Skip to main content
African Journal of Urology
African Journal of Urology Cover Image
Download PDF

Quality of surgical care can impact survival in patients with bladder cancer after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium

African Journal of Urology volume 26, Article number: 22 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Although pathological factors remain the main determinate of survival for patients with bladder cancer, quality of surgical care is crucial for satisfactory outcomes. Using a validated quality score, we investigated the impact of surgical factors on the overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) in patients with locally advanced and organ-confined disease (OCD). Retrospective review of IRCC database includes 2460 patients from 29 institutions across 11 countries. The final cohort included 1343 patients who underwent RARCs between 2005 and 2016. Patients with locally advanced disease (LAD) (> pT2 and/or N +) were compared with OCD (≤ pT2/N0). Validated Quality Cystectomy Score (QCS) based on four sets of quality metrics was used to compare surgical performance. Kaplan–Meier method was used to compute RFS, CSS and OS rates. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression was used to evaluate variables associated with RFS, DSS and OS.

Results

48% had LAD. When compared to patients with OCD, they received neobladders less frequently (17% vs. 28%, p < 0.001) and experienced higher estimated blood loss (513 vs. 376 ml, p = 0.05). Postoperatively, more patients in the LAD group received adjuvant chemotherapy (24% vs. 4%, p < 0.001) and positive surgical margins (14% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) and had higher 90-day mortality (6% vs. 2%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, female gender, higher QCS score, intracorporeal diversion, pT stage, positive lymph node status and recurrence are considered as predictors of survival. Patients with OCD exhibited better RFS, DSS and OS than patients with LAD. For patients with OCD, higher QCS was associated with improved OS but not RFS or DSS. On the other hand, patients with LAD and higher QCS exhibited higher RFS, DSS and OS when compared to those with lower QCS.

Conclusion

Quality of surgical care can affect disease control and OS in patients with bladder cancer treated with robot-assisted radical cystectomy.

Background

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has been increasingly utilized for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, as it provides similar oncological efficacy to open radical cystectomy (RC) and is superior in terms of perioperative outcomes and recovery [1]. Approximately 37% of patients have locally advanced disease (LAD) (extravesical disease (> pT2) and/or positive lymph nodes) at surgery [2]. The negative impact of tumor stage (pT stage) and lymph node stage (pN stage) on oncological outcomes following RC has been reported by several open and robot-assisted series [3,4,5]. Surgery in the setting of LAD may invariably become inevitable to alleviate adverse urinary symptoms and poor quality of life that may occur [6]. Additionally, similar to ovarian cancer and renal cell carcinoma, surgery offers good local control, decreases tumor burden and therefore may be associated with survival benefit [7]. Moreover, advents in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have been associated with significant pathologic downstaging and improved survival, and surgery may be done even with curative intent in this setting [8].

Controversy remains with regards to the best approach for locally advanced bladder cancer, with concerns regarding poor oncological outcomes, higher morbidity and mortality, cost-effectiveness and the economic impact [9]. In addition to patient comorbidities and extent of the disease, it has been shown that quality of surgical performance can largely contribute to outcomes of RC independent of the extent of the disease [10, 11]. However, the role RARC in the setting of LAD is yet to be defined. The lack of tactile feedback and the potential higher risk of positive surgical margins may advocate against the use of RARC [12]. Additionally, there have been concerns about possible higher incidence of extrapelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis, local recurrence and peritoneal carcinomatosis with RARC when compared to open surgery [13].

In this context, we sought to describe the outcomes of our patients who underwent RARC for LAD and investigate the impact of quality of surgical performance on perioperative outcomes and survival.

Methods

A retrospective review of the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC) database was performed (I-79606) which includes 2460 patients who underwent RARC between 2005 and 2016, from 29 institutions across 11 countries.

