Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Radical cystectomy over the age of 75 is safe and increases survival

  • Stavros I Tyritzis1, 3Email author,
  • Ioannis Anastasiou1,
  • Konstantinos G Stravodimos1,
  • Aristeides Alevizopoulos1,
  • Anastasios Kollias2,
  • Antonios Balangas2,
  • Ioannis Katafigiotis1,
  • Ioannis Leotsakos1,
  • Dionysios Mitropoulos1 and
  • Constantinos A Constantinides1
BMC Geriatrics201212:18

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-12-18

Received: 22 November 2011

Accepted: 30 April 2012

Published: 30 April 2012

Abstract

Background

Radical cystectomy (RC) is probably underused in elderly patients due to a potential increased postoperative complication risk, as reflected by their considerable comorbidities. Our objective was to estimate the overall complication rate and investigate a potential benefit to patients over the age of 75 subjected to RC in terms of disease-free survival.

Methods

A total of 81 patients, 61 men and 20 women, from two urological departments, with a mean age of 79.2 ± 3.7 years, participated in the study. The mean follow-up period was 2.6 ± 1.6 years. All patients underwent RC with pelvic lymphadenectomy. An ileal conduit, an orthotopic ileal neobladder and cutaneous ureterostomies were formed in 48.1%, 6.2% and 45.7% of the patients, respectively. The perioperative and 90-day postoperative complications were recorded and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. Survival plots were created based on the oncological outcome and several study parameters.

Results

The perioperative morbidity rate was 43.2%; the 90-day morbidity rate was 37%, while the 30-day, 90-day and overall mortality rates were 3.7%, 3.7% and 21%, respectively. Overall mortality rates were recorded at the final year of data gathering (2009). Increased age, increased body mass index (BMI), longer hospitalization and age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (ACCI) more than six, were associated with greater hazard for 90-day morbidity. The cumulative mortality / metastasis-free rates for one, two, three and five years were 88.7%, 77.5%, 70.4%, and 62.3%, respectively. Tumour stage and positive nodes were prognostic predictors for oncological outcome.

Conclusions

RC in patients over 75 is justified and feasible, due to acceptable complication rates and high 5-year cancer-specific survival, which support an aggressive approach. Prospective studies are needed for the verification of the above results.

Keywords

Radical cystectomy Octogenarians Complications Survival Clavien classification system Charlson comorbidity index

Background

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer incidence increases with age and peaks in the octogenarians [1, 2]. Even though radical cystectomy (RC) is the gold standard for this disease [3], it is underused and possibly inappropriately denied, because the majority of these patients are either unfit for surgery or have considerable comorbidities. This selection bias might preclude a potential effective management in the older patients [4]. The above argument is further strengthened by a recent report concluding that bladder-sparing protocols in octogenarians with > pT2 disease and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3–4 has a very bad prognosis [5].

Increased surgical experience and improvements in surgical techniques are constantly expanding the indications for aggressive treatment. This fact provided the rationale for our study, which attempted to investigate the feasibility of RC in these high-risk patients and establish a potential benefit on cancer-specific survival in the long term.

Methods

We reviewed the files of 81 patients, 61 men and 20 women, with a mean age of 79.2 years (SD = 3.7 years) (range 75–95 years). All patients, after providing informed consent, underwent RC and pelvic lymphadenectomy from 2000 through 2009. Ethical approval was not required due to the retrospective nature of the study, as stated by our institutions scientific committee. The clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. The indications for RC were muscle invasive disease, non muscle invasive disease refractory to intravesical chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy and palliation treatment for uncontrolled haemorrhage (in 11 out of 81 patients). No patient had distant metastasis at the time of the operation. No patient received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy, while 12 (14.8%) and 3 patients (3.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy, respectively.
Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study group

 

N

%

Gender

  

   Men

61

75.3

   Women

20

24.7

Age (years) , mean (SD)

79.2(3.7)

Age (years)*

  

   <77

23

28.4

77-80

31

38.3

   >80

27

33.3

BMI, mean (SD)

25.5(3.2)

Urinary diversion

  

   Ileal conduit

39

48.1

   S-pouch

5

6.2

   Cutaneous ureterostomy

37

45.7

pT (TNM system)

  

   pTis

12

14.8

   pT1 to pT2b

28

34.6

   pT3a to pT3b

29

35.8

   pT4a to pT4b

12

14.8

Nodes (TNM system)

  

   0

60

74.1

   1-2

21

25.9

Hospital stay (days), mean (SD)

13.0 (7.3)

Charlson score

  

   ≤6

69

85.2

   >6

12

14.8

*categorized according to tertiles.

