Background: Radical cystectomy (RC) still poses a significant risk for mortality and morbidity. Objectives: We compared in-hospital outcomes after RC in the United States and ­Germany using population-based data. Methods: We compared data from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample to the German hospital billing database. Mortality and transfusion during hospital stay and length of stay (LOS) were evaluated. Results: In all, 17,711 (the United States) and 60,447 (­Germany) cases were included. The share of robot-assisted RC increased to 20.5% in the United States vs. 2.3% in Germany (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was 1.9% (the United States) vs. 4.6% (Germany), transfusion rates were 34.2% (the United States) vs. 58.7% (Germany), and LOS was 10.7 (the United States) vs. 25.1 days (Germany; all p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, higher patient age and lower annual hospital caseload were associated with increased mortality and longer LOS. Minimal-invasive surgery was associated with less blood transfusion and shorter LOS in the United States vs. hospital caseload and choice of urinary diversion in Germany. Conclusions: Healthcare systems might exert a relevant impact on outcomes of oncologic surgery. Increased in-hospital mortality rates in Germany seem to be partly explained by much longer LOS compared to those in the United States. Annual caseload seems to be influential on in-hospital outcomes raising the question of centralization of RC.

Journal Section:
Editor's choice
Keywords:
Radical cystectomy, Bladder cancer, Population-based analysis, Outcomes, Health services research
1.
Robert Koch Institute (ed) and the Association of Population-based Cancer Registries. Cancer in Germany 2011/2012, Berlin.
2.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb; 66(1): 7–30.
3.
Aziz A, May M, Burger M, Palisaar RJ, Trinh QD, Fritsche HM, et al.; PROMETRICS 2011 research group. Prediction of 90-day mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in a prospective European multicenter cohort. Eur Urol. 2014 Jul; 66(1): 156–63.
4.
Froehner M, Brausi MA, Herr HW, Muto G, Studer UE. Complications following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in the elderly. Eur Urol. 2009 Sep; 56(3): 443–54.
5.
Kader AK, Richards KA, Krane LS, Pettus JA, Smith JJ, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy: comparison of complications and perioperative oncological outcomes in 200 patients. BJU Int. 2013 Aug; 112(4):E290–4.
6.
Roghmann F, Sukumar S, Ravi P, Trinh VQ, Meskawi M, Ghani KR, et al. Radical cystectomy in the elderly: national trends and disparities in perioperative outcomes and quality of care. Urol Int. 2014; 92(1): 27–34.
7.
Waingankar N, Mallin K, Smaldone M, Egleston BL, Higgins A, Winchester DP, et al. Assessing the relative influence of hospital and surgeon volume on short-term mortality after radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2017 Aug; 120(2): 239–45.
8.
Gierth M, Zeman F, Denzinger S, Vetterlein MW, Fisch M, Bastian PJ, et al. Influence of Body Mass Index on Clinical Outcome Parameters, Complication Rate and Survival after Radical Cystectomy: Evidence from a Prospective European Multicentre Study. Urol Int. 2018; 101(1): 16–24.
9.
Zattoni F, Palumbo V, Giannarini G, Crestani A, Kungulli A, Novara G, et al. Perioperative Outcomes and Early Survival in Octogenarians Who Underwent Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer. Urol Int. 2018; 100(1): 13–7.
10.
Barocas DA, Mitchell R, Chang SS, Cookson MS. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2010 May-Jun; 28(3): 243–50.
11.
Groeben C, Koch R, Baunacke M, Wirth MP, Huber J. High volume is the key for improving in-hospital outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2013. World J Urol. 2017 Jul; 35(7): 1045–53.
12.
Hounsome LS, Verne J, McGrath JS, Gillatt DA. Trends in operative caseload and mortality rates after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in England for 1998-2010. Eur Urol. 2015 Jun; 67(6): 1056–62.
13.
Nielsen ME, Mallin K, Weaver MA, Palis B, Stewart A, Winchester DP, et al. Association of hospital volume with conditional 90-day mortality after cystectomy: an analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. BJU Int. 2014 Jul; 114(1): 46–55.