Patients were divided into two groups: patients with LAD (> pT2 and/or N +) and those with organ-confined disease (OCD) (≤ pT2/N0). Patients were reviewed for demographics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI] and American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score), preoperative characteristics (prior abdominal or pelvic surgery, prior irradiation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy [NAC] and clinical staging), operative (type and technique of diversion, operative time, blood loss and transfusion), postoperative variables (hospital and intensive care unit stay, complications, readmissions, pathological staging, lymph node yield) and oncological outcomes (disease recurrence and survival). Patients were again grouped according to the quality of surgical care they received, measured by the validated Quality Cystectomy Score (QCS) for RARC into high and low QCS [10]. The score comprises four domains that measure surgical quality of RARC independent of patient and disease characteristics and then assigned a star score depending on the number of quality metrics fulfilled (Additional file 1: Fig. S1). Oncological outcomes were then compared between the different groups.

Statistical analysis

Data were described in terms of means and standard deviations. Univariable associations were statistically assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or Kruskal–Wallis test for ordinal data, and Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to describe recurrence-free (RFS), disease-specific (DSS) and overall (OS) survival. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were fit to evaluate preoperative, operative and postoperative predictors of RFS, DSS and OS, excluding factors included in the QCS to avoid collinearity. All tests were two-sided, with statistical significance defined as p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.3, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

The final cohort comprised 1343 patients, 41 surgeons from 24 institutions in 10 countries. Mean age was 67 years, 74% were men and 20% received NAC. A total of 640 (48%) patients had LAD (86% had extravesical disease, 47% had positive lymph nodes and 33% had both). Patients with LAD received ileal conduits more often (83% vs. 72%, p < 0.001), experienced higher estimated blood loss (444 vs. 376 ml, p = 0.05) and received adjuvant chemotherapy more often (24% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). Both groups exhibited a similar lymph node yield (median 18, standard deviation [SD] 11). There was no significant difference in terms of operative times, complications or readmissions up to 3 months after RARC. LAD patients had more positive soft tissue surgical margins (14% vs. 2%, p < 0.001). They had higher incidence of both local (19% vs. 4%, p < 0.001) and distant (31% vs. 8%, p < 0.001) recurrences. They also exhibited higher mortality at 90 days (6% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) (Table 1).

Table 1 Perioperative characteristics of patients who underwent RARC between 2005 and 2016 (OC vs. LAD)
Full size table

In terms of quality of surgical care provided, both groups received comparable surgical care, where 83% of LAD patients were assigned a high QCS score (3–4 stars) compared to 90% of OCD patients (Fig. 1). The proportion of patients who received high QCS score significantly increased with time, irrespective of their disease extent (linear regression test: OCD: p = 0.003; LAD p = 0.02) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1
figure1

Pie chart showing the distribution of QCS scores among patients with LAD versus OCD

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure2

Proportion of patients who received high QCS (star score of 3 or 4) over time (linear regression test: OCD, p = 0.003 vs. LAD, p = 0.02)

Full size image

Patients with high QCS significantly demonstrated better 5-year OS irrespective of their disease stage (LAD: 29% vs. 23%, p = 0.02) and (OCD: 70% vs. 55%, p = 0.03). When compared to patients who had LAD and low QCS, patients with LAD and high QCS demonstrated better 5-year RFS (41% vs. 29%, p = 0.05) and DSS (55% vs. 37%, p = 0.01). This benefit was not demonstrated for patients with OCD (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure3

Kaplan–Meier curves for RFS, DSS and OS for patients with OCD versus LAD stratified by QCS score (high QCS vs. low QCS)

Full size image

Looking at predictors of survival, > pT3 stage and N+ status at RARC were associated with worse RFS (hazards ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15–2.22, p = 0.006; HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19–2.24, p = 0.003), DSS (HR 5.12, 95% CI 3.23–8.12, p < 0.0001; HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.39–3.04, p = 0.0003) and OS (HR 3.66, 95% CI 2.76–4.84, p < 0.0001; HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.4–2.40, p < 0.0001), respectively. Patients who received neobladders and high QCS score exhibited better DSS (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12–0.74, p = 0.009; HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34–0.84, p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.366, 95% CI 0.21–0.65, p = 0.0005; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46–0.86, p = 0.004). BMI had a modest effect on DSS and OS. Male patients (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49–0.95, p = 0.02) and those who received extracorporeal diversion (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49–0.91, p = 0.01) demonstrated better RFS. Higher ASA score was associated with worse OS (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13–1.75, p = 0.002) (Table 2).