BMI: Body mass index.

SD: Standard deviation.

Perioperative complications were defined as complications occurring within the first 10 postoperative days. 90-day morbidity and mortality were also recorded. The Martin criteria for standardized reporting of complications were used [6] (Table 2). The complications were classified according to the modified Clavien classification system [7] (Table 3). Follow-up of the patients was performed by scheduled hospital visits and telephone interviews.
Table 2

Martin criteria for standardized complication reporting

Criteria

Requirement

Method of accruing data defined

Prospective or retrospective accrual of data are indicated.

Duration of follow-up indicated

Report clarifies the time period of postoperative accrual

 

of complications such as 30 days or same hospitalization.

Outpatient information included

Study indicates that complications first identified following

 

discharge are included in the analysis.

Definitions of complications provided

Article defines at least one complication with specific inclusion criteria.

Mortality rate and causes of death listed

The number of patients who died in the postoperative period of study

 

are recorded together with cause of death.

Morbidity rate and total complications indicated

The number of patients with any complication and the total number

 

of complications are recorded.

Procedure-specific complications included

 

Severity grade utilized

Any grading system designed to clarify severity of complications

 

including “major and minor” is reported.

Length-of-stay data

Median or mean length of stay indicated in the study.

Risk factors included in the analysis

Evidence of risk stratification and method used indicated by study.

Table 3

Clavien classification of perioperative and 90-day morbidity and mortality

CLAVIEN grade

 

N

%

 

N

%

No complication

 

29

35.8

 
 

Perioperative morbidity (0-10d)

35

43.2

90-day morbidityEmphasis>

30

37

1

 

11

13.6

 

15

18.6

Any deviation from the normal postoperative course without the need for pharmacological treatment or surgical, endoscopic, and radiological interventions. Allowed therapeutic regimens are: drugs as antiemetics, antipyretics, analgetics, diuretics, electrolytes, and physiotherapy. This grade also includes wound infections opened at the bedside.

Hyperemesis

1

1.2

Pneumonia

2

2.4

 

Fever

7

8.4

Psoas abscess

1

1.2

 

Ileus

1

1.2

Wound infection

11

13.6

 

Pneumonia

1

1.2

Lympocele

1

1.2

 

Urine leakage

1

1.2

   

2

 

22

27.2

 

4

4.8

Requiring pharmacological treatment with drugs other than such allowed for grade I complications. Blood transfusions and total parenteral nutrition are also included.

Blood transfusion

21

25.9

Wound dehiscense

1

1.2

 

UTI

1

1.2

UTI

3

3.6

3

 

1

1.2

 

6

7.2

Requiring surgical, endoscopic or radiological intervention

      

3a

-

-

0

 

2

2.4

Intervention not under general anesthesia

-

-

0

Cardiac arrythmia-pacemaker

1

1.2

    

Obstructive nephropathy

1

1.2

3b

 

1

1.2

 

4

4.8

Intervention under general anesthesia

Rectal injury, re-operation, colostomy

1

1.2

Evisceration, re-operation

1

1.2

    

Stricture ileus, re-operation

2

2.4

    

Incisional hernia

1

1.2

4

 

1

1.2

 

2

2.4

Life-threatening complication (including CNS complications) requiring IC/ICU management

Sepsis

1

1.2

Myocardial Infarction

1

1.2

    

Sepsis

1

1.2

5

-

-

0

 

3

3.7

Death of a patient

   

Death

3

3.7

    

30-day (sepsis, pneumonia)

2

2.4

    

60-day (evisceration, re-operation

1

1.2

    

90-day

0

0

Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables are expressed as mean (±SD) or as median values (interquartile range). Qualitative variables are expressed as absolute and relative frequencies. Life table analyses were used to calculate cumulative survival rate (standard errors) for specific time intervals. The prognostic value of each variable was first assessed by univariate Cox regression analysis. Variables that showed significant association with the outcome were included in the multivariate Cox proportional-hazard model in a stepwise method, in order to determine the independent predictors for morbidity and oncological outcome. The assumption of proportional hazards was evaluated by testing for interaction with a continuous time variable. Kaplan – Meier survival estimates for soft and hard events were graphed over the follow-up period. All reported p values are two-tailed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and analyses were conducted using the SPSS statistical software (version 17.0).

Results

The mean follow-up period was 2.6 ± 1.6 years with median equal to 2.4 years (interquartile range from 1.2 to 3.9 years). During the follow-up period, the perioperative morbidity rate was 43.2% (N = 35), 90-day morbidity rate was 35.8% (N = 29), the perioperative and overall mortality rates were 3.7% and 21.0%, respectively, while 6 patients had metastasis (7.4%). In salvage RC, perioperative morbidity rate was 45.4%, 90-day morbidity rate reached 36.4%, while perioperative mortality was 9%. Positive nodes were found in 25.9% of the patients. The mean length of hospitalization was 13.0 ± 7.3 days and 14.8% of the patients had an age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (ACCI) more than six. Table 4 presents the results of univariate analysis for the association of study parameters with perioperative morbidity. Perioperative morbidity rate was not significantly different when adjusted to the clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients. Univariate Cox regression analysis for 90-day morbidity (Table 5) revealed that increased age, increased body mass index (BMI), hospital stay and ACCI more than six, were associated with greater hazard for 90-day morbidity. When multiple Cox regression analysis with stepwise-forward approach was applied (Table 6), it was found that age, BMI, hospital stay and ACCI were independently associated with morbidity. Specifically, for one day increase in hospital stay, the morbidity hazard increases by 6%, while for one unit increase in BMI, the morbidity hazard increases by 18%. Furthermore, patients aged 77 to 80 years and those aged more than 80 years had greater morbidity hazard compared to those aged less than 77 years with adjusted hazard ratios equal to 4.92 and 5.86, respectively. Additionally, subjects with ACCI more than six had 2.51 times greater morbidity hazard compared to those with ACCI equal or less than six. Kaplan Meier morbidity estimations according to ACCI are presented in Figure 1.
Table 4

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study group associated with perioperative morbidity

 

Perioperative morbidity (10 days)

Px² test

 

No

Yes

 

N

%

N

%

Gender

     

   Male

36

59.0

25

41.0

0.752

   Female

11

55.0

9

45.0

 

Age (years) , mean (SD)

79.3(4.0)

78.9(3.2)

0.650**

Age (years)

     

   <77

14

60.9

9

39.1

0.895

   77-80

17

54.8

14

45.2

 

   >80

16

59.3

11

40.7

 

BMI, mean (SD)

25.6(2.9)

25.5(3.7)

0.873**

Urinary diversion

     

   Ileal conduit

22

56.4

17

43.6

0.724*

   S-pouch

4

80.0

1

20.0

 

   Cutaneous ureterostomy

21

56.8

16

43.2

 

pT (TNM system)

     

   pTis

3

25.0

9

75.0

0.070

   pT1 to pT2b

17

60.7

11

39.3

 

   pT3a to pT3b

18

62.1

11

37.9

 

   pT4a to pT4b

9

75.0

3

25.0

 

Nodes (TNM system)

     

   0

34

56.7

26

43.3

0.675

   1-2

13

61.9

8

38.1

 

Hospital stay, mean (SD)

13.7(8.4)

12.1(5.4)

0.334**

Charlson score

     

   ≤6

39

56.5

30

43.5

0.511

   >6

8

66.7

4

33.3

 

*Indicates reference category.

