Are you now a good surgeon? T2 positive margin status as a quality outcome measure following radical prostatectomy

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess potential biases, such as the reporting pathologist, that may affect objectivity of T2 positive margin rates as a quality outcome measure following radical prostatectomy.Patients and methodsProspective data on 183 consecutive LRP patients with pT2 disease, operated on by a single surgeon (2003–2009), were studied. Outcomes were grouped as pre-, peri-, and post-operative and included: age, ethnicity, Gleason score, reporting pathologist, percentage of positive cores, operative time, blood loss, nerve-sparing status, hospital stay and prostate weight. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression analysis were carried out to compare these variables by positive margin status.ResultsA total of 30 (16.4 %) positive surgical margins (PSMs) were reported. Surgical stage, earlier date of surgery, and lower prostatic weight showed statistically significant associations with PSM status in both univariate and multivariate analysis. The reporting pathologist was not found to be predictive of PSMs (P = 0.855).ConclusionWe showed that the reporting pathologist does not influence T2 positive margin status, in contrast to tumour characteristics and surgeon experience. T2 positive margin assessment therefore appears to be an objective quality outcome measure.

Guy’s cancer cohort – real world evidence for cancer pathways

“…It helps accelerate evidence generation through providing observational studies that can generate new hypotheses and support policy makers. Prior to its formal development, a wide variety of studies had already been published using the clinical data of GSTT's cancer patients (based on individual ethics or audit approval) including various studies focused on prostate cancer [4][5][6][7][8][9], breast cancer [10][11][12][13] and renal cancer [14]. The below case study shows how data from Guy's Cancer Cohort was used to address a clinically important question for bladder cancer:…”

Risk of biochemical recurrence based on extent and location of positive surgical margins after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

“…For the total cohort of 530 patients, PSMs were observed in 156 (29%) patients, of which 18 had two or more PSMs. The incidence of PSMs reported in recent radical prostatectomy series varies widely (12–35%) [3–6, 8, 14, 16–18, 29], partly due to the large inter-observer variability in identifying PSMs [28], and is also related to surgical experience [3, 6, 9, 12, 13]. For instance, in their study of 1701 RALPs, Sivaraman et al [6] described a sharp decrease of PSM incidence from 25 to 20% after the first 350 patients.…”

Width of spared neurovascular bundle after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer: is it a reliable factor for predicting postoperative sexual outcome?

“…However, as expected, maximal NVB sparing was related to an increased risk of surgical margin positivity. In this study, the rate of positive surgical margin was higher than in previous reports, which might come from the inclusion of patients with intermediate risk disease [ 22 ]. However, even considering this fact, the proportion of ≥pathologic T3a disease and pathologic Gleason score ≥7 thought to be high, which may be attributed to the aggressive features of prostate cancer in Asian men [ 23 ].…”