1
|
Van den Broeck T, Oprea-Lager D, Moris L, Kailavasan M, Briers E, Cornford P, De Santis M, Gandaglia G, Gillessen Sommer S, Grummet JP, Grivas N, Lam TBL, Lardas M, Liew M, Mason M, O'Hanlon S, Pecanka J, Ploussard G, Rouviere O, Schoots IG, Tilki D, van den Bergh RCN, van der Poel H, Wiegel T, Willemse PP, Yuan CY, Mottet N. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Surgeon and Hospital Caseload Volume on Oncological and Nononcological Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2021; 80:531-545. [PMID: 33962808 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.04.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2020] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT The impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review on the association between surgeon or hospital volume and oncological and nononcological outcomes following RP for PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative studies for nonmetastatic PCa patients treated with RP published between January 1990 and May 2020 were included. For inclusion, studies had to compare hospital or surgeon volume, defined as caseload per unit time. Main outcomes included oncological (including prostate-specific antigen persistence, positive surgical margin [PSM], biochemical recurrence, local and distant recurrence, and cancer-specific and overall survival) and nononcological (perioperative complications including need for blood transfusion, conversion to open procedure and within 90-d death, and continence and erectile function) outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were undertaken. Both a narrative and a quantitative synthesis were planned if the data allowed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Sixty retrospective comparative studies were included. Generally, increasing surgeon and hospital volumes were associated with lower rates of mortality, PSM, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. Combining group size cut-offs as used in the included studies, the median threshold for hospital volume at which outcomes start to diverge is 86 (interquartile range [IQR] 35-100) cases per year. In addition, above this threshold, the higher the caseload, the better the outcomes, especially for PSM. RoB and confounding were high for most domains. CONCLUSIONS Higher surgeon and hospital volumes for RP are associated with lower rates of PSMs, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. This association becomes apparent from a caseload of >86 (IQR 35-100) per year and may further improve hereafter. Both high- and low-volume centres should measure their outcomes, make them publicly available, and improve their quality of care if needed. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the literature to determine whether the number of prostate cancer operations (radical prostatectomy) performed in a hospital affects the outcomes of surgery. We found that, overall, hospitals with a higher number of operations per year have better outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence and complications during or after hospitalisation. However, it must be noted that surgeons working in hospitals with lower annual operations can still achieve similar or even better outcomes. Therefore, making hospital's outcome data publicly available should be promoted internationally, so that patients can make an informed decision where they want to be treated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Daniela Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lisa Moris
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | - Philip Cornford
- Department of Urology, Liverpool University Hospitals, Liverpool, UK
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Silke Gillessen Sommer
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Jeremy P Grummet
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Australia
| | - Nikos Grivas
- Department of Urology, Hatzikosta General Hospital, Ioannina, Greece
| | - Thomas B L Lam
- Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Michael Lardas
- Department of Urology, Metropolitan General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | - Malcolm Mason
- Division of Cancer & Genetics, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - Shane O'Hanlon
- Medicine for Older People, Saint Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | | | - Olivier Rouviere
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôspital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Centre, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | | | - Henk van der Poel
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter-Paul Willemse
- Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht Cancer Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Cathy Y Yuan
- Department of Medicine, Health Science Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nicolas Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, St. Etienne, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Preisser F, Pompe RS, Salomon G, Rosenbaum C, Graefen M, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI, Tilki D. Impact of the estimated blood loss during radical prostatectomy on functional outcomes. Urol Oncol 2019; 37:298.e11-298.e17. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2018] [Revised: 11/11/2018] [Accepted: 01/03/2019] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
3
|
Cheng H, Clymer JW, Po-Han Chen B, Sadeghirad B, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P. Prolonged operative duration is associated with complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res 2018; 229:134-144. [PMID: 29936980 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 398] [Impact Index Per Article: 66.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2017] [Revised: 02/27/2018] [Accepted: 03/14/2018] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to systematically synthesize the large volume of literature reporting on the association between operative duration and complications across various surgical specialties and procedure types. METHODS An electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2005 to January 2015 was conducted. Sixty-six observational studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS Pooled analyses showed that the likelihood of complications increased significantly with prolonged operative duration, approximately doubling with operative time thresholds exceeding 2 or more hours. Meta-analyses also demonstrated a 14% increase in the likelihood of complications for every 30 min of additional operating time. CONCLUSIONS Prolonged operative time is associated with an increase in the risk of complications. Given the adverse consequences of complications, decreased operative times should be a universal goal for surgeons, hospitals, and policy-makers. Future study is recommended on the evaluation of interventions targeted to reducing operating time.
Collapse
|
4
|
Chazapis M, Gilhooly D, Smith A, Myles P, Haller G, Grocott M, Moonesinghe S. Perioperative structure and process quality and safety indicators: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth 2018; 120:51-66. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2017] [Revised: 09/28/2017] [Accepted: 10/02/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
|
5
|
Leow JJ, Leong EK, Serrell EC, Chang SL, Gruen RL, Png KS, Beaule LT, Trinh QD, Menon MM, Sammon JD. Systematic Review of the Volume-Outcome Relationship for Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 2017; 4:775-789. [PMID: 28753874 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2017] [Accepted: 03/13/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the most complex urological procedures performed. Higher surgical volume has been found previously to be associated with better patient outcomes and reduced costs to the health care system. This has resulted in some regionalization of care toward high-volume facilities and providers; however, the preponderance of RPs is still performed at low-volume institutions. OBJECTIVE To provide an updated systematic review of the association of hospital and surgeon volume on patient and system outcomes after RP, including robot-assisted RP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review of literature was undertaken, searching PubMed (1959-2016) for original articles. Selection criteria included RP, hospital and/or surgeon volumes as predictor variables, categorization of hospital and/or surgeon volumes, and measurable end points. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall 49 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies demonstrated that higher-volume surgeries are associated with better outcomes including reduced mortality, morbidity, postoperative complications, length of stay, readmission, and cost-associated factors. The volume-outcome relationship is maintained in robotic surgery. Eleven studies assessed hospital and surgeon volume simultaneously, and findings reflect that neither is an independent predictor variable affecting outcomes. The studies varied in how volume cutoffs were categorized as well as how the volume-outcome relationship was methodologically evaluated. CONCLUSIONS Contemporary evidence continues to support the relationship between high-volume surgeries with improved RP outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that the volume-outcome relationship applies to robot-assisted RP and may be applied for potential cost savings in health care. An increase in the number of international studies suggests reproducibility of the association. Although regionalization of surgical care remains a contentious issue, there is an increasing body of evidence that short-term outcomes are improved at high-volume centers for RP. PATIENT SUMMARY This systematic review of the latest literature found that higher surgical volume was associated with improved outcomes for radical prostatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey J Leow
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
| | - Eugene K Leong
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore-Imperial College London, Singapore
| | | | - Steven L Chang
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Russell L Gruen
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore-Imperial College London, Singapore
| | - Keng Siang Png
- Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
| | - Lisa T Beaule
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Urology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA
| | - Quoc-Dien Trinh
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Mani M Menon
- VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Jesse D Sammon
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Urology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Access to high-volume surgeons and the opportunity cost of performing radical prostatectomy by low-volume providers. Urol Oncol 2017; 35:459.e15-459.e24. [PMID: 28284890 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.01.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2016] [Revised: 01/15/2017] [Accepted: 01/30/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence suggests that redirecting surgeries to high-volume providers may be associated with better outcomes and significant societal savings. Whether such referrals are feasible remains unanswered. METHODS Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data, SEER 18, and US Incidence data were used to determine the geographic distribution and radical prostatectomy volume for providers. Access was defined as availability of a high-volume provider within driving distance of 100 miles. The opportunity cost was defined as the value of benefits achievable by performing the surgery by a high-volume provider that was forgone by not making a referral. The savings per referral were derived from a published Markov model for radical prostatectomy. RESULTS A total of 14% of providers performed>27% of the radical prostatectomies with>30 cases per year and were designated high-volume providers. Providers with below-median volume (≤16 prostatectomies per year) performed>32% of radical prostatectomies. At least 47% of these were within a 100-mile driving distance (median = 22 miles), and therefore had access to a high-volume provider (>30 prostatectomies per year). This translated into a discounted savings of more than $24 million per year, representing the opportunity cost of not making a referral. The average volume for high- and low-volume providers was 55 and 13, respectively, resulting in an annual experience gap of 43 and a cumulative gap of 125 surgeries over 3 years. In 2014, the number of surgeons performing radical prostatectomy decreased by 5% while the number of high- and low-volume providers decreased by 25% and 11% showing a faster decline in the number of high-volume providers compared with low-volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS About half of prostatectomies performed by surgeons with below-median annual volume were within a 100-mile driving distance (median of 22 miles) of a high-volume surgeon. Such a referral may result in minimal additional costs and substantially improved outcomes.
Collapse
|
7
|
Basto M, Sathianathen N, Te Marvelde L, Ryan S, Goad J, Lawrentschuk N, Costello AJ, Moon DA, Heriot AG, Butler J, Murphy DG. Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int 2015; 117:930-9. [PMID: 26350758 DOI: 10.1111/bju.13317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare patterns of care and peri-operative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with other surgical approaches, and to create an economic model to assess the viability of RARP in the public case-mix funding system. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed all radical prostatectomies (RPs) performed for localized prostate cancer in Victoria, Australia, from the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset, a large administrative database that records all hospital inpatient episodes in Victoria. The first database, covering the period from July 2010 to April 2013 (n = 5 130), was used to compare length of hospital stay (LOS) and blood transfusion rates between surgical approaches. This was subsequently integrated into an economic model. A second database (n = 5 581) was extracted to cover the period between July 2010 and June 2013, three full financial years, to depict patterns of care and make future predictions for the 2014-2015 financial year, and to perform a hospital volume analysis. We then created an economic model to evaluate the incremental cost of RARP vs open RP (ORP) and laparoscopic RP (LRP), incorporating the cost-offset from differences in LOS and blood transfusion rate. The economic model constructs estimates of the diagnosis-related group (DRG) costs of ORP and LRP, adds the gross cost of the surgical robot (capital, consumables, maintenance and repairs), and manipulates these DRG costs to obtain a DRG cost per day, which can be used to estimate the cost-offset associated with RARP in comparison with ORP and LRP. Economic modelling was performed around a base-case scenario, assuming a 7-year robot lifespan and 124 RARPs performed per financial year. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for the four-arm da Vinci SHD, Si and Si dual surgical systems (Intuitive Surgical Ltd, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). RESULTS We identified 5 581 patients who underwent RP in 20 hospitals in Victoria with an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgical approach in the public and private sector. The majority of RPs (4 233, 75.8%), in Victoria were performed in the private sector, with an overall 11.5% decrease in the total number of RPs performed over the 3-year study period. In the most recent financial year, 820 (47%), 765 (44%) and 173 patients (10%) underwent RARP, ORP and LRP, respectively. In the same timeframe, RARP accounted for 26 and 53% of all RPs in the public and private sector, respectively. Public hospitals in Victoria perform a median number of 14 RPs per year and 40% of hospitals perform <10 RPs per year. In the public system, RARP was associated with a mean (±sd) LOS of 1.4 (±1.3) days compared with 3.6 (±2.7) days for LRP and 4.8 (±3.5) days for ORP (P < 0.001). The mean blood transfusion rates were 0, 6 and 15% for RARP, LRP and ORP, respectively (P < 0.001). The incremental cost per RARP case compared with ORP and LRP was A$442 and A$2 092, respectively, for the da Vinci S model, A$1 933 and A$3 583, respectively, for the da Vinci Si model and A$3 548 and A$5 198, respectively for the da Vinci Si dual. RARP can become cost-equivalent with ORP where ~140 cases per year are performed in the base-case scenario. CONCLUSIONS Over the period studied, RARP has become the dominant approach to RP, with significantly shorter LOS and lower blood transfusion rate. This translates to a significant cost-offset, which is further enhanced by increasing the case volume, extending the lifespan of the robot and reductions in the cost of consumables and capital.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marnique Basto
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Niranjan Sathianathen
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Luc Te Marvelde
- Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Shane Ryan
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Jeremy Goad
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Urology, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Nathan Lawrentschuk
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anthony J Costello
- Department of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Daniel A Moon
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Cabrini Healthcare, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Alexander G Heriot
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Jim Butler
- Australian Centre for Economic Research on Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Declan G Murphy
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| |
Collapse
|