**Hazard ratio cannot be calculated because of no distribution.

Table 5

Univariate and multiple Cox proportional hazards models for the prediction of 90-day morbidity

 

Crude

 

Adjusted

 
 

HR (95% CI) ‡

P

HR (95% CI)

P

Gender

    

   Male

1.00*

   

   Female

0.98 (0.42 - 2.28)

0.955

  

Age (years), mean ± SD

1.08 (0.99 - 1.17)

0.079

  

Age (years)

    

   <77

1.00*

 

1.00*

 

   77-80

4.12 (1.18 - 14.33)

0.026

4.92 (1.35 - 17.95)

0.016

   >80

4.04 (1.14 - 14.31)

0.031

5.86 (1.47 - 23.42)

0.012

BMI, mean ± SD

1.15 (1.04 - 1.27)

0.008

1.18 (1.04 - 1.34)

0.011

Urinary diversion

    

   Ileal conduit

1.00*

   

   S-pouch

**

   

   Cutaneous ureterostomy

1.18 (0.57 - 2.44)

0.658

  

pT (TNM system)

    

   pTis

1.00*

   

   pT1 to pT2b

0.51 (0.18 - 1.42)

0.197

  

   pT3a to pT3b

0.62 (0.23 - 1.72)

0.362

  

   pT4a to pT4b

0.56 (0.16 - 2)

0.377

  

Nodes (TNM system)

    

   0

1.00*

   

   1-2

1.2 (0.53 - 2.7)

0.665

  

Hospital stay, mean ± SD

1.05 (1.02 - 1.09)

0.002

1.06 (1.02 - 1.09)

0.002

Charlson score

    

   ≤6

1.00*

 

1.00*

 

   >6

2.43 (1.03 - 5.7)

0.042

2.51 (1.06 - 5.94)

0.037

‡Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval).

*Indicates reference category.

**Hazard ratio cannot be calculated because of no distribution.

Table 6

Univariate and multiple Cox proportional hazards models for the prediction of death/metastasis

 

Crude

 

Adjusted

 
 

HR (95% CI)‡

P

HR (95% CI)

P

Gender

    

   Male

1.00*

   

   Female

0.41 (0.12 - 1.4)

0.155

  

Age (years), mean ± SD

1 (0.89 - 1.13)

0.976

  

Age (years)

    

   <77

1.00*

   

   77-80

1.57 (0.57 - 4.34)

0.382

  

   >80

1.06 (0.36 - 3.17)

0.910

  

BMI, mean ± SD

0.96 (0.84 - 1.1)

0.563

  

Urinary diversion

    

   Ileal conduit

1.00*

0.997

  

   S-pouch

**

   

   Cutaneous ureterostomy

1.03 (0.45 - 2.36)

0.944

  

pT (TNM system)

    

   pTis

1.00*

 

1.00*

 

   pT1 to pT2b

3.11 (0.37 - 25.88)

0.293

2.87 (0.35 - 23.9)

0.329

   pT3a to pT3b

5.5 (0.7 - 43.04)

0.105

5.99 (0.76 - 46.95)

0.088

   pT4a to pT4b

9.11 (1.09 - 75.81)

0.041

9.19 (1.10 - 76.58)

0.040

Nodes (TNM system)

    

   0

1.00*

 

1.00*

 

   1-2

2.52 (1.10 – 5.75)

0.028

2.4 (1.05 - 5.49)

0.039

Hospital stay. mean ± SD

0.99 (0.93 - 1.06)

0.777

  
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2318-12-18/MediaObjects/12877_2011_Article_753_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Kaplan-Meier curves for 90-day morbidity stratified by age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (p = 0.037).

The cumulative mortality / metastasis-free rates for one, two, three and five years were 88.7% [Standard Error (SE) = 3.6%], 77.5% (SE = 4.8%), 70.4% (SE = 5.5%) and 62.3% (SE = 7.3%), respectively. Both univariate and multiple analysis concerning death or metastasis (Table 5) revealed that tumour stage and nodes were prognostic predictors for oncological outcome. Specifically, as resulted from multiple analysis, patients with tumour stage pT4a to pT4b had 9.19 times greater hazard for death or metastasis compared to those with in situ tumours. Moreover, patients with one or two positive nodes had 2.4 times greater hazard for death or metastasis. Kaplan Meier estimates for death or metastasis according to tumour stage and nodes are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2318-12-18/MediaObjects/12877_2011_Article_753_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Kaplan-Meier curves for event-free probability stratified by nodal status. (p = 0.039).

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2318-12-18/MediaObjects/12877_2011_Article_753_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Kaplan-Meier curves for event-free probability stratified by tumour stage. (pT1-pT2b: p = 0.329, pT3: p = 0.08, pT4: p = 0.04).

Discussion

Octogenarians are per se, a high-risk group, due to their comorbidities. Using the age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index, for each decade over the age of 40 years, one point is added to the total score, a fact that reflects the significance of age in the performance status of a patient [8]. Koppie et al recently suggested the association between ACCI and the clinical and oncological outcome after a RC [9]. Other authors also reported that postoperative morbidity is higher in patients with higher ASA score and more than 2 comorbidities [10]. The same conclusion was reached by a collaborative review, which however, stated that age alone does not preclude RC in the elderly [11].

Our results of perioperative mortality and 90-day morbidity are comparable to those of the above mentioned reviews, which range between 0-11% and as high as 64% [11], respectively, support the notion of an aggressive treatment offered to octogenarians. The 90-day instead of the 30-day or the 60-day morbidity was selected because it is already established as a more potent and realistic description tool of the postoperative risks of the RC morbidity, as several reports are suggesting [11, 12]. The 90-day morbidity along with the use of the Clavien classification system, give a distinct advantage in our study in terms of complication reporting quality [1113].

The incidence of wound complications was surprisingly high in our series (11%) and it could be attributed to poor healing capacity and poor patient hygiene. In order to avoid this kind of complication, we now routinely use tension sutures along with Nylon sutures or clips for wound closure at the end of the operation, which are removed approximately one month later.

The complication rates did not vary between salvage and primary RC. The main difference was that perioperative mortality was significantly higher in the salvage RC (9% vs. 3.7%), which was somewhat expected, due to the nature of the disease and the performance status of the patient at the time of the operation. The above observation is in accordance to other authors [14, 15]. Furthermore, obesity and longer hospital stay have been identified as risk factors for higher postoperative morbidity.

The selected type of urinary diversion does not seem to alter the morbidity/mortality outcome, as shown in other studies as well [11, 16]. It is however important to notice, that high-volume centers, performing > 50 RC’s per year should be involved in these cases, because the surgical experience in these centers is more advanced and is associated with improved postoperative outcomes, including decreased mortality, shorter length of hospital stay and lower rehospitalization rates [11, 17].

Cancer-specific survival is another major concern when the decision to perform RC in an octogenarian should be taken, as the reported results are rather controversial. Two retrospective studies, reviewing a total of approximately 1120 patients have reported unfavourable oncological outcomes in elderly patients [18, 19]. In the first study, the 5-year was 28.1%, while in the second the 3-year and 7-year cancer-specific survival rates were between 70% and 55.2%, respectively. On the other hand, Chamie et al and Hollenbeck et al provided some evidence that RC has some benefit in the elderly, when compared to watchful waiting, or radiotherapy and chemotherapy [4, 20]. Chamie and colleaques also stated that pelvic lymphadenectomy should be performed in order for RC to show any survival advantage in the octogenarians [20]. Based on our results, we advocate RC and lymphadenectomy in the elderly patients, since the 5-year survival rate in our series was significantly high (62.3%) and tumour stage and node status were prognostic predictors for the oncological outcome. Clinical tumour stage and grade remain the best predictors of cancer specific survival [21]. Therefore, it is imperative for the RC candidates to undergo a meticulous clinical and imaging examination.