Table 2 Multivariable stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression modeling predictors of RFS, DSS and OS
Full size table

Discussion

For decades, RC has been the gold standard for treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and refractory non-muscle-invasive disease. However, even with the advents in surgical techniques and perioperative care, it remains with considerable morbidity and mortality, especially for LAD (pT3–T4 and/or lymph node-positive) [14]. We aimed to explore the outcomes of RARC in the setting of locally advanced bladder cancer and whether the quality of surgical care affected survival in this setting or not (Additional file 2: Table S1).

Although RC in LAD (alone or as part of multimodality approach) may be of considerable risks, other alternatives, as bladder preservation modalities, which usually entail radiation and chemotherapy combined with transurethral resection (TUR) of the primary tumor, do not provide adequate primary tumor control. Additionally, they may be associated with worse voiding symptoms, uncontrollable bleeding, repeated hospital readmissions and poor quality of life [15]. Inadequate local tumor control may also cause fistulation, ureteral obstruction and symptomatic distant metastasis [6]. Consequently, approximately one-quarter of the patients will undergo salvage cystectomy for symptom relief [16]. RC following extensive chemo-irradiation and multiple TURs has very limited clinical efficacy and usually associated with even higher morbidity and mortality [17]. Therefore, resection of the bladder with an adequate safety margin and extended lymph node dissection may offer symptomatic relief and offer some oncological benefits especially when combined with chemotherapy for control of micrometastatic disease [6].

The present outcomes showed similar perioperative outcomes between LAD and OCD, with only modest difference in the estimated blood loss (444 vs. 376). More patients in the LAD showed PSM (14% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) and experienced recurrence more often (39% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). This can be explained by disease aggressiveness. Even with adequate surgical techniques, LAD cohort may still experience more positive soft tissue surgical margins, which is associated with disease relapse [18, 19].

Survival following RARC depends on several key factors: stage of disease at presentation, patient age and comorbidities, and the quality of operative management [5, 20, 21]. Deal management should include multidisciplinary consultation regarding NAC, a procedure that respects oncological principles, optimized perioperative care and the availability of adequate institutional resources [22]. Disease factors mainly drive survival outcomes for bladder cancer. The adverse impact of advanced pT stage and nodal status has been shown, and long-term survival is dismal when bladder cancer invades the pelvic sidewall or adjacent structures [3, 4, 12, 23, 24]. Nodal involvement had a clear negative prognostic impact independent of pT stage [24].

While disease and patient characteristics are less controllable, disease management and perioperative care are “modifiable” and should be optimized. It has been previously shown that independent of patient and disease characteristics, high-quality surgical care is associated with RFS, DSS and OS [22]. In the current study, more patients in the OCD received higher quality of care when compared to LAD (90% vs. 83%), which is attributed primarily to the pathologic criteria that include positive soft tissue surgical margins (Table 1). The improvement in surgical care provided for patients with time corresponds to increased trends of utilization of NAC and is in agreement with data from National Medicare, which shows a 37% decline in mortality [22, 25]. Our findings confirm that quality of surgical care is mandatory to optimize OS for all patients, irrespective of their disease status. Among patients with OCD, those who received a higher quality of surgical care demonstrated better OS at 5 years (70% vs. 55%, p = 0.03). Among patients with LAD, disease control benefit (in terms of RFS and DSS) has been additionally demonstrated. This reflects that a quality surgery that involves thorough lymphadenectomy is worthwhile and can provide recurrence-free and disease-free survival benefit even in patients with the locally advanced and micrometastatic disease. However, controversies do exist with respect to the required extent of lymphadenectomy and the number of nodes that should be retrieved. It has been concluded that bilateral and meticulous lymphadenectomy up to the common iliac artery is adequate and that such a dissection would provide a yield of approximately 20 lymph nodes [22]. The introduction of NAC has been associated with improved survival in these patients, especially in patients with complete pathological response [8]. Meticulous surgical clearance and extended lymph node dissection are crucial for achievement of optimal survival following RARC.

