Impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on short-term and long-term outcomes of radical cystectomy

Purpose of review There is heightened awareness and trends towards centralizing high-risk, complex surgeries such as radical cystectomy to minimize complications and improve survival. However, after nearly a decade of mandated and/or passive centralization of care, debate regarding its benefits and harms continues. Recent findings During the past decade, mandated and passive centralization has led to an increase in radical cystectomies performed in high-volume hospitals (HVHs) and, perhaps by high-volume surgeons (HVS), in addition to efforts to increase the uptake of multidisciplinary strategies in the management of radical cystectomy patients. Consequently, 30 and 90-day mortality rates and overall survival have improved, and major complications and transfusion rates have decreased. Factors impacting surgical quality, such as negative surgical margin(s), pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or lymph node yield rates have increased. However, current studies have not demonstrated a coadditive impact of centralization on oncological outcomes (i.e. cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival). The benefits of centralization on oncologic survival of radical cystectomy remain unclear given the varied definitions of HVHs and HVSs across studies. In fact, centralization of radical cystectomy could lead to an increase in patient load in HVHs and for HVSs, thereby leading to longer surgery waiting times, a factor that is important in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The benefits of centralization of radical cystectomy with multidisciplinary management are shown increasingly and convincingly. More studies are necessary to prospectively test the benefits, risks and harms of centralization.