Conclusions

Age should not hamper RC, particularly when it takes place in specialized, high-volume centers. The reported complication rates of this particular group of patients, especially when standardized with validated methodologies, are acceptable. Strict selection of non obese patients, with non metastatic disease and an ACCI less than six, may result in a better postoperative outcome.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Urology, Athens University Medical School, LAIKO Hospital
(2)
Department of Urology, Ammerland Clinics
(3)
Department of Urology, Athens University Medical School, LAIKO Hospital

References

  1. Jemal A, Clegg LX, Ward E, et al: Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2001, with a special feature regarding survival. Cancer. 2004, 101: 3-27. 10.1002/cncr.20288.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark PE, Stein JP, Groshen SG, et al: Radical cystectomy in the elderly: comparison of clinical outcomes between younger and older patients. Cancer. 2005, 104: 36-43. 10.1002/cncr.21126.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Stenzl A, Cowan NC, De Santis M, et al: The updated EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2009, 55: 815-825. 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hollenbeck BK, Miller DC, Taub D, et al: Aggressive treatment for bladder cancer is associated with improved overall survival among patients 80 years old or older. Urology. 2004, 64: 292-297. 10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.034.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wehrberger C, Berger I, Marszalek M, et al: Bladder preservation in octogenarians with invasive bladder cancer. Urology. 2010, 75: 370-375. 10.1016/j.urology.2009.10.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Martin RC, Brennan MF, Jaques DP: Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg. 2002, 235: 803-813. 10.1097/00000658-200206000-00007.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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: 205-213. 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall WH, Ramachandran R, Narayan S, Jani AB, Vijayakumar S: An electronic application for rapidly calculating Charlson comorbidity score. BMC Cancer. 2004, 4: 94-10.1186/1471-2407-4-94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Koppie TM, Serio AM, Vickers AJ, et al: Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score is associated with treatment decisions and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Cancer. 2008, 112: 2384-2392. 10.1002/cncr.23462.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Boström PJ, Kössi J, Laato M, Nurmi M: Risk factors for mortality and morbidity related to radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2009, 103: 191-196. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07889.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Froehner M, Brausi MA, Herr HW, Muto G, Studer UE: Complications following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in the elderly. Eur Urol. 2009, 56: 443-454. 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.05.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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: 164-176. 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.07.031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chahal R, Sundaram SK, Iddenden R, Forman DF, Weston PMT, Harrison SCW: A study of the morbidity, mortality and long-term survival following radical cystectomy and radical radiotherapy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer in Yorkshire. Eur Urol. 2003, 43: 246-257. 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00581-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawford ED, Skinner DG: Salvage cystectomy after irradiation failure. J Urol. 1980, 123: 32-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith JA, Whitmore WF: Salvage cystectomy for bladder cancer after failure of definitive irradiation. J Urol. 1981, 125: 643-645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sogni F, Brausi M, Frea B, et al: Morbidity and quality of life in elderly patients receiving ileal conduit or orthotopic neobladder after radical cystectomy for invasive bladder cancer. Urology. 2008, 71: 919-923. 10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.125.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Barbieri CE, Lee B, Cookson MS, et al: Association of procedure volume with radical cystectomy outcomes in a nationwide database. J Urol. 2007, 178: 1418-1421. 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.156.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nielsen ME, Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, et al: Bladder Cancer Research Consortium (BCRC). Advanced age is associated with poorer bladder cancer-specific survival in patients treated with radical cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2007, 5: 699-706.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Resorlu B, Beduk Y, Baltaci S, Ergun G, Talas H: The prognostic significance of advanced age in patients with bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2009, 103: 480-483. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08033.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Chamie K, Hu B, Devere White RW, Ellison LM: Cystectomy in the elderly: does the survival benefit in younger patients translate to the octogenarians?. BJU Int. 2008, 102: 284-290. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07636.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Thrasher JB, Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Dodge RK, Paulson DF: Clinical variables which serve as predictors of cancer-specific survival among patients treated with radical cystectomy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and prostate. Cancer. 1994, 73: 1708-1715. 10.1002/1097-0142(19940315)73:6<1708::AID-CNCR2820730626>3.0.CO;2-J.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2318/12/18/prepub

Copyright

© Tyritzis et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement