Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Urology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

The effect of surgery report cards on improving radical prostatectomy quality: the SuRep study protocol

Authors: R. H. Breau, R. M. Kumar, L. T. Lavallee, I. Cagiannos, C. Morash, M. Horrigan, S. Cnossen, R. Mallick, D. Stacey, M. Fung-Kee-Fung, R. Morash, J. Smylie, K. Witiuk, D. A. Fergusson

Published in: BMC Urology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The goal of radical prostatectomy is to achieve the optimal balance between complete cancer removal and preserving a patient’s urinary and sexual function. Performing a wider excision of peri-prostatic tissue helps achieve negative surgical margins, but can compromise urinary and sexual function. Alternatively, sparing peri-prostatic tissue to maintain functional outcomes may result in an increased risk of cancer recurrence. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of providing surgeons with detailed information about their patient outcomes through a surgical report card.

Methods

We propose a prospective cohort quasi-experimental study. The intervention is the provision of feedback to prostate cancer surgeons via surgical report cards. These report cards will be distributed every 3 months by email and will present surgeons with detailed information, including urinary function, erectile function, and surgical margin outcomes of their patients compared to patients treated by other de-identified surgeons in the study. For the first 12 months of the study, pre-operative, 6-month, and 12-month patient data will be collected but there will be no report cards distributed to surgeons. This will form the pre-feedback cohort. After the pre-feedback cohort has completed accrual, surgeons will receive quarterly report cards. Patients treated after the provision of report cards will comprise the post-feedback cohort. The primary comparison will be post-operative function of the pre-feedback cohort vs. post-feedback cohort. The secondary comparison will be the proportion of patients with positive surgical margins in the two cohorts. Outcomes will be stratified or case-mix adjusted, as appropriate. Assuming a baseline potency of 20% and a baseline continence of 70%, 292 patients will be required for 80% power at an alpha of 5% to detect a 10% improvement in functional outcomes. Assuming 30% of patients may be lost to follow-up, a minimum sample size of 210 patients is required in the pre-feedback cohort and 210 patients in the post-feedback cohort.

Discussion

The findings from this study will have an immediate impact on surgeon self-evaluation and we hypothesize surgical report cards will result in improved overall outcomes of men treated with radical prostatectomy.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Klein EA, Platz EA, Thompson IM. In: Wein AJ, et al., editors. Epidemiology, Etiology, and Prevention of Prostate Cancer, in Campbell-Walsh Urology. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p. 2854–73. Klein EA, Platz EA, Thompson IM. In: Wein AJ, et al., editors. Epidemiology, Etiology, and Prevention of Prostate Cancer, in Campbell-Walsh Urology. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p. 2854–73.
2.
go back to reference Hull GW, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol. 2002;167(2 Pt 1):528–34.CrossRef Hull GW, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol. 2002;167(2 Pt 1):528–34.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bill-Axelson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1708–17.CrossRef Bill-Axelson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1708–17.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Schroder FH, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.CrossRef Schroder FH, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Nitti VW. In: Walsh PC, et al., editors. Postprostatectomy Incontinence, in Campbell-Walsh Urology. New York: Saunders; 2002. p. 1053–72. Nitti VW. In: Walsh PC, et al., editors. Postprostatectomy Incontinence, in Campbell-Walsh Urology. New York: Saunders; 2002. p. 1053–72.
6.
go back to reference Fowler FJ Jr, et al. Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988-1990 (updated June 1993). Urology. 1993;42(6):622–9.CrossRef Fowler FJ Jr, et al. Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988-1990 (updated June 1993). Urology. 1993;42(6):622–9.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Oefelein MG. Prospective predictors of urinary continence after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis. World J Urol. 2004;22(4):267–71.CrossRef Oefelein MG. Prospective predictors of urinary continence after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis. World J Urol. 2004;22(4):267–71.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hollabaugh RS Jr, et al. Preservation of putative continence nerves during radical retropubic prostatectomy leads to more rapid return of urinary continence. Urology. 1998;51(6):960–7.CrossRef Hollabaugh RS Jr, et al. Preservation of putative continence nerves during radical retropubic prostatectomy leads to more rapid return of urinary continence. Urology. 1998;51(6):960–7.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Walz J, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):179–92.CrossRef Walz J, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):179–92.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kundu SD, et al. Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2227–31.CrossRef Kundu SD, et al. Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2227–31.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Eastham JA, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2292–5.CrossRef Eastham JA, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2292–5.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Wilson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on patient outcome. ANZ J Surg. 2010;80(1–2):24–9.CrossRef Wilson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on patient outcome. ANZ J Surg. 2010;80(1–2):24–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Wilt TJ, et al. Association between hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Urol. 2008;180(3):820–8 discussion 828-9.CrossRef Wilt TJ, et al. Association between hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Urol. 2008;180(3):820–8 discussion 828-9.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Yossepowitch O, et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):87–99.CrossRef Yossepowitch O, et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):87–99.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Preston MA, et al. The prognostic significance of capsular incision into tumor during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):613–8.CrossRef Preston MA, et al. The prognostic significance of capsular incision into tumor during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):613–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Grossfeld GD, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol. 2000;163(4):1171–7 quiz 1295.CrossRef Grossfeld GD, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol. 2000;163(4):1171–7 quiz 1295.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference D'Amico AV, et al. The combination of preoperative prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;160(6 Pt 1):2096–101.CrossRef D'Amico AV, et al. The combination of preoperative prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;160(6 Pt 1):2096–101.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Chun FK, et al. Surgical volume is related to the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in European patients. BJU Int. 2006;98(6):1204–9.CrossRef Chun FK, et al. Surgical volume is related to the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in European patients. BJU Int. 2006;98(6):1204–9.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Blute ML, et al. Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001;165(1):119–25.CrossRef Blute ML, et al. Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001;165(1):119–25.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Thompson IM, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009;181(3):956–62.CrossRef Thompson IM, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009;181(3):956–62.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Bolla M, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2005;366(9485):572–8.CrossRef Bolla M, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2005;366(9485):572–8.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Ivers N, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259. Ivers N, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259.
26.
go back to reference Wei JT, et al. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56(6):899–905.CrossRef Wei JT, et al. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56(6):899–905.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Hurst NP, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36(5):551–9.CrossRef Hurst NP, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36(5):551–9.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Resnick MJ, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):436–45.CrossRef Resnick MJ, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):436–45.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The effect of surgery report cards on improving radical prostatectomy quality: the SuRep study protocol
Authors
R. H. Breau
R. M. Kumar
L. T. Lavallee
I. Cagiannos
C. Morash
M. Horrigan
S. Cnossen
R. Mallick
D. Stacey
M. Fung-Kee-Fung
R. Morash
J. Smylie
K. Witiuk
D. A. Fergusson
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Urology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2490
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-018-0403-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Urology 1/2018 Go to the issue