Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Topic Paper

Single institution followed by national implementation of systematic surgical quality control and feedback for radical prostatectomy: a 20-year journey

Authors: J. Stranne, E. Axen, I. Franck-Lissbrant, P. Fransson, M. Frånlund, J. Hugosson, A. Khatami, K. Koss-Modig, P. Lodding, M. Nyberg, P. Stattin, O. Bratt

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2020

Abstract

Purpose

The demand for objective and outcome-based facts about surgical results after radical prostatectomy (RP) is increasing. Systematic feedback is also essential for each surgeon to improve his/her performance.

Methods

RP outcome data (e.g., pT-stage and margin status) have been registered at Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SUH) since 1988 and patient-related outcome measures (PROM) have been registered since 2001. The National Prostate Cancer Registry (NPCR) has covered all Regions in Sweden since 1998 and includes PROM-data from 2008. Initially PROM was on-paper questionnaires but due since 2018 all PROMs are collected electronically. In 2014 an on-line “dashboard” panel was introduced, showing the results for ten quality-control variables in real-time. Since 2017 all RP data on hospital, regional, and national levels are publicly accessible on-line on “www.npcr.se/RATTEN”.

Results

The early PROM-data from SUH have been used for internal quality control. As national clinical and PROM-data from the NPCR have been made accessible on-line and in real-time we have incorporated this into our pre-existing protocol. Our data are now internally available as real-time NPCR reports on the individual surgeons’ results, as well as ePROM data. We can compare the results of each surgeon internally and to other departments’ aggregated data. The public can access data and compare hospital level data on “RATTEN”.

Conclusions

The process of quality control of RP locally at SUH, and nationally through the NPCR, has been long but fruitful. The online design, with direct real-time feedback to the institutions that report the data, is essential.

Young HH (1905) The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. Being a study of 40 cases and presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in four cases. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp XVI 175:315–321

Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC (1983) Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 4(5):473–485CrossRef

Walsh PC (2000) Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with excellent quality of life: a structured debate. J Urol 163(6):1802–1807CrossRef

Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, Garmo H, Hellstrom K, Fransson P, Widmark A, Lambe M, Adolfsson J, Varenhorst E, Johansson JE, Stattin P, Npcr Sweden PC (2013) Cohort profile: the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol 42(4):956–967. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys068 CrossRefPubMed

Stattin P (2019) NPCR in english. Nationella Prostatacancerregistret (NPCR). http://npcr.se/in-english/. Accessed 27 Mar 2019

Stattin P, Sandin F, Sandback T, Damber JE, Franck Lissbrant I, Robinson D, Bratt O, Lambe M (2016) Dashboard report on performance on select quality indicators to cancer care providers. Scand J Urol 50(1):21–28. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1063083 CrossRefPubMed

Cazzaniga W, Ventimiglia E, Alfano M, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Carlsson S, Styrke J, Montorsi F, Salonia A, Stattin P (2019) Mini review on the use of clinical cancer registers for prostate cancer: The National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden. Front Med. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00051 CrossRef

Stattin P, Sandin F, Loeb S, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Lambe M (2018) Public online reporting from a nationwide population-based clinical prostate cancer register. BJU Int 122(1):8–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14213 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stranne J, Hugosson J, Lodding P (2006) Post-radical retropubic prostatectomy inguinal hernia: an analysis of risk factors with special reference to preoperative inguinal hernia morbidity and pelvic lymph node dissection. J Urol 176(5):2072–2076CrossRef

10.

Carlsson S, Berglund A, Sjoberg D, Khatami A, Stranne J, Bergdahl S, Lodding P, Aus G, Vickers A, Hugosson J (2014) Effects of surgeon variability on oncologic and functional outcomes in a population-based setting. BMC Urol 14:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-14-25 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Taari K, Busch C, Nordling S, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Andren O, Steineck G, Adami HO, Johansson JE (2018) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer—29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med 379(24):2319–2329. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1807801 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T, Aronson WJ, Brawer MK (2017) Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 377(2):132–142. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1615869 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Martin RM, Oxley J, Robinson M, Staffurth J, Walsh E, Bollina P, Catto J, Doble A, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Kockelbergh R, Kynaston H, Paul A, Powell P, Prescott S, Rosario DJ, Rowe E, Neal DE (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220(Epub 1602016 Sep 1606214) CrossRefPubMed

14.

Breau RH, Kumar RM, Lavallee LT, Cagiannos I, Morash C, Horrigan M, Cnossen S, Mallick R, Stacey D, Fung-Kee-Fung M, Morash R, Smylie J, Witiuk K, Fergusson DA (2018) The effect of surgery report cards on improving radical prostatectomy quality: the SuRep study protocol. BMC Urol 18(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-12018-10403-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Schlomm T, Huland H, Graefen M (2014) Improving outcome of surgical procedures is not possible without adequate quality measurement. Eur Urol 65(6):1017–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.1011.1042(Epub 2013 Dec 1018) CrossRefPubMed

16.

Fry S, Challacombe B (2019) Both sides of the scalpel: the patient and the surgeon view. Nat Rev Urol 18(10):019–0153

17.

Martin NE, Massey L, Stowell C, Bangma C, Briganti A, Bill-Axelson A, Blute M, Catto J, Chen RC, D’Amico AV, Feick G, Fitzpatrick JM, Frank SJ, Froehner M, Frydenberg M, Glaser A, Graefen M, Hamstra D, Kibel A, Mendenhall N, Moretti K, Ramon J, Roos I, Sandler H, Sullivan FJ, Swanson D, Tewari A, Vickers A, Wiegel T, Huland H (2015) Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67(3):460–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.075 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Morgans AK, van Bommel AC, Stowell C, Abrahm JL, Basch E, Bekelman JE, Berry DL, Bossi A, Davis ID, de Reijke TM, Denis LJ, Evans SM, Fleshner NE, George DJ, Kiefert J, Lin DW, Matthew AG, McDermott R, Payne H, Roos IA, Schrag D, Steuber T, Tombal B, van Basten JP, van der Hoeven JJ, Penson DF, Advanced Prostate Cancer Working Group of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes M (2015) Development of a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes for advanced prostate cancer: an international effort for a unified approach. Eur Urol 68(5):891–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.007 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Evans SM, Millar JL, Moore CM, Lewis JD, Huland H, Sampurno F, Connor SE, Villanti P, Litwin MS (2017) Cohort profile: the TrueNTH Global Registry—an international registry to monitor and improve localised prostate cancer health outcomes. BMJ Open 7(11):e017006. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Protopapa E, van der Meulen J, Moore CM, Smith SC (2017) Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for men who have radical surgery for prostate cancer: a conceptual review of existing instruments. BJU Int 120(4):468–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13896(Epub 12017 May 13830) CrossRefPubMed

21.

Liedberg F, Gudjonsson S, Xu A, Bendahl PO, Davidsson T, Mansson W (2017) Long-term third-party assessment of results after continent cutaneous diversion with Lundiana pouch. BJU Int 120(4):530–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13863(Epub 12017 Apr 13819) CrossRefPubMed

22.

Jenkins DP, Cooper G (2017) Publicly available outcome data for individual surgeons: lessons from cardiac surgery. Eur Urol 71(3):309–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.024 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Khadhouri S, Miller C, Fowler S, Hounsome L, McNeill A, Adshead J, McGrath JS, Oncology BSo (2018) The British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) radical prostatectomy audit 2014/2015—an update on current practice and outcomes by centre and surgeon case-volume. BJU Int 121(6):886–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14156 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Single institution followed by national implementation of systematic surgical quality control and feedback for radical prostatectomy: a 20-year journey
Authors: J. Stranne
E. Axen
I. Franck-Lissbrant
P. Fransson
M. Frånlund
J. Hugosson
A. Khatami
K. Koss-Modig
P. Lodding
M. Nyberg
P. Stattin
O. Bratt
Publication date: 01-06-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Prostatectomy
Prostatectomy
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02887-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Single institution followed by national implementation of systematic surgical quality control and feedback for radical prostatectomy: a 20-year journey

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Systematic review: bacterial colonisation of conduits and neobladders—when to test, watch, and treat

Necessity of differentiating small (< 10 mm) and large (≥ 10 mm) PI-RADS 4

Extent of lymph node dissection improves overall survival in pT3N0 non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with radical nephrectomy: a propensity score-based analysis

Tract dilation monitored by ultrasound in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: feasible and safe

Making surgery safer through adequate communication with the stakeholders: vaginal slings

The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon