Cystectomy for bladder cancer in Sweden - short-term outcomes after centralization.

OBJECTIVE: Radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer is associated with an inherent risk of complications and even postoperative mortality. The number of hospitals performing RC has decreased in Sweden over time, and since a formal regional centralization in 2017 cystectomy care is currently provided by nine hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the Swedish National Urinary Bladder Cancer Register (SNRUBC) 90-day complications after RC have been registered with high coverage since 2012. Descriptive data and short-term outcomes were compared in relation to centralization of the cystectomy care by stratifying data before (2012-2016) and after (2017-2023). RESULTS: Out of all 4,638 cystectomies, 2,738 (59%) were performed after the centralization in 2017 and onwards. The median age at RC increased from 71 (Inter Quartile Range [IQR] 65-76) to 73 (IQR 67-77) years, and the proportion of patients with comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] 3 or 4) increased from 32% to 37% after the centralization (p < 0.001). The number of patients suffering from high-grade complications within 90 days of surgery corresponding to Clavien grade three were 345 (18%) and 407 (15%), and corresponding to Clavien grade four 61 (3%) and 64 (2%) before and after centralization, respectively. Reoperations within 90 days of RC decreased from 234/1,900 (12%) to 208/2,738 (8%) (p < 0.001), and 90-day mortality decreased from 84/1,900 (4%) to 85/2,738 (3%) (p = 0.023) before and after centralization, respectively. CONCLUSION: After the centralization of the cystectomy-care in Sweden, older patients and individuals with more extensive comorbidity were offered RC whereas 90-day mortality and the proportion of patients subjected to reoperations within 90 days of surgery decreased without increasing waiting times.

[Radical cystectomy for bladder cancer is a complex procedure]. / Cystektomi för blåscancer ­ har utfallet förbättrats?

Radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer is a complex procedure with an inherent risk of complications and even postoperative mortality. Historically, RC was performed in 44 hospitals in Sweden, which gradually decreased over time, and since a formal regional centralisation of these operations in 2017, cystectomy care is currently provided by nine hospitals. In the Swedish national urinary bladder cancer register (SNRUBC), complications after RC has been registered with high coverage since 2012, with data presented in an interactive online data resource (RODRET). Over time, an increased median age and proportion of patients with significant comorbidity (ASA 3 or 4) were observed between 2012 and 2022. A simultaneous decrease in 90-day mortality from 7 percent to 2 percent was noted, as well as a decreased need for reoperations within 90 days of RC from 11 percent to 7 percent. It is likely that the regionalization of the cystectomy care in Sweden has contributed to these improved outcomes.

Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) provide an integrated team approach to ensure individualized and evidence-based treatment recommendations and best expert advice in cancer care. A growing number of patients and more complex treatment options challenge MDTM resources and evoke needs for case prioritization. In this process, decision aids could provide streamlining and standardize evaluation of case complexity. We applied the recently developed Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC, instrument with the aim to validate its performance in another healthcare setting and diagnostic area as a means to provide cases for full MDTM discussions. METHODS: The 26-item MeDiC instrument evaluates case complexity and was applied to 364 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden. MeDiC scores were generated from individual-level health data and were correlated with clinicopathological parameters, healthcare setting, and the observed clinical case selection for MDTMs. RESULTS: Application of the MeDiC instrument was feasible with rapid scoring based on available clinical data. Patients with high-risk prostate cancers had significantly higher MeDiC scores than patients with low or intermediate-risk cancers. In the total study, population affected lymph nodes and metastatic disease significantly influenced MDTM referral, whereas comorbidities and age did not predict MDTM referral. When individual patient MeDiC scores were compared to the clinical MDTM case selection, advanced stage, T3/T4 tumors, involved lymph nodes, presence of metastases and significant physical comorbidity were identified as key MDTM predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the MeDiC instrument in prostate cancer may be used to streamline case selection for MDTMs in cancer care and may complement clinical case selection.