Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology logoLink to Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology
. 2023 Jul 17;53(10):966–976. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyad079

Impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival in bladder cancer patients

Takashige Abe 1,, Shuhei Yamada 2, Hiroshi Kikuchi 3,4, Ataru Sazawa 5, Hidenori Katano 6, Hidetaka Suzuki 7, Ichiro Takeuchi 8, Keita Minami 9, Ken Morita 10, Kunihiko Tsuchiya 11, Norikata Takada 12, Shintaro Maru 13, Soshu Sato 14, Takanori Yamashita 15, Tango Mochizuki 16, Tomoshige Akino 17, Yoshihiro Sasaki 18, Yuichiro Shinno 19, Norihiro Murahashi 20,21, Takafumi Kawazu 22, Jun Furumido 23,24, Haruka Miyata 25, Ryuji Matsumoto 26, Takahiro Osawa 27, Sachiyo Murai 28, Nobuo Shinohara 29
PMCID: PMC10550200  PMID: 37461191

Abstract

Objective

To determine the impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival outcomes in patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy.

Methods

This retrospective multi-institutional study included 766 bladder cancer patients who underwent radical cystectomy between 2011 and 2017. Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, all complications within 90 days after surgery and survival outcomes were collected. Each complication was graded based on the Clavien-Dindo system, and grouped using a standardized grouping method. The Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications into a single formula weighted by their severity, was utilized. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival (local, distant or urothelial recurrences) were stratified by Comprehensive Complication Index (high: ≥26.2; low: <26.2). A multivariate model was utilized to identify independent prognostic factors.

Results

The incidence of any and major complications (≥Clavien-Dindo grade III) was 70 and 24%, respectively. In terms of Comprehensive Complication Index, 34% (261/766) of the patients had ≥26.2. Patients with Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 26.2 had shorter overall survival (4-year, 59.5 vs. 69.8%, respectively, log-rank test, P = 0.0037) and recurrence free survival (51.9 vs. 60.1%, respectively, P = 0.0234), than those with Comprehensive Complication Index < 26.2. The Cox multivariate model identified the age, performance status, pT-stage, pN-stage and higher CCI (overall survival: HR = 1.35, P = 0.0174, recurrence-free survival: HR = 1.26, P = 0.0443) as independent predictors of both overall survivial and recurrence-free survival.

Conclusions

Postoperative complications assessed by Comprehensive Complication Index had adverse effects on long-term survival outcomes. Physicians should be aware that major postoperative complications can adversely affect long-term disease control.

Keywords: postoperative complication, radical cystectomy, bladder cancer, survival


Postoperative complications assessed by Comprehensive Complication Index had adverse effects on long-term survival after radical cystectomy. Physicians should be aware that major postoperative complications can deteriorate long-term outcomes in bladder cancer patients.

Introduction

Radical cystectomy (RC) in conjunction with regional lymph node dissection (LND) and urinary diversion is the mainstay of treatment for muscle-invasive or treatment-refractory non-muscle-invasive bladder cancers (BCs). However, it is well known that RC is correlated with significant perioperative morbidity (approximately 50–70%) (1–3). Recently, our group collected data on 90-day postoperative complications in patients treated by RC at Hokkaido University Hospital and our affiliated hospitals between 2011 and 2017 (recent cohort, n = 838), and compared the perioperative outcomes with those of our previous cohort (n =  919, 1997–2010). We observed that RC has remained correlated with significant postoperative morbidity [overall complications: 69% (580/838) in the recent cohort vs. 68% (629/919) in the previous cohort, and major complications (Clavien-Dindo, CD, grade ≥ III): 25% (211/838) in the recent cohort vs. 22% (201/919) in the previous cohort, respectively] over the past two decades (4).

Recent studies involving colorectal, gastric and esophagogastric cancer, or hepatocellular carcinoma resection have shown an adverse impact of postoperative morbidities on long-term survival outcomes (5–8), which remains unknown after RC. In the present study, we aimed to clarify the impact of postoperative complications on the long-term survival impact after RC.

Materials and methods

The Institutional Review Board approved this study (No. 017-0038). We reviewed the medical records of 838 patients with muscle invasive or treatment-refractory non-muscle-invasive BC who underwent RC at Hokkaido University Hospital and 19 affiliated institutions between 2011 and 2017. As mentioned before, in terms of the current landscape of postoperative complications after RC, we previously published a paper (4). In the present study, we updated the survival information. Excluding patients with distant metastasis (n =  29) at the time of RC, who died within 90 days after surgery (n =  38), in order to highlight the long-term survival effect, with the final pathology of lymphoma (n =  1), with advanced prostate cancer (n =  1), no follow-up data (n =  2) and treated for disease palliation (n =  1), 766 patients were included in the current survival analysis.

During the study period (2011–2017), the type of urinary diversion (i.e. ileal conduit, ileal neobladder or cutaneous ureterostomy) was performed based on the patients’ and surgeons’ decisions, and the region of LND was determined by each surgeon. Laparoscopic RC was performed mainly without robotic assistance, and urinary diversion was performed extracorporeally via a small incision (extracorporeal urinary diversion) in all patients. Perioperative systemic chemotherapy was also administered based on the patients’ and surgeons’ decisions.

Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes and all complications within 90 days of surgery were reviewed. Tumor staging was performed according to the Union for International Cancer Control TNM classification 7th edition, and the tumor grade was assessed according to the 2004 WHO classification. Postoperative complications were also assessed. Each complication was graded according to the CD system (9) by co-authors at each hospital, and grouped according to a standardized grouping method, consisting of the 11 complication categories reported by Shabsigh et al. (1). If there was any contradiction between CD grading and the management for each complication, two authors (YS and TA) asked co-authors to review the medical charts, and corrected the misgrading. Furthermore, in order to examine the cumulative postoperative morbidity, the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which incorporates all complications into a single formula weighted by their severity, was calculated for each patient by one author (YS), who was blinded to the final survival outcomes (10). CCI ranged from 0 (no complications) to 100 (death). According to previous studies, we utilized CCI of 26.2 as the cut-off point (equivalent to one grade IIIa complication by the CD system) (11,12).

In terms of postoperative follow-up, in general, computed tomography was performed every 6 months for the first two years. Subsequently, follow-up examinations were performed every 6–12 months. The primary outcome of the current study was the impact of any or major complications on long-term survival after RC. Regarding the definition of a major complication for the subsequent analyses, both the highest CD grade of ≥III in each patient and CCI ≥26.2 were utilized. The secondary outcome was the survival effect of each complication category. Any urine leak event was also evaluated separately, which may be associated with tumor dissemination if cancer cells remained within the urinary tract. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the interval between the date of surgery and that of death. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was calculated from the date of surgery to disease recurrence or death from any cause. Local, distant and urothelial recurrences were included in the study.

Statistical analysis

OS and RFS were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to compare survivals between the groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox models were utilized to determine independent survival predictors in the current cohort. The significant predictors in the univariate model were included in the multivariate model. The variables analyzed were sex, age (continuous), body mass index, average annual cystectomy volume (high: ≥10 per/year vs. moderate: 5 ≤ <10 per/year vs. low: <5 per/year), performance status (PS, 0 vs. 1 vs. 2 vs. 3), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), pathological T-stage (pT0-1 vs. pT2 vs. pT3-4), pathological N-stage (pN0 vs. pN+ vs. pNx), histology (pure urothelial carcinoma vs. urothelial carcinoma with variant histology), tumor grade (low vs. high), operative time (continuous), estimated blood loss (continuous), surgical approach (open vs. laparoscopic) and complications (none vs. minor/major, none/minor vs. major or CCI < 26.2 vs. CCI ≥ 26.2). All calculations were performed using JMP® Pro, version 16.0.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Table 1 shows a summary of the patient characteristics. The median patient age was 72 years (range, 34–93). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 12% (95/766) of patients. In terms of urinary diversion, two-thirds of the patients (67%, 516/766) received an ileal conduit. Seventeen % (133/766) of patients had node metastasis on pathology.

Table 1.

Patients’ characteristics

Characteristics n = 766
Sex
Male 567 (74%)
Female 199 (26%)
Age at radical cystectomy (years), median (range) 72 (34–93)
Body mass index (BMI) (kg/m  2), median (range) 22.7 (13.5–34.5), n = 761
Average annual cystectomy volume
High (≥10 per year) 257 (34%), 3 hospitals
Moderate (5 ≤ − < 10 per year) 371 (48%), 8 hospitals
Low (<5 per year) 138(18%), 9 hospitals
Performance status
0 661 (86%)
1 82 (11%)
2 14 (2.0%)
3 2 (0.3%)
Unknown 7 (0.9%)
No. neoadjuvant chemotherapy 95 (12%)
No. adjuvant chemotherapy 79 (10%)
No. form of urinary diversion
Illeal conduit 516 (67%)
Neobladder 55 (7%)
Ureterocutaneostomy 182 (24%)
Nephrostomy 3 (0.4%)
Not performed 10 (1.3%)
Type of neobladder
Hautmann 46 (84%)
Studer 6 (11%)
Unknown 3 (5%)
Pathological T-stage
pT0 92 (12%)
pTa-is 110 (14%)
pT1 107 (14%)
pT2 148 (19%)
pT3 239 (31%)
pT4 70 (9%)
Pathological N-stage
pN+ 133 (17%)
pN0 603 (79%)
pNx 30 (4%)
Histology
Pure urothelial carcinoma 687 (90%)
Others 79 (10%)
Grade
high 551 (72%)
low 98 (13%)
unknown 117 (15%)
Operative time (minutes), median (range) 390 (75–820), n = 764
Estimated blood loss (mL), median (range) 1000 (0–9230), n = 760
Surgical approach
Open 568 (74%)
Laparoscopic 198 (26%)

Complications

Table 2 summarizes the postoperative complications. The most common complications were infectious (39%, 300/766), followed by gastrointestinal (26%, 201/766), wound-related (18%, 136/766) and genitourinary (10%, 73/766) complications. Urine leakage was observed in 31 patients. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the highest CD grade complication per patient (a), and CCI (b). The incidences of any and major (≥CD grade III) complications were 70 (535/766) and 24% (187/766), respectively. In terms of CCI, 34% (261/766) of the patients had CCI ≥ 26.2.

Table 2.

Summary of postoperative complications

Clavien-Dindo grade
Category No. of all patients (%) ≤II ≥III Events No. of patients
Gastrointestinal 201 (26%) 115 86 Ileus 174
Bowel anastomosis leak/fistula 15
Gastrointestinal ulcer/bleeding 9
Enterocolitis 14
Gastrointestinal perforation 3
Infection 300 (39%) 259 41 UTI 218
FUO 27
Sepsis 14
Other site infection 69
Wound 136 (18%) 102 34 SSI 79
Wound dehiscence 65
Genitourinary 73 (10%) 29 44 Hydronephrosis 30
Urine leak 31
Renal failure 13
Ileal conduit injury/necrosis 3
Others 2
Cardiac 6 (0.8%) 5 1 Arryhythmia 5
Hypotension 1
Pulmonary 16 (2%) 12 4 Pneumonia 14
Respiratory distress 1
Asthma attack 1
Bleeding 8 (1%) 5 3 Postoperative bleeding 3
Uretero-arterial fistula 3
Hematoma (wound) 1
Urinary tract bleeding 1
Thromboembolic 7 (0.9%) 6 1 Vascular thrombosis 6
Pulmonary embolism 2
Neurological 24 (3%) 22 2 Cerebrovascular event 2
Peripheral neuropathy 2
Delirium/Agitation/Dementia 17
Vertigo 2
Insomnia 1
Miscellaneous 52 (7%) 39 13 Lymphocele 7
Dermatitis 2
Liver dysfunction 17
Electrolyte abnormality 5
Compartment syndrome 3
Drug eruption 2
Loss of appetite 2
Other rare complication 15
Surgical 12 (2%) 2 10 Rectal injury 8
Incisional hernia 2
Intestinal injury 1
Obturator nerve injury 1
UTI = urinary tract infection
FUO = fever of unknown origin
SSI = surgical site infection

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Distribution of the highest Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade of complication and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) in an independent patient population.

Survival analyses

The median follow-up duration for the entire cohort was 53 months. Four-year OS and RFS rates were 66.4 and 57.4%, respectively. The effects of complications on OS and RFS are shown in Fig. 2. There was no significant difference in OS or RFS between patients with and without any complications (Fig. 2a and c). Major complications (≥CD grade III) were also not significantly correlated with poorer OS or RFS (Fig. 2b and d). In contrast, considering CCI, patients with CCI ≥ 26.2 had shorter OS (4-year, 59.5 vs. 69.8%, respectively, log-rank test, P = 0.0037, Fig. 3a) and RFS (51.9 vs. 60.1%, respectively, P = 0.0234, Fig. 3b), than those with CCI < 26.2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Kaplan–Meier estimates for overall and recurrence-free survival according to (a), (c) any complication, and (b), (d) major complications (≥CD grade III). There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) between patients with and without any complications (a, c). Major complications were also not significantly correlated with poorer OS or RFS (b, d).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Kaplan–Meier estimates for (a) OS and (b) RFS according to CCI. Patients with CCI ≥ 26.2 had shorter OS (4 years, 59.5 vs. 69.8%, respectively, log-rank test, P = 0.0037) and RFS (51.9 vs. 60.1%, respectively, P = 0.0234), than those with CCI < 26.2.

Table 3 demonstrates the univariate and multivariate analyses of OS. Older age, higher PS, adjuvant chemotherapy, pT3-4, pN+, high grade and CCI ≥ 26.2 were significant adverse prognostic factors in univariate analyses. On multivariate analyses, age, PS, pT3-4, pN+ and CCI ≥ 26.2 remained independent predictors of OS. Table 4 presents the univariate and multivariate analyses data for RFS. Older age, higher PS, adjuvant chemotherapy, higher pathological T-stage, pN+ and CCI ≥ 26.2 were significant adverse prognostic factors in univariate analyses. In multivariate analyses, age, PS, pT3-4, pN+ and CCI ≥ 26.2 remained independent predictors of RFS.

Table 3.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for overall survival (OS)

OS OS
Variables Univariate analysis p-value Multivariate analysis p-value
Hazard ratio (95% CI) Hazard ratio (95% CI)
Sex
Male 1
Female 0.78 (0.59–1.04) 0.089
Age, year
Continuous 1.05 (1.03–1.06) <0.0001 1.03 (1.02–1.05) <0.0001
Body mass index (BMI) (kg/m  2), median (range) 0.97 (0.93–1.00) 0.062
Average annual cystectomy volume
High (>10 per year) 1
Moderate (5 < − < 10 per year) 0.92 (0.71–1.19) 0.52
Low (<5 per year) 0.95 (0.67–1.34) 0.76
Performance Status
0 1 1
1 1.70 (1.22–2.38) 0.002 1.29 (0.91–1.82) 0.16
2 4.03 (2.13–7.62) <0.0001 3.36 (1.74–6.51) 0.0003
3 3.31 (0.82–13.33) 0.093 1.53 (0.36–6.51) 0.57
Unknown 8.16 (3.56–18.69) <0.0001 5.22 (2.19–12.44) 0.0002
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
No 1
Yes 1.15 (0.81–1.62) 0.44
Adjuvant chemotherapy
No 1 1
Yes 1.72 (1.24–2.38) 0.001 0.88 (0.60–1.29) 0.52
Unknown 1.77 (0.44–7.13) 0.42 0.85 (0.21–3.52) 0.82
Pathological T-stage
pT0-1 1 1
pT2 1.42 (0.97–2.08) 0.069 1.19 (0.80–1.77) 0.39
pT3-4 4.03 (3.04–5.34) <0.0001 2.96 (2.14–4.08) <0.0001
Pathological N-stage
pN0 1 1
pN+ 3.09 (2.28–4.02) <0.0001 2.08 (1.54–2.81) <0.0001
pNx 1.16 (0.61–2.18) 0.66 0.84 (0.42–1.67) 0.62
Histology
Pure urothelial carcinoma 1
Others 1.29 (0.90–1.86) 0.17
Grade
Low 1 1
High 1.54 (1.06–2.26) 0.026 0.98 (0.65–1.47) 0.93
Unknown 0.96 (0.59–1.57) 0.87 0.89 (0.54–1.48) 0.66
Operative time (minutes), median (range) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 0.18
Estimated blood loss (mL), median (range) 1.00 (0.99–1.00) 0.19
Surgical approach
Open 1
Laparoscopic 1.15 (0.88–1.49) 0.3
Complications
None 1
Minor/major 1.18 (0.91–1.53) 0.21
None/minor 1
Major 1.26 (0.97–1.64) 0.085
CCI 26.2 low 1 1
high 1.42 (1.12–1.80) 0.004 1.35 (1.05–1.72) 0.017

Table 4.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival (RFS)

RFS RFS
Variables Univariate analysis p-value Multivariate analysis p-value
Hazard ratio (95% CI) Hazard ratio (95% CI)
Sex
Male 1
Female 0.92 (0.72–1.17) 0.47
Age, year
Continuous 1.03 (1.02–1.04) <0.0001 1.02 (1.00–1.03) 0.023
Body mass index (BMI) (kg/m  2), median (range) 0.98 (0.95–1.01) 0.17
Average annual cystectomy volume
High (≥10 per year) 1
Moderate (5 ≤ − < 10 per year) 0.95 (0.75–1.20) 0.67
Low (<5 per year) 1.17 (0.88–1.57) 0.29
Performance status
0 1 1
1 1.46 (1.07–1.98) 0.017 1.13 (0.82–1.55) 0.46
2 2.73 (1.49–4.99) 0.001 2.11 (1.14–3.91) 0.018
3 4.11 (1.02–16.57) 0.047 1.97 (0.46–8.43) 0.36
Unknown 4.84 (2.14–10.93) 0.0001 3.00 (1.24–7.27) 0.015
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
No 1
Yes 1.17 (0.86–1.59) 0.31
Adjuvant chemotherapy
No 1 1
Yes 1.94 (1.45–2.59) <0.0001 0.96 (0.68–1.35) 0.81
Unknown 1.56 (0.50–4.88) 0.44 0.75 (0.23–2.39) 0.62
Pathological T-stage
pT0-1 1 1
pT2 1.51 (1.09–2.11) 0.015 1.34 (0.96–1.88) 0.088
pT3-4 4.11 (3.20–5.27) <0.0001 3.17 (2.42–4.16) <0.0001
Pathological N-stage
pN0 1 1
pN+ 3.04 (2.41–3.85) <0.0001 1.97 (1.50–2.59) <0.0001
pNx 1.30 (0.76–2.22) 0.34 1.02 (0.56–1.87) 0.95
Histology
Pure urothelial carcinoma 1
Others 1.31 (0.94–1.81) 0.11
Grade
Low 1
High 1.30 (0.94–1.78) 0.11
Unknown 0.87 (0.57–1.32) 0.51
Operative time (minutes), median (range) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 0.53
Estimated blood loss (mL), median (range) 1.00 (0.99–1.00) 0.15
Surgical approach
Open 1
Laparoscopic 1.11 (0.88–1.40) 0.39
Complications
None 1
Minor/major 1.14 (0.90–1.43) 0.27
None/minor 1
Major 1.20 (0.95–1.52) 0.13
CCI 26.2 low 1 1
high 1.28 (1.03–1.58) 0.025 1.26 (1.01–1.57) 0.044

Supplementary Tables 1 (OS) and 2 (RFS) summarize univariate analyses in terms of the survival impact of each category of complication according to the CD grading [(a) any grading, and (b) ≥ CD grade III]. After adjusting for other independent survival predictors including age, PS, pathological T-stage, and pathological N-stage, thromboembolic and neurological complications remained significant predictors of OS, both in any and major categorizations (Table 5). Regarding RFS, any thromboembolic or neurological complication, or major infectious complications remained significant predictors of RFS (Table 5). Urine leak was not associated with poorer OS (4-year survival estimates, without urine leak: 66.3% vs. with urine leak: 67.6%, P = 0.89) or RFS (without urine leak: 57.3% vs. with urine leak: 59.1%, P = 0.76).

Table 5.

Summary of hazard ratio of each complication category, after adjusting for age, PS, and pathological T-stage and N-stage

OS RFS
Categories Hazard ratio after adjusting (95% CI) p-value Categories Hazard ratio after adjusting (95% CI) p-value
Cardiac, any Cardiac, any
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.70 (0.75–3.87) 0.21 Yes 1.56 (0.69–3.54) 0.29
Thromboembolic, any Thromboembolic, any
No 1 No 1
Yes 3.38 (1.50–7.64) 0.003 Yes 2.64 (1.17–5.95) 0.019
Neurological, any Neurological, any
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.71 (0.99–2.95) 0.056 Yes 1.63 (1.01–2.64) 0.018
Infection, major Infection, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.53 (0.97–2.40) 0.068 Yes 1.56 (1.03–2.37) 0.035
Cardiac, major Cardiac, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 2.10 (0.28–15.59) 0.47 Yes 2.47 (0.34–18.22) 0.37
Thromboembolic, major Thromboembolic, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 50.62 (6.17–415.2) 0.0003 Yes 6.83 (0.93–50.37) 0.059
Neurological, major Surgical, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 5.60 (1.38–22.76) 0.016 Yes 1.92 (0.90–4.12) 0.093
Surgical, major
No 1
Yes 1.81 (0.80–4.12) 0.16
RFS RFS
Categories Univariate analysis p-value Categories Univariate analysis p-value
Hazard ratio (95% CI) Hazard ratio (95% CI)
Gastrointestinal, any Gastrointestinal, major (≥Clavien-Dindo grade III)
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.209 (0.963–1.517) 0.1013 Yes 1.061 (0.767–1.468) 0.7196
Infection, any Infection, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.089 (0.885–1.341) 0.4208 Yes 1.727 (1.167–2.556) 0.0063
Wound, any Wound, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.020 (0.784–1.327) 0.8814 Yes 0.947 (0.582–1.541) 0.8266
Genitourinary, any Genitourinary, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.084 (0.765–1.536) 0.6505 Yes 1.339 (0.892–2.010) 0.1588
Cardiac, any Cardiac, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 2.329 (1.039–5.221) 0.0401 Yes 7.380 (1.029–52.91) 0.0467
Pulmonary, any Pulmonary, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.327 (0.628–2.805) 0.4581 Yes 0.9992
Bleeding, any Bleeding, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.131 (0.422–3.031) 0.806 Yes 0.9991
Thromboembolic, any Thromboembolic, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 2.348 (1.047–5.265) 0.0384 Yes 9.762 (1.358–70.19) 0.0236
Neurological, any Neurological, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 2.028 (1.291–3.184) 0.0021 Yes 3.108 (0.774–12.49) 0.11
Miscellaneous, any Miscellaneous, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.318 (0.907–1.915) 0.1473 Yes 0.856 (0.354–2.069) 0.7295
Surgical, any Surgical, major
No 1 No 1
Yes 1.630 (0.771–3.443) 0.2008 Yes 2.376 (1.124–5.021) 0.0235

