perioperative blood transfusions. Br J Anaesth 2013; 110: 690–701.

Liu

Wang

Jiang

et al. Perioperative allogenenic blood transfusion is associated with worse clinical outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e64261.

Luan

et al. Perioperative blood transfusion adversely affects prognosis after resection of lung cancer: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. BMC Surg 2014; 23:14: 34.

Wang

Jiang

Yin

et al. Perioperative blood transfusion promotes worse outcomes of bladder cancer after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0130122.

Linder

Frank

Cheville

et al. The impact of perioperative blood transfusion on cancer recurrence and survival following radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 839–845.

Velagapudi

SRC

Frydenberg

Oesterling

et al. Homologous blood transfusion in patients with prostate cancer: no effect on tumor progression or survival. Urology 1994; 43: 821–827.

10.

Paul

Schmid

Busch

et al. Influence of blood transfusions during radical retropubic prostatectomy on disease outcome. Urology 2006; 67: 137–141.

11.

Kim

Park

et al. Perioperative blood transfusion as a significant predictor of biochemical recurrence and survival after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154918.

12.

Linder

Thompson

Leibovich

et al. The impact of perioperative blood transfusion on survival after nephrectomy for non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). BJU Int 2014; 114: 368–374.

13.

Soubra

Zabell

Adejoro

et al. Effect of perioperative blood transfusion on mortality for major urologic malignancies. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2015; 13: e173–e181.

14.

Park

Kim

Kang

et al. Association between perioperative blood transfusion and oncologic outcomes after curative surgery for renal cell carcinoma. J Cancer 2016; 7: 965–972.

15.

Morgan

Barocas

Chang

et al. The relationship between perioperative blood transfusion and overall mortality in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 871–877.

16.

Ploeg

Aben

KKH

Kiemeney

. The present and future burden of urinary bladder cancer in the world. World J Urol 2009; 27: 289–293.

17.

Torre

Bray

Siegel

et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 87–108.

18.

Witjes

Compérat

Cowan

et al. EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2013 guidelines. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 778–792.

19.

Ghoneim

Abdel-Latif

El-Mekresh

et al. Radical cystectomy for carcinoma of the bladder: 2,720 consecutive cases 5 years later. J Urol 2008; 180: 121–127.

20.

Punjani

Lavallée

Momoli

et al. Blood transfusion and hemostatic agents used during radical cystectomy. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7(5–6): E275–E280.

21.

Ozyuvaci

Altan

Karadeniz

et al. General anesthesia versus epidural and general anesthesia in radical cystectomy. Urol Int 2005; 74: 62–67.

22.

Manoharan

Ayyathurai

. Radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer of the bladder: contemporary advances. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2007; 59: 99–107.

23.

Chang

Smith

Cookson

. Decreasing blood loss in patients treated with radical cystectomy: a prospective randomizes trial using a new stapling device. J Urol 2003; 169: 951–954.

24.

Liedberg

. Early complications and morbidity of radical cystectomy. Eur Urol Suppl 2010; 9: 25–30.

25.

Knap

Lundbeck

Overgaard

. Early and late treatment-related morbidity following radical cystectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2004; 38: 153–160.

26.

Chang

Smith

Wells

et al. Estimated blood loss and transfusion requirements of radical cystectomy. J Urol 2001; 166: 2151–2154.

27.

Novara

De Marco

Aragona

et al. Complications and mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder transitional cell cancer. J Urol 2009; 182: 914–921.

28.

Tang

Xia

et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. PLoS One 2014; 9: e95667.

29.

Novara

Catto

JWF

Wilson

et al. Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 376–401.

30.

Siemens

Jaeger

Wei

et al. Peri-operative allogeneic blood transfusion and outcomes after radical cystectomy: a population-based study. World J Urol 2017; 35: 1435–1442.

31.

Cata

Lasala

Pratt

et al. Association between perioperative blood transfusions and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing bladder cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis study. J blood Transfus 2016; 2016: 9876394.

32.

Abel

Linder

Bauman

et al. Perioperative blood transfusion and radical cystectomy: does timing of transfusion affect bladder cancer mortality? Eur Urol 2014; 66: 1139–1147.

33.

Gierth

Aziz

Fritsche

et al. The effect of intra- and postoperative allogenic blood transfusion on patients’ survival undergoing radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. World J Urol 2014; 32: 1447–1453.

34.

Kluth

Xylinas

Rieken

et al. Impact of peri-operative blood transfusion on the outcomes of patients undergoing radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. BJU Int 2014; 113: 393–398.

35.

Sadeghi

Badalato

Hruby

et al. The impact of perioperative blood transfusion on survival following radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma. Can J Urol 2012; 19: 6443–6449.

36.

Siegel

Naishadham

Jemal

. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10–29.

37.

Nguyen

Gill

Ellison

. The evolving presentation of renal carcinoma in the United States: trends from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. J Urol 2006; 176: 2397–2400.

38.

Rini

Campbell

Escudier

. Renal cell carcinoma. Lancet 2009; 373: 1119–1132.

39.

Vricella

Finelli

Alibhai

SMH

et al. The true risk of blood transfusion after nephrectomy for renal masses: a population-based study. BJU Int 2013; 111: 1294–1300.

40.

Abu-Ghanem

Dotan

Kaver

et al. Predictive factors for perioperative blood transfusions in partial nephrectomy for renal masses. J Surg Oncol 2015; 112: 496–502.

41.

Moffat

Sunderland

Lamont

. Blood transfusion and survival following nephrectomy for carcinoma of kidney. Br J Urol 1987; 60: 316–319.

42.

Manyonda

Shaw

Foulkes

et al. Renal cell carcinoma: blood transfusion and survival. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293: 537–538.

43.

Mermershtain

Eidelberg

Yusim

et al. Perioperative homologous blood transfusion and survival in patients with surgically treated renal cell carcinoma. UroOncology 2003; 3: 23–25.

44.

Edna

Vada

Hesselberg

et al. Blood transfusion and survival following surgery for renal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1992; 77: 140–142.

45.

Cho

Kim

et al. Prognostic value of capsular invasion for localized clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 1006–1012.

46.

Lee

Byun

et al. Significance of macroscopic tumor necrosis as a prognostic indicator for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2006; 176: 1332–1338.

47.

Abu-Ghanem

Zilberman

Dotan

et al. Perioperative blood transfusion adversely affects prognosis after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol. Epub ahead of print 6 October 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.09.006.

48.

Arcaniolo

Manfredi

Cindolo

et al. Impact of perioperative blood transfusions on the outcomes of patients undergoing kidney cancer surgery: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2019; 17: e72–e79.

49.

Abu-Ghanem

Dotan

Kaver

et al. PD73–08 the impact of intra vs. post-operative blood transfusion on cancer recurrence and survival following nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2017; 197: e1370.

50.

Jakobsen

Eickhoff

Andersen

et al. Perioperative blood transfusion does not affect survival after operation for renal cell cancer. Eur Urol 1994; 26: 145–148.

51.

Soria

de Martino

Leitner

et al. Perioperative allogenic blood transfusion in renal cell carcinoma: risk factors and effect on long-term outcomes. Clin Genitourin Cancer Epub ahead of print 29 December 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.12.002.

52.

Abu-Ghanem

Madhavan

Kirby

et al. Treatment modalities for localised prostate cancer. Trends Urol Men’s Heal 2012; 3: 21–25.

53.

Yaxley

Coughlin

Chambers

et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016; 388: 1057–1066.

54.

Moul

Sun

et al. Factors associated with blood loss during radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-era: an overview of the department of defense (DOD) Center for prostate disease research (CPDR) national database. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2003; 21: 447–455.

55.

Finkelstein

Eckersberger

Sadri

et al. Open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: the European and US experience. Rev Urol 2010; 12: 35–43.

56.

Sultan

Merrilees

Chabert

et al. Blood loss during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2009; 23: 635–638.

57.

Yuan

. Association between allogeneic or autologous blood transfusion and survival in patients after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0171081.

58.

Babjuk

Compe

Zigeuner

et al. European association of urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial cell carcinoma: 2015 update. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 868–879.

59.

Hanna

Sun

Trinh

et al. Propensity-score-matched comparison of perioperative outcomes between open and laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: a national series. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 715–721.

60.

Rieken

Schubert

Xylinas

et al. Association of perioperative blood transfusion with oncologic outcomes after radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2014; 40: 1693–1699.

61.

Rink

Soave

Dahlem

et al. Impact of perioperative allogenic blood transfusion on survival after radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2016; 14: 96–104.

62.

Boehm

Beyer

Tennstedt

et al. No impact of blood transfusion on oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. World J Urol 2015; 33: 801–806.

63.

Chalfin

Frank

Feng

et al. Allogeneic versus autologous blood transfusion and survival after radical prostatectomy. Transfusion 2014; 54: 2168–2174.

64.

Eickhoff

Gote

Baeck

Peri-operative blood transfusion in relation to tumour recurrence and death after surgery for prostatic cancer. Br J Urol 1991; 68: 608–611.

65.

Ford

Sharma

Rezaishiraz

et al. Effect of perioperative blood transfusion on prostate cancer recurrence. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2008; 26: 364–367.

66.

McClinton

Moffat

LEF

Scott

et al. Blood transfusion and survival following surgery for prostatic carcinoma. Br J Surg 1990; 77: 140–142.

67.

Oefelein

Colangelo

Rademaker

et al. Intraoperative blood loss and prognosis in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1995; 154: 442–447.

68.

Yeoh

Scavonetto

Weingarten

et al. Perioperative allogeneic nonleukoreduced blood transfusion and prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Transfusion 2014; 54: 2175–2181.

69.

Luo

Wang

et al. Prognostic implications of preoperative anemia in urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0171701.

70.

Colvin

Fallon

Buggy

. Cancer biology, analgesics, and anaesthetics: is there a link? Br J Anaesth 2012; 109: 140–143.

71.

Pesta

Fichtl

Kulda

et al. Monitoring of circulating tumor cells in patients undergoing surgery for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 2013; 33: 2239–2243.

72.

Moschini

Dell’ Oglio

Capogrosso

et al. Effect of allogeneic intraoperative blood transfusion on survival in patients treated with radical cystectomy for nonmetastatic bladder cancer: results from a single high-volume institution. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2015; 13: 562–567.

73.

Moschini

Bianchi

Rossi

et al. Timing of blood transfusion and not ABO blood type is associated with survival in patients treated with radical cystectomy for nonmetastatic bladder cancer: Results from a single high-volume institution. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2016; 34: 256.e7–256.e13.

74.

Moschini

Soria

Abufaraj

et al. Impact of intra- and postoperative blood transfusion on the incidence, timing, and pattern of disease recurrence after radical cystectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15: e681–e688.

75.

Bagrodia

Kaffenberger

Winer

et al. Timing of blood transfusion and oncologic outcomes in patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. World J Urol 2018; 36: 645–653.