Other factors that have been shown in this study to affect survival included female gender, ASA score, intracorporeal diversion and continent diversion. Females in general have worse outcomes of bladder cancer. The effects of the diversion technique and type may be related to patient selection bias, where sicker patients usually receive conduits that are mostly performed intracorporeally, or may be related to longer operative times associated with intracorporeal diversion.

The present study has its limitations. First, the limitations inherent to retrospective analysis are well recognized. Second, the study includes 24 different institutions which may vary in their management protocols. Still, our study reflects real practice patterns and may be used for better patient counseling. Regarding QCS score, an equal weight was assigned for each of the parameters used, which may not reflect their actual importance. Also, the pathologic criteria of QCS may still be affected by disease stage, which can affect the assessment of the quality of surgical care.

Conclusion

Disease-related factors remain the main determinant of survival for bladder cancer. Quality of surgical care can affect disease control and overall survival in patients with bladder cancer treated with robot-assisted radical cystectomy. In patients with locally advanced disease, quality surgical care is mandatory to achieve acceptable cancer control.

Abbreviations

RARC:

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy

RC:

Radical cystectomy

LAD:

Locally advanced disease

NAC:

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

LN:

Lymph node

IRCC:

International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium

OCD:

Organ-confined disease

BMI:

Body mass index

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

QCS:

Quality cystectomy score

RFS:

Recurrence-free

DSS:

Disease-specific

OS:

Overall survival

TUR:

Transurethral resection

References

  1. 1.

    Wilson TG et al (2015) Best practices in robot-assisted radical cystectomy and urinary reconstruction: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 67(3):363–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Stein JP et al (2001) Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1054 patients. J Clin Oncol 19(3):666–675

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Shariat SF et al (2006) Outcomes of radical cystectomy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a contemporary series from the Bladder Cancer Research Consortium. J Urol 176(6 Pt 1):2414–2422 (discussion 2422)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hautmann RE et al (2012) Radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy: long-term results in 1100 patients. Eur Urol 61(5):1039–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Raza SJ et al (2015) Long-term oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 68(4):721–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lodde M et al (2005) Four years experience in bladder preserving management for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol 47(6):773–778 (discussion 778-9)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Power NE et al (2012) Natural history of pT3-4 or node positive bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy and no neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a contemporary North-American multi-institutional cohort. Can Urol Assoc J 6(6):E217–E223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Grossman HB et al (2003) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cystectomy compared with cystectomy alone for locally advanced bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 349(9):859–866

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Schrag D et al (2005) Cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: patterns and outcomes of care in the Medicare population. Urology 65(6):1118–1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hussein AA et al (2016) Development and validation of a quality assurance score for robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a 10-year analysis. Urology 97:124–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Herr HW et al (2004) Surgical factors influence bladder cancer outcomes: a cooperative group report. J Clin Oncol 22(14):2781–2789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Al-Daghmin A et al (2014) Efficacy of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) in advanced bladder cancer: results from the International Radical Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC). BJU Int 114(1):98–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Nguyen DP et al (2015) Recurrence patterns after open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol 68(3):399–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Park JC et al (2014) Multimodal management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Curr Probl Cancer 38(3):80–108

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Nagele U et al (2008) Surgical approach in patients with T4 bladder cancer as primary treatment: disaster or option with improved quality of life. Indian J Urol 24(1):95–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tekin A, Aki FT, Ozen H (2001) Radical cystectomy versus alternative treatments for muscle-confined bladder cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 33(2):357–362

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    George L et al (2004) Clinical outcome in patients with locally advanced bladder carcinoma treated with conservative multimodality therapy. Urology 64(3):488–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Dotan ZA et al (2007) Positive surgical margins in soft tissue following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and cancer specific survival. J Urol 178(6):2308–2312 (discussion 2313)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Novara G et al (2010) Soft tissue surgical margin status is a powerful predictor of outcomes after radical cystectomy: a multicenter study of more than 4,400 patients. J Urol 183(6):2165–2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Schiffmann J et al (2014) Contemporary 90-day mortality rates after radical cystectomy in the elderly. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(12):1738–1745