14.
Knox ML, El-Galley R, Busby JE. Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: identification of patients who benefit from the robotic approach. J Endourol. 2013 Jan; 27(1): 40–4.
15.
Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD, Silberstein J, Keren Paz GE, Donat SM, et al. Comparing Open Radical Cystectomy and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur Urol. 2015 Jun; 67(6): 1042–50.
16.
Ridic G, Gleason S, Ridic O. Comparisons of health care systems in the United States, Germany and Canada. Mater Sociomed. 2012; 24(2): 112–20.
17.
Groeben C, Koch R, Baunacke M, Schmid M, Borkowetz A, Wirth MP, et al. Urinary Diversion After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: comparing Trends in the US and Germany from 2006 to 2014. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Nov; 25(12): 3502–9.
18.
Chang SL, Kibel AS, Brooks JD, Chung BI. The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA. BJU Int. 2015 Jun; 115(6): 929–36.
19.
Groeben C, Koch R, Baunacke M, Wirth MP, Huber J. Robots drive the German radical prostatectomy market: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2013. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 Dec; 19(4): 412–6.
20.
Carson JL, Grossman BJ, Kleinman S, Tinmouth AT, Marques MB, Fung MK, et al.; Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee of the AABB. Red blood cell transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB*. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul; 157(1): 49–58.
21.
Bundesarztekammer. Querschnitts-Leitlinien (BAK) zur Therapie mit Blutkomponenten und Plasmaderivaten. In: Bundesarztekammer, editor. Vorstand der Bundesarztekammer; 2014.
22.
Davis K, Ballreich J. Equitable access to care—how the United States ranks internationally. N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct; 371(17): 1567–70.
23.
Leow JJ, Cole AP, Seisen T, Bellmunt J, Mossanen M, Menon M, et al. Variations in the Costs of Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer in the USA. Eur Urol. 2017 Aug; S0302-2838(17)30640-1.
24.
Knoll M, Otte I, Salloch S, Ruiner C, Kruppa E, Vollmann J. ["Something humane has been lost". Re-evaluation of the attitudes of senior physicians towards the G-DRG System - a qualitative normative analysis]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018 Apr; 131–132: 60–5.
25.
Meyer CP, Hollis M, Cole AP, Hanske J, O’Leary J, Gupta S, et al. Complications Following Common Inpatient Urological Procedures: Temporal Trend Analysis from 2000 to 2010. Eur Urol Focus. 2016 Apr; 2(1): 3–9.
26.
Williams SB, Huo J, Chamie K, Hu JC, Giordano SH, Hoffman KE, et al. Underutilization of Radical Cystectomy Among Patients Diagnosed with Clinical Stage T2 Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Apr; 3(2-3): 258–64.
27.
Hager B, Kraywinkel K, Keck B, Katalinic A, Meyer M, Zeissig SR, et al. Integrated prostate cancer centers might cause an overutilization of radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: A comparison of treatment trends in the United States and Germany from 2004 to 2011. Radiother Oncol. 2015 Apr; 115(1): 90–5.
28.
Hermans TJ, Fransen van de Putte EE, Fossion LM, Werkhoven EV, Verhoeven RH, van Rhijn BW, Horenblas S. Variations in pelvic lymph node dissection in invasive bladder cancer: A Dutch nationwide population-based study during centralization of care. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: 532 e537-532 e512.
29.
Abdollah F, Sun M, Schmitges J, Thuret R, Djahangirian O, Jeldres C, et al. Surgical caseload is an important determinant of continent urinary diversion rate at radical cystectomy: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Sep; 18(9): 2680–7.
30.
Witjes JC, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Gakis G, James N, Lebret T. Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. European Association of Urology 2017.
31.
Afshar M, Goodfellow H, Jackson-Spence F, Evison F, Parkin J, Bryan RT, et al. Centralisation of radical cystectomies for bladder cancer in England, a decade on from the ‘Improving Outcomes Guidance’: the case for super centralisation. BJU Int. 2018 Feb; 121(2): 217–24.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2019
You do not currently have access to this content.