Discussion

This study investigated the prognostic impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival outcomes after RC for BC. When considering the most severe event in each patient, neither any nor CD grade ≥ III was associated with OS or RFS. Rather, when considering all events together with their respective severity with the use of CCI, which Slankamenac and colleagues created in order to assess cumulative postoperative morbidity (10), CCI was independently associated with both OS and RFS. Patients with CCI ≥ 26.2 had shorter OS (4-year, 59.5 vs. 69.8%, respectively, log-rank test, P = 0.0037) and RFS (51.9 vs. 60.1%, respectively, P = 0.0234), than those with CCI < 26.2. For the first time, we identified that postoperative complications assessed using CCI could impair long-term survival outcomes after RC. To date, the negative impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival outcomes beyond the postoperative periods has been reported in several cancers, such as colorectal, gastric and oesophagogastric cancer, or hepatocellular carcinoma (5–8). Taken together with these previous observations, postoperative complications could compromise long-term disease control after major cancer surgery.

To date, the CD Classification, a grading system based on the necessary treatment for proper management, has been widely utilized to report postoperative complications. CD Classification only accounts for the most severe complications in each patient, for example, patients with a single Grade 2 complication and those with multiple Grade 2 complications are categorized into the same category, ‘minor complication.’ However, infections requiring antibiotic treatment for a long time, or readmission for ileus, especially when multiple low-grade complications occur simultaneously in one patient, could significantly delay a patient’s full recovery to daily life. This is because, during the healing process, physicians may be reluctant to perform adjuvant chemotherapy, which could influence long-term disease control, as described below. In the present study, when using CCI to identify cumulative postoperative morbidity, the proportion of patients with major complications (CCI ≥ 26.2) increased to 34% (261/776) as compared with 24% (187/766) when considering only the highest-grade complications (≥CD grade III). Other researchers have also observed higher cumulative postoperative morbidity after RC than the CD Classification (13,14). Consistent with the present study, the prognostic impact of CCI has been reported for other malignancies (11,12,15). For example, Yamashita et al. observed that CCI ≥ 26.2 was independently associated with cancer-specific survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases (11).

Although the mechanism has not yet been fully clarified, one hypothesis is that the growth of residual cancer cells is fueled by inflammatory cytokines and growth factors that are stimulated by surgical stress (16–18). Another hypothesis is that an attenuated host immunological response during postoperative illness may promote tumorigenesis (19). In addition, the prolonged postoperative period required to recover from major complications could preclude adjuvant chemotherapy, which may result in a poorer long-term survival outcome. For example, Jin et al. observed that, in the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative (n =  824), patients with postoperative complications were less likely to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio = 0.5, P < 0.001), and such patients had a significantly increased hazard of death (HR-2.3, P < 0.001) (20). The delay in adjuvant chemotherapy (oral fluoropyrimidine derivative monotherapy) was also associated with shorter recurrence-free survival in gastric cancer patients (21). In the present cohort, after excluding patients without information on adjuvant chemotherapy (n =  7), among the pTanypN+ or pT3-4pNany patients (n =  335) who were considered to be candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy, those with CCI ≥ 26.2 were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy than patients with CCI < 26.2 (25 vs. 15%, respectively, χ2 test, P = 0.0235, Supplementary Fig. 1a), which might result in poorer survival in patients with CCI ≥ 26.2. Furthermore, in patients who received NAC (n =  95), there was no significant difference in OS or RFS between patients with CCI ≥ 26.2 and those with CCI < 26.2 (4-year OS: 57.7 vs. 60.5%, log-rank test, P = 0.91, and 4-year RFS: 55.4 vs. 49.2%, log-rank test, P = 0.52, Supplementary Fig. 1b and c). Based on these observations, we believe that NAC could be a promising treatment option because it is not influenced by postoperative complications.

Among postoperative complications, infectious complications were the most frequently reported as adverse prognostic factors in patients with hepatocellular, gastric, lung or colorectal cancers (8,22–24). As shown in Table 5, a major infectious complication (≥CD grade III) remained an independent adverse factor for RFS, but this was marginal (P = 0.0681) for OS. Although thromboembolic and neurological complications remained significant for OS and RFS, we could not draw a definitive conclusion because of the low number of events. A larger study is warranted to gain further insight into the survival impacts of each complication category.

In colorectal cancer, it was reported that long-term disease control was impaired by anastomotic leakage (25,26). It has been proposed that anastomotic leakage can lead to extraluminal dissemination of the remaining cancer cells. Based on this hypothesis, we compared survival curves between patients with and without urinary leakage. As described above, we did not observe significant differences in survival between patients with and without urine leak (4-year OS: without urine leak 66.3% vs. with urine leak 67.6%, P = 0.887 and 4-year RFS: without urine leak 57.3% vs. with urine leak 59.1%, P = 0.76).

Our study had several limitations. First, because of its retrospective design, some complications and comorbid conditions may not have been recorded. Second, variability among the participating hospitals regarding surgical techniques and postoperative management was another limitation. External validation is necessary to confirm the generalizability of the present findings. Nevertheless, this study is the first to demonstrate that postoperative morbidity can impair long-term disease control after RC, just as with other major cancer surgery. Physicians should be aware that major postoperative complications can impair long-term disease control.

Conclusions

Postoperative complications assessed by CCI independently had an adverse impact on long-term survival outcomes after RC. It is vital to mitigate postoperative complications, not only for early convalescence, but also for improving long-term disease control.

Supplementary Material

SuppleFigure_1_hyad079
Supplementary_Table_1_hyad079
Supplementary_Table_2_hyad079

Acknowledgements

We thank Junji Ishizaki, Shuhei Ishikawa, Yuichiro Oishi, Chihiro Kamijyo, Keiji Sugishita, Tsuyoshi Furuno, Noboru Yamashita, Yuki Sugito, Tatsuya Hoshi, Oujiro Toukairin, Ataka Hanai, Kanta Hori, Kiyoto Nagamori, Madoka Higuchi, Mikio Konnno, Masaya Miyazaki, Ryo Kato, Ryo Kurosawa, Shogo Aizawa, Shigeru Harada, Shun Tsubouchi, Takuya Moriguchi, Takuto Morita, Tatsu Tanabe, Yurie Hirata, Yuki Muranishi, Takenori Ono and Gaku Tamaki for data collection.

Contributor Information

Takashige Abe, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

Shuhei Yamada, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

Hiroshi Kikuchi, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan; Department of Urology, Teine-Keijinkai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.

Ataru Sazawa, Department of Urology, Obihiro Kousei Hospital, Obihiro, Japan.

Hidenori Katano, Department of Urology, Iwamizawa Municipal General Hospital, Iwamizawa, Japan.

Hidetaka Suzuki, Department of Urology, Hakodate Central Hospital, Hakodate, Japan.

Ichiro Takeuchi, Department of Urology, Tomakomai City Hospital, Tomakomai, Japan.

Keita Minami, Department of Urology, Sapporo City General Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.

Ken Morita, Department of Urology, Kushiro City General Hospital, Kushiro, Japan.

Kunihiko Tsuchiya, Department of Urology, KKR Sapporo Medical Center, Sapporo, Japan.

Norikata Takada, Department of Urology, Hokkaido Cancer Center, Sapporo, Japan.

Shintaro Maru, Department of Urology, Jinyukai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.

Soshu Sato, Department of Urology, Ebetsu City Hospital, Ebetsu, Japan.

Takanori Yamashita, Department of Urology, Nayoro City General Hospital, Nayoro, Japan.

Tango Mochizuki, Department of Urology, Abashiri Kousei Hospital, Abashiri, Japan.

Tomoshige Akino, Department of Urology, KKR Tonan Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.

Yoshihiro Sasaki, Department of Urology, Kushiro Rosai Hospital, Kushiro, Japan.

Yuichiro Shinno, Department of Urology, Otaru General Hospital, Otaru, Japan.

Norihiro Murahashi, Department of Urology, Asahikawa Kousei Hospital, Asahikawa, Japan; Department of Urology, JCHO Sapporo Hokushin Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.

Takafumi Kawazu, Department of Urology, Hokkaido Urology Memorial Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.

Jun Furumido, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan; Department of Urology, Teine-Keijinkai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.

Haruka Miyata, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

Ryuji Matsumoto, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

Takahiro Osawa, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

Sachiyo Murai, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

Nobuo Shinohara, Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

Funding

The study was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethics statement

This study received Institutional Review Board Approval (No. 017-0038).

Author Contributions

T.A., S.Y. and H.K. designed the research. T.A., S.Y., H.K., A.S., H.K., H.S., I.T., K.M., K.M., K.T., N.T., S.M., S.S., T.Y., T.M., T.A., Y.S., Y.S., N.M., T.K., J.F., H.M., R.M. and S.M. collected the data. T.A. and S.Y. analyzed the data or performed statistical analysis. T.O. and N.S. supervised the project. T.A. wrote the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

  • 1. Shabsigh  A, Korets  R, Vora  KC, et al.  Defining early morbidity of radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer using a standardized reporting methodology. Eur Urol  2009;55:164–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Takada  N, Abe  T, Shinohara  N, et al.  Peri-operative morbidity and mortality related to radical cystectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective study in Japan. BJU Int  2012;110:E756–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Novara  G, De Marco  V, Aragona  M, et al.  Complications and mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder transitional cell cancer. J Urol  2009;182:914–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Yamada  S, Abe  T, Sazawa  A, et al.  Comparative study of postoperative complications after radical cystectomy during the past two decades in Japan: radical cystectomy remains associated with significant postoperative morbidities. Urol Oncol  2022;40:11.e17–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Saunders  JH, Yanni  F, Dorrington  MS, et al.  Impact of postoperative complications on disease recurrence and long-term survival following oesophagogastric cancer resection. Br J Surg  2020;107:103–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Artinyan  A, Orcutt  ST, Anaya  DA, Richardson  P, Chen  GJ, Berger  DH. Infectious postoperative complications decrease long-term survival in patients undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer: a study of 12,075 patients. Ann Surg  2015;261:497–505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Mirnezami  A, Mirnezami  R, Chandrakumaran  K, Sasapu  K, Sagar  P, Finan  P. Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg  2011;253:890–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Yang  T, Liu  K, Liu  CF, et al.  Impact of postoperative infective complications on long-term survival after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg  2019;106:1228–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Dindo  D, Demartines  N, Clavien  PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg  2004;240:205–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Slankamenac  K, Graf  R, Barkun  J, Puhan  MA, Clavien  PA. The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg  2013;258:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Yamashita  S, Sheth  RA, Niekamp  AS, et al.  Comprehensive Complication Index predicts cancer-specific survival after resection of colorectal metastases independent of RAS mutational status. Ann Surg  2017;266:1045–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Tu  RH, Lin  JX, Li  P, et al.  Comprehensive Complication Index predicts cancer-specific survival of patients with postoperative complications after curative resection of gastric cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract  2018;2018:4396018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Haas  M, Huber  T, Pickl  C, et al.  The comprehensive complication index is associated with a significant increase in complication severity between 30 and 90 days after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol  2021;47:1163–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Vetterlein  MW, Klemm  J, Gild  P, et al.  Improving estimates of perioperative morbidity after radical cystectomy using the European Association of Urology quality criteria for standardized reporting and introducing the Comprehensive Complication Index. Eur Urol  2020;77:55–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Ortiz-Lopez  D, Marchena-Gomez  J, Nogues-Ramia  E, et al.  Utility of a new prognostic score based on the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI(R)) in patients operated on for colorectal cancer (S-CRC-PC score). Surg Oncol  2022;42:101780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Bohle  B, Pera  M, Pascual  M, et al.  Postoperative intra-abdominal infection increases angiogenesis and tumor recurrence after surgical excision of colon cancer in mice. Surgery  2010;147:120–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Abramovitch  R, Marikovsky  M, Meir  G, Neeman  M. Stimulation of tumour growth by wound-derived growth factors. Br J Cancer  1999;79:1392–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Balkwill  F, Mantovani  A. Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow?  Lancet  2001;357:539–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Goldfarb  Y, Sorski  L, Benish  M, Levi  B, Melamed  R, Ben-Eliyahu  S. Improving postoperative immune status and resistance to cancer metastasis: a combined perioperative approach of immunostimulation and prevention of excessive surgical stress responses. Ann Surg  2011;253:798–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Jin  LX, Sanford  DE, Squires  MH  III, et al.  Interaction of postoperative morbidity and receipt of adjuvant therapy on long-term survival after resection for gastric adenocarcinoma: results from the U.S. Gastric Cancer Collaborative. Ann Surg Oncol  2016;23:2398–408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Nakanishi  K, Kanda  M, Ito  S, et al.  Delay in initiation of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 monotherapy and prognosis for gastric cancer patients: analysis of a multi-institutional dataset. Gastric Cancer  2019;22:1215–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Andalib  A, Ramana-Kumar  AV, Bartlett  G, Franco  EL, Ferri  LE. Influence of postoperative infectious complications on long-term survival of lung cancer patients: a population-based cohort study. J Thorac Oncol  2013;8:554–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Han  WH, Oh  YJ, Eom  BW, Yoon  HM, Kim  YW, Ryu  KW. Prognostic impact of infectious complications after curative gastric cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol  2020;46:1233–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Farid  SG, Aldouri  A, Morris-Stiff  G, et al.  Correlation between postoperative infective complications and long-term outcomes after hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastasis. Ann Surg  2010;251:91–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Bell  SW, Walker  KG, Rickard  MJ, et al.  Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg  2003;90:1261–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Law  WL, Choi  HK, Lee  YM, Ho  JW, Seto  CL. Anastomotic leakage is associated with poor long-term outcome in patients after curative colorectal resection for malignancy. J Gastrointest Surg  2007;11:8–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

SuppleFigure_1_hyad079
Supplementary_Table_1_hyad079
Supplementary_Table_2_hyad079

Articles from Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES