AbstractText: To investigate payment variation for three common urological cancer surgeries and evaluate the potential for applying bundled payment programs to these procedures AbstractText: Using 2008-2011 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, we identified all beneficiaries aged greater than 65 years who underwent cystectomy, prostatectomy, or nephrectomy ...
Oncology (6) Urologic Neoplasms (5), Neoplasms (1), more mentions
OBJECTIVE: To reduce our superficial surgical site infection rate (sSSI) following major urologic surgery by implementing a simple operating room bundle.
METHODS: A simple operating room bundle was applied to all major urologic cases (cystectomy, nephrectomy and prostatectomy) at a single tertiary referral center. The bundle included allowing skin prep to dry appropriately, changing gloves prior to skin closure, irrigating the wound prior to skin closure and using a new separate sterile closing instrument set for skin closure. Alcohol-based preps were also introduced hospital-wide three months into the study period. The SSI rate was obtained from the NSQIP (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) database.
RESULTS: The SSI rate was assessed after a 14-month study period for a total of 510 cases. Prior to instituting alcohol-based prep, but after the bundle was implemented, 138 cases were analyzed over a 3-month period with an SSI rate of 0%. For the remaining 11 months with both the alcohol-based prep and infection prevention bundle in place, the infection rate was 1.37% (7/510) as compared to 3.57% (22/615) for the 12-month period prior to bundle introduction, a statistically significant reduction (p = 0.023).
CONCLUSIONS: The SSI rate after major urologic surgery at one center was reduced after the introduction of a simple, fast, low-cost and easily reproducible bundle into the operating room. Use of this bundle reduces SSI which is critical for the patient and the physician in this era of public reporting and reimbursement based on outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the completeness and agreement of prostate cancer data recorded by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) with research-level data specifically abstracted from medical records from the Cluster randomised triAl of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparison study.
PARTICIPANTS: We included 1356 men from the CAP trial cohort who were linked to the NCRAS registry.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Completeness of prostate cancer data in NCRAS and CAP and agreement for tumour, node, metastases (TNM) stage (T1/T2; T3; T4/N1/M1) and Gleason grade (4-6; 7; 8-10), measured by differences in proportions and Cohen's kappa statistic. Data were also stratified by year and pre-2010 versus post-2010, when NCRAS reporting standards changed.
RESULTS: Compared with CAP, completeness was lower in NCRAS for Gleason grade (41.2% vs 76.7%, difference 35.5, 95% CI 32.1 to 39.0) and TNM stage (29.9% vs 67.6%, difference 37.6, 95% CI 34.1 to 41.1). NCRAS completeness for Gleason grade (pre-2010 vs post-2010 31.69% vs 64%; difference 32.31, 95% CI 26.76 to 37.87) and TNM stage (19.31% vs 55.50%; difference 36.19, 95% CI 30.72 to 41.67) improved over time. Agreement for Gleason grade was high (Cohen's kappa, κ=0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), but lower for TNM stage (κ=0.41, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.51) overall. There was a trend towards improved agreement on Gleason grade, but not TNM stage, when comparing pre-2010 and post-2010 data.
CONCLUSION: NCRAS case identification was very high; however, data on prostate cancer grade was less complete than CAP, and agreement for TNM stage was modest. Although the completeness of NCRAS data has improved since 2010, the higher completeness rate in CAP demonstrates that gains could potentially be achieved in routine registry data. This study's findings highlight a need for improved recording of stage and grade data in the source medical records.
Oncology (8) Prostatic Neoplasms (6), Neoplasms (2), more mentions
Importance: Use of robotic surgery has increased in urological practice over the last decade. However, the use, outcomes, and costs of robotic nephrectomy are unknown.
Objectives: To examine the trend in use of robotic-assisted operations for radical nephrectomy in the United States and to compare the perioperative outcomes and costs with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the Premier Healthcare database to evaluate outcomes of patients who had undergone robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal mass at 416 US hospitals between January 2003 and September 2015. Multivariable regression modeling was used to assess outcomes.
Exposures: Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the study was the trend in use of robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. The secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, based on the Clavien classification system, and defined as any complication (Clavien grades 1-5) or major complications (Clavien grades 3-5, for which grade 5 results in death); resource use (operating time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay); and direct hospital cost.
Results: Among 23 753 patients included in the study (mean age, 61.4 years; men, 13 792 [58.1%]), 18 573 underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and 5180 underwent robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. Use of robotic-assisted surgery increased from 1.5% (39 of 2676 radical nephrectomy procedures in 2003) to 27.0% (862 of 3194 radical nephrectomy procedures) in 2015 (P for trend <.001). In the weighted-adjusted analysis, there were no significant differences between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in the incidence of any (Clavien grades 1-5) postoperative complications (adjusted rates, 22.2% vs 23.4%, difference, -1.2%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 3.0%) or major (Clavien grades 3-5) complications (adjusted rates, 3.5% vs 3.8%, difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 0.5%). The rate of prolonged operating time (>4 hours) for patients undergoing the robotic-assisted procedure was higher than for patients receiving the laparoscopic procedure in the adjusted analysis (46.3% vs 25.8%; risk difference, 20.5%; 95% CI, 14.2% to 26.8%). Robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with higher mean 90-day direct hospital costs ($19 530 vs $16 851; difference, $2678; 95% CI, $838 to $4519), mainly accounted for operating room ($7217 vs $5378; difference, $1839; 95% CI, $1050 to $2628) and supply costs ($4876 vs $3891; difference, $985; 95% CI, $473 to $1498).
Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal mass between 2003 and 2015, the use of robotic-assisted surgery increased substantially. The use of robotic-assistance was not associated with increased risk of any or major complications but was associated with prolonged operating time and higher hospital costs compared with laparoscopic surgery.
OBJECTIVES: With increasing utilization of robot-assisted surgery in urologic oncology, robotic nephroureterectomy (RNU) is becoming the surgical modality of choice for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The role of surgical approach on lymph node dissection (LND) and lymph node (LN) yield is unclear, and potential therapeutic effects are unknown. Here we analyze the effects of surgical approach on LN yield, performance of LND, and overall survival (OS).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with UTUC who underwent nephroureterectomy from 2010 to 2013 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Outcomes of interest included rate of LND, LN yield, and OS. Logistic regression analyses were used to predict performance of LND. Negative binomial regression was used to derive incidence rate ratios for LN yield. Cox proportional hazards models were used to quantify survival outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 3,116 patients met inclusion criteria. LND was performed in 41% (314/762) of RNU, 27% (380/1385) of LNU cases, and 35% (340/969) of ONU (P<0.001). Compared with an ONU, patients who underwent a LNU had significantly lower odds of receiving a LND (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55-0.87) and had fewer LNs removed (IRR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.80), while RNU trended toward increased LN yield (IRR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.98-1.33). In a Cox proportional hazards model, increasing LN yield was associated with improved OS in patients with pN0 disease (HR = 0.97 per 1 unit increase in LN yield, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with an ONU, RNU does not compromise performance of a LND and may be associated with improved LN yield. LNU is associated with the lowest rates of LND and LN yield. Increasing LN yield is associated with improved OS in patients with pN0 disease. Despite differential rates of LND and LN yield, surgical approach did not independently affect OS.
Oncology (2), Urology (1) Carcinoma (3), Neoplasms (1), more mentions