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Eisenberg MS et al (2013) The SPARC score: a multifactorial outcome prediction model for patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol 190(6):2005–2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hussein AA, Dibaj S, Hinata N, Field E, O’leary K, Kuvshinoff B, Mohler JL, Wilding G, Guru KA (2016) Development and validation of a quality assurance score for robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a 10-year analysis. Urology 97:124–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Madersbacher S et al (2003) Radical cystectomy for bladder cancer today: a homogeneous series without neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 21(4):690–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ghoneim MA et al (2008) Radical cystectomy for carcinoma of the bladder: 2720 consecutive cases 5 years later. J Urol 180(1):121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD (2011) Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med 364(22):2128–2137

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Roswell Park Alliance Foundation and Vattikuti Foundation.

Authors’ contributions

YA, AAH and KAG conceived and designed the study. YA, AAH, BA, AK, JB, AD, SK, JK, MS, CW, LR, AW, BY, JPR, PD, MSK, MM, JOP, ABH, FG, GP, FS, AM, KR, AH, MS, JK, JST, TJM, VP, JK, AEC, MDB and PW collected the data and revised the final manuscript. YA, AAH and PRM contributed to statistical analysis. YA and AAH drafted the manuscript. AAH and KAG supervised the study. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Funding

NA.

Availability of data and material

Available upon request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Roswell Park Cancer Institute IRB approval (I-79606).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton St, Buffalo, NY, 14263, USA

    Youssef Ahmed, Ahmed A. Hussein, Paul R. May, Basel Ahmad, Amir Khan, John Benkowski, Ayesha Durrani, Saira Khan, Justen Kozlowski & Khurshid A. Guru

  2. Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

    Ahmed A. Hussein

  3. University of the Saarland, Homburg Saar, Germany

    Matthias Saar & Michael Stockle

  4. Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands

    Carl J. Wijburg

  5. The Arthur Smith Institute for Urology, New York, NY, USA

    Lee Richstone

  6. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Andrew Wagner

  7. City of Hope and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA, USA

    Bertram Yuh

  8. Fundacio Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain

    Joan Palou Redorta

  9. Guy’s Hospital and King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK

    Prokar Dasgupta & Mohammad Shamim Khan

  10. Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mani Menon & James O. Peabody

  11. Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Abolfazl Hosseini & Peter Wiklund

  12. San Raffaele Turro Hospital, Milan, Italy

    Franco Gaboardi & Giovannalberto Pini

  13. Urological Surgical Associates of Delaware, Wilmington, DE, USA

    Francis Schanne

  14. Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Ziekenhuis, Aalast, Belgium

    Alexandre Mottrie

  15. Yonsei University Health System Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea

    Koon-ho Rha

  16. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Ashok Hemal

  17. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Department of Urology, University College London, London, UK

    John Kelly & Wei Shen Tan

  18. Michigan Urological Clinic, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

    Thomas J. Maatman

  19. Doctor’s Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Vassilis Poulakis

  20. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Jihad Kaouk

  21. School of Medicine, Ankara Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey

    Abdullah Erdem Canda & Mevlana Derya Balbay

Authors
  1. Youssef Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed A. Hussein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul R. May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Basel Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amir Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Benkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ayesha Durrani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Saira Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Justen Kozlowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Matthias Saar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Carl J. Wijburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Lee Richstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Andrew Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Bertram Yuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Joan Palou Redorta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Prokar Dasgupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Mohammad Shamim Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Mani Menon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. James O. Peabody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Abolfazl Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Franco Gaboardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Giovannalberto Pini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Francis Schanne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Alexandre Mottrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Koon-ho Rha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Ashok Hemal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Michael Stockle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. John Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Wei Shen Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Thomas J. Maatman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Vassilis Poulakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Jihad Kaouk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Abdullah Erdem Canda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Mevlana Derya Balbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Peter Wiklund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Khurshid A. Guru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ahmed A. Hussein or Khurshid A. Guru.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmed, Y., Hussein, A.A., May, P.R. et al. Quality of surgical care can impact survival in patients with bladder cancer after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Afr J Urol 26, 22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-020-00031-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bladder cancer
  • Robotic
  • Cystectomy
  • Locally advanced
  • Organ confined
  • Quality