What Is the Optimal Stenting Duration After Ureteroscopy and Stone Intervention? Impact of Dwell Time on Postoperative Emergency Department Visits.

PURPOSE: AUA stone management guidelines recommend stenting duration following ureteroscopy be minimized to reduce morbidity; stents with extraction strings may be used for this purpose. However, an animal study demonstrated that short dwell time results in suboptimal ureteral dilation, and a pilot clinical study showed this increases postprocedure events. Using real-world practice data we examined stent dwell time after ureteroscopy and its association with postoperative emergency department visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry to identify ureteroscopy and stenting procedures (2016-2019). Pre-stented cases were excluded. Stenting cohorts with and without strings were analyzed. Using multivariable logistic regression we evaluated the risk of an emergency department visit occurring on the day of, or day after, stent removal based on dwell time and string status. RESULTS: We identified 4,437 procedures; 1,690 (38%) had a string. Median dwell time was lower in patients with a string (5 vs 9 days). Ureteroscopy in younger patients, smaller stones, or renal stone location had a higher frequency of string use. The predicted probability of an emergency department visit was significantly greater in procedures with string, compared to without string, when dwell times were less than 5 days (P < .01) but were not statistically significant after. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had ureteroscopy and stenting with a string have short dwell times. Patients are at increased risk of a postoperative emergency department visit around the time of stent removal if dwell time is ≤4 days. We recommended stenting duration of at least 5 days in nonpre-stented patients.

The added influence of genomics and post-MRI confirmatory biopsy results to MRI results alone on medical decision making for men with favorable risk prostate cancer being considered for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We examined how the results of genomic classifier (GC) or post-magnetic resonance imaging confirmatory biopsy (pMRI-CBx) influenced management strategy for men with an MRI considering active surveillance (AS). METHODS: We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Among men with an MRI after the diagnostic biopsy (n = 1162) a subset also had GC (n = 126) or pMRI-CBx (n = 309). Results of MRI, GC, and pMRI-CBx were deemed reassuring (RA) or non-reassuring (Non-RA). We assess the association of the combination of test results obtained with the selection of AS. Proportions were compared with the Fisher's exact test. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit for an association of test results with the selection of AS. RESULTS: The results of pMRI-CBx tended to influence management decisions greater than that of GC, especially in situation where testing results were discordant with the MRI result. Fewer men with a RA MRI and non-RA pMRI-CBx where managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (31% vs. 86%, p < 0.001). non-RA genomics did not seem to have the same influence on management as non-RA pMRI-CBx as a similar proportion of men with RA MRI and non-RA genomics were managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (85% vs. 86%, p = 0.753). More men with non-RA MRI and RA pMRI-CBx were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (89% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Alternatively, a similar proportion of men with non-RA MRI and RA genomics were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (42% vs. 40%, p > 0.999). In the multivariable models, pMRI-CBx results influenced the decision for AS versus treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and an MRI, the additional information provided by pMRI-CBx influenced the decision of AS versus treatment, while the addition of GC results were less influential.

Delayed radical prostatectomy after a period of active surveillance is not associated with the use of secondary treatments compared with immediate prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the use of secondary treatments in men with grade group (GG) 1 PC following a period of active surveillance (AS) compared with men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy (RP) to evaluate what is potentially lost in terms of cancer control, if a patient trials AS and transitions to treatment. METHODS: We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for men with GG1 PC undergoing RP from April 2012 to July 2018. Men were classified into groups based on time from diagnosis to RP: immediate (surgery within 1 year of diagnosis) and delayed RP (surgery >1 year after initiation of AS). Time to secondary treatment was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was fit to assess the association between timing of RP and use of secondary treatments. A chi-squared test was used to assess the association between delayed RP and adverse pathology. RESULTS: We identified 1878 men that underwent an RP during the study period, of which 1489 (79%) underwent immediate RP and 389 (21%) underwent delayed RP. The incidence of adverse pathology was higher in men with delayed versus immediate RP (49% vs. 36%, p < 0.0001, respectively). However, we noted only a small absolute difference in the estimated 24-month secondary treatment-free probability between men with delayed versus immediate RP (93% and 96%, respectively). On multivariable analysis, delayed RP was associated with increased use of secondary treatments (hazard ratio = 1.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.23-3.06, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The use of secondary treatment after RP in men with GG1 PC undergoing immediate or delayed prostatectomy was rare. These data suggest that the burden of treatment is near equivalent in patients who progress to treatment on AS compared with those who underwent immediate RP.

Ranking Important Factors for Using Postoperative Chemotherapy in Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Conjoint Analysis Results From the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC).

PURPOSE: National and international guidelines recommend the use of 1 dose of intravesical chemotherapy immediately following surgery for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer, which is performed infrequently on a population level. We sought to understand the importance of potential environmental and clinical dimensions involved in the decision to offer this therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urologists from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) rated 8 distinct clinical vignettes involving patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. A ratings-based conjoint analysis method was used to evaluate the clinical vignette responses. Each vignette included 4 clinical dimensions and 2 environmental dimensions, with each dimension consisting of 2 possible attributes. The relative importance of each attribute was derived from the regression model and ranked in order. RESULTS: A total of 58 urologists answered the clinical vignettes which represents >75% of MUSIC sites. The median age of urologists was 53, most were male, and median years in practice was 20 years post residency. An environmental attribute, having a recovery room protocol for instilling and disposing of the chemotherapy, ranked as the most influential attribute for giving postoperative chemotherapy (utility=8.6). The clinical attribute yielding the strongest preference for giving chemotherapy was tumor grade (utility=4.9). These preferences varied by different subgroups of urologists, particularly regarding the type of practice a urologist was in. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that urologists have clear preferences for when they offer postoperative immediate chemotherapy. Factors beyond just clinical variables play a role in this decision making process such as the structure of the recovery room.

Using video review to understand the technical variation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a statewide surgical collaborative.

PURPOSE: Video assessment is an emerging tool for understanding surgical technique. Patient outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) may be linked to technical aspects of the procedure. In an effort to refine surgical approaches and improve outcomes, we sought to understand technical variation for the key steps of RARP in a surgical collaborative. METHODS: The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) is a statewide quality improvement collaborative with the aim of improving prostate cancer care. MUSIC surgeons were invited to submit representative complete videos of nerve-sparing RARP for blinded analysis. We also analyzed peri-operative outcomes from these surgeons in the registry. RESULTS: Surgical video data from 20 unique surgeons identified many variations in technique and time to complete different steps. Common to all surgeons was a transperitoneal approach and a running urethrovesical anastomosis. Prior to anastomosis, 25% surgeons undertook a posterior reconstruction and 30% employed urethral suspension. 65% surgeons approached the seminal vesicle anteriorly. For control of the dorsal vein complex, suture ligation was used in 60%, and vascular stapler was 15%. The majority (80%) of surgeons employed clips for managing pedicles. In examining patient outcomes for surgeons, peri-operative outcomes were not correlated with surgeon's operative time; however, surgeons with an EBL > 400 ml had significant difference among the five different techniques employed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the worldwide popularity of RARP, the operation is still far from standardized. Correlating variation in technique with clinical outcomes may help provide objective data to support best practices with the goal to improve patient outcomes.

Prospective monitoring of imaging guideline adherence by physicians in a surgical collaborative: comparison of statistical process control methods for detecting outlying performance.

BACKGROUND: Systematic, automated methods for monitoring physician performance are necessary if outlying behavior is to be detected promptly and acted on. In the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC), we evaluated several statistical process control (SPC) methods to determine the sensitivity and ease of interpretation for assessing adherence to imaging guidelines for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: Following dissemination of imaging guidelines within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, MUSIC set a target of imaging < 10% of patients for which bone scan is not indicated. We compared four SPC methods using Monte Carlo simulation: p-chart, weighted binomial CUSUM, Bernoulli cumulative sum (CUSUM), and exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA). We simulated non-indicated bone scan rates ranging from 5.9% (within target) to 11.4% (above target) for a representative MUSIC practice. Sensitivity was determined using the average run length (ARL), the time taken to signal a change. We then plotted actual non-indicated bone scan rates for a representative MUSIC practice using each SPC method to qualitatively assess graphical interpretation. RESULTS: EWMA had the lowest ARL and was able to detect changes significantly earlier than the other SPC methodologies (p < 0.001). The p-chart had the highest ARL and thus detected changes slowest (p < 0.001). EWMA and p-charts were easier to interpret graphically than CUSUM methods due to their ability to display historical imaging rates. CONCLUSIONS: SPC methods can be used to provide informative and timely feedback regarding adherence to healthcare performance target rates in quality improvement collaboratives. We found the EWMA method most suited for detecting changes in imaging utilization.

Grade Groups Provide Improved Predictions of Pathological and Early Oncologic Outcomes Compared with Gleason Score Risk Groups.

PURPOSE: The GG (Grade Group) system was introduced in 2013. Data from academic centers suggest that GG better distinguishes between prostate cancer risk groups than the Gleason score (GS) risk groups. We compared the performance of the 2 systems to predict pathological/recurrence outcomes using data from the MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent biopsy and radical prostatectomy in the MUSIC from March 2012 to June 2017 were classified according to GG and GS. Outcomes included the presence or absence of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion, positive lymph nodes, positive surgical margins and time to cancer recurrence (defined as postoperative prostate specific antigen 0.2 ng/ml or greater). Logistic and Cox regression models were used to compare the difference in outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 8,052 patients were identified. When controlling for patient characteristics, significantly higher risks of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion and positive lymph nodes were observed for biopsy GG 3 vs 2 and for GG 5 vs 4 (p <0.001). Biopsy GGs 3, 4 and 5 also showed shorter time to biochemical recurrence than GGs 2, 3 and 4, respectively (p <0.001). GGs 3, 4 and 5 at radical prostatectomy were each associated with a greater probability of recurrence compared to the next lower GG (p <0.001). GG (vs GS) had better predictive power for extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion, positive lymph nodes and biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: GG at biopsy and radical prostatectomy allows for better discrimination of recurrence-free survival between individual risk groups than GS risk groups with GGs 2, 3, 4 and 5 each incrementally associated with increased risk.

Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging with or without Biopsy Impacts Decision Making in Newly Diagnosed Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated how magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy impact decision making in men considering active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative with newly diagnosed favorable risk prostate cancer. Following diagnostic biopsy the men were classified into 3 groups, including group 1-no magnetic resonance imaging, group 2-magnetic resonance imaging only and group 3-magnetic resonance imaging/post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy. For the purposes of counseling and shared decision making magnetic resonance imaging results were deemed reassuring (PI-RADS™ [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System] 3 or less) or nonreassuring (PI-RADS 4 or greater). Similarly, if the diagnostic biopsy was GG (Grade Group) 1, post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy results were deemed nonreassuring if there was any amount of GG 2 or greater. If the diagnostic biopsy was GG 2, post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy results were deemed nonreassuring if more than 3 cores were GG 2, or there was more than 50% GG 2 in any individual core or any volume of GG 3 or greater. RESULTS: Of 1,461 men with favorable risk prostate cancer 1,223 (84%) did not undergo magnetic resonance imaging, 157 (11%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging alone and 81 (6%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy. Of the men who underwent magnetic resonance imaging alone more with reassuring findings elected active surveillance than men with nonreassuring or magnetic resonance imaging findings (74% vs 35% and 42%, respectively). The highest rate of active surveillance was noted in men with reassuring post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy regardless of whether magnetic resonance imaging was reassuring or nonreassuring (93% and 96%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy drive decision making in men with newly diagnosed, favorable risk prostate cancer. Post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy is a stronger driver of decision making than magnetic resonance imaging alone. This was demonstrated by the more than 90% of men with reassuring post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsies who elected active surveillance regardless of magnetic resonance imaging results.

Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk, number of positive biopsy cores, age, and early confirmatory test results on pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP), in order to better understand whether early confirmatory testing and better risk stratification are necessary for all men with Grade Group (GG) 1 cancers who are considering active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified men in Michigan initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer, from January 2012 to November 2017, who had a RP within 1 year of diagnosis. Our endpoints were: (i) ≥GG2 cancer at RP and (ii) adverse pathology (≥GG3 and/or ≥pT3a). We compared upgrading according to NCCN risk, number of positive biopsy cores, and age. Last, we examined if confirmatory test results were associated with upgrading or adverse pathology at RP. RESULTS: Amongst 1966 patients with GG1 cancer at diagnosis, the rates of upgrading to ≥GG2 and adverse pathology were 40% and 59% (P < 0.001), and 10% and 17% (P = 0.003) for patients with very-low- and low-risk cancers, respectively. Upgrading by volume ranged from 49% to 67% for ≥GG2, and 16% to 23% for adverse pathology. Generally, more patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years had adverse pathology. Unreassuring confirmatory test results had a higher likelihood of adverse pathology than reassuring tests (35% vs 18%, P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Upgrading and adverse pathology are common amongst patients initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer. Early use of confirmatory testing may facilitate the identification of patients with more aggressive disease ensuring improved risk classification and safer selection of patients for AS.

Evaluation of a needle disinfectant technique to reduce infection-related hospitalisation after transrectal prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a needle disinfectant step during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalisation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all TRUS-guided prostate biopsies taken across the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) from January 2012 to March 2015. Natural variation in technique allowed us to evaluate for differences in infection-related hospitalisations based on whether or not a needle disinfectant technique was used. The disinfectant technique was an intra-procedural step to cleanse the biopsy needle with antibacterial solution after each core was sampled (i.e., 10% formalin or 70% isopropyl alcohol). After grouping biopsies according to whether or not the procedure included a needle disinfectant step, we compared the rate of infection-related hospitalisations within 30 days of biopsy. Generalised estimating equation models were fit to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: During the evaluated period, 17 954 TRUS-guided prostate biopsies were taken with 5 321 (29.6%) including a disinfectant step. The observed rate of infection-related hospitalisation was lower when a disinfectant technique was used during biopsy (0.60% vs 0.90%; P = 0.04). After accounting for differences between groups the adjusted hospitalisation rate in the disinfectant group was 0.85% vs 1.12% in the no disinfectant group (adjusted odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.15; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis, hospitalisations for infectious complications were less common when the TRUS-guided prostate biopsy included a needle disinfection step. However, after adjusting for potential confounders the effect of needle disinfection was not statistically significant. Prospective evaluation is warranted to determine if this step provides a scalable and effective method to minimise infectious complications.

Variation in Guideline Concordant Active Surveillance Followup in Diverse Urology Practices.

PURPOSE: We examined the frequency of followup prostate specific antigen testing and prostate biopsy among men treated with active surveillance in the academic and community urology practices comprising MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MUSIC is a consortium of 42 practices that maintains a prospective clinical registry with validated clinical data on all patients diagnosed with prostate cancer at participating sites. We identified all patients in MUSIC practices who entered active surveillance and had at least 2 years of continuous followup. After determining the frequency of repeat prostate specific antigen testing and prostate biopsy, we calculated rates of concordance with NCCN Guidelines® recommendations (ie at least 3 prostate specific antigen tests and 1 surveillance biopsy) collaborative-wide and across individual practices. RESULTS: We identified 513 patients who entered active surveillance from January 2012 through September 2013 and had at least 2 years of followup. Among the 431 men (84%) who remained on active surveillance for 2 years 132 (30.6%) underwent followup surveillance testing at a frequency that was concordant with NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) recommendations. At the practice level, the median rate of guideline concordant followup was 26.5% (range 10% to 67.5%, p <0.001). Among patients with discordant followup, the absence of followup biopsy was common and not significantly different across practices (median rate 82.0%, p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Among diverse community and academic practices in Michigan, there is wide variation in the proportion of men on active surveillance who meet guideline recommendations for followup prostate specific antigen testing and repeat biopsy. These data highlight the need for standardized active surveillance pathways that emphasize the role of repeat surveillance biopsies.

Repeat Prostate Biopsy Practice Patterns in a Statewide Quality Improvement Collaborative.

PURPOSE: We examined rebiopsies in MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative) to understand adherence to guidelines recommending repeat prostate biopsy in patients with multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical small acinar proliferation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data on men undergoing repeat biopsy, practice patterns and cancer detection rates. Multivariate regression modeling was used to calculate the proportion of patients undergoing rebiopsy. We used claims data to validate the treatment classification in MUSIC. To understand reasons for not performing rebiopsy we reviewed records of a sample of patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. RESULTS: We identified 5,375 men with a negative biopsy, of whom 411 (7.6%) underwent repeat biopsy. In 718 men with high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, 350 with atypical small acinar proliferation and 587 with high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation or atypical small acinar proliferation alone at initial biopsy the rebiopsy rate was 20.7%, 42.5% and 55.6%, respectively. The adjusted proportion of patients with rebiopsy in each practice ranged from 0% to 17.2% (p <0.001). The overall cancer detection rate at rebiopsy was 39.3%. It was highest after atypical small acinar proliferation (adjusted probability 0.39, 95% CI 0.30-0.48), and after high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation (adjusted probability 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.65). The greatest Gleason 7 or greatest detection rate of 41.1% was found in patients with high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation. Chart review revealed that 45.5% of patients with atypical small acinar proliferation underwent prostate specific antigen testing instead of rebiopsy while 36% failed to undergo rebiopsy despite a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Rebiopsy rates vary in Michigan practices with relatively low use in men with high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation or atypical small acinar proliferation alone. Quality improvement strategies should target patients with atypical small acinar proliferation and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia as they have the highest likelihood of cancer detection.

A Statewide Intervention Improves Appropriate Imaging in Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We implemented a statewide intervention to improve imaging utilization for the staging of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative) is a quality improvement collaborative comprising 42 diverse practices representing approximately 85% of the urologists in Michigan. MUSIC has developed imaging appropriateness criteria (prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml, Gleason score 7 or higher and clinical stage T3 or higher) which minimize unnecessary imaging with bone scan and computerized tomography. After baseline rates of radiographic staging were established in 2012 and 2013, we used multidimensional interventions to deploy these criteria in 2014. Imaging utilization was then remeasured in 2015 to evaluate for changes in practice patterns. RESULTS: A total of 10,554 newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer were entered into the MUSIC registry from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013 and January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. Of these patients 7,442 (79%) and 7,312 (78%) met our criteria to avoid bone scan and computerized tomography imaging, respectively. The use of bone scan imaging when not indicated decreased from 11.0% at baseline to 6.5% after interventions (p <0.0001). The use of computerized tomography when not indicated decreased from 14.7% at baseline to 7.7% after interventions (p <0.0001). Variability among practices decreased substantially after the interventions as well. The use of recommended imaging remained stable during these periods. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention aimed at appropriate use of imaging was associated with decreased use of bone scans and computerized tomography among men at low risk for metastases.

Appropriateness Criteria for Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The adoption of active surveillance varies widely across urological communities, which suggests a need for more consistency in the counseling of patients. To address this need we used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop appropriateness criteria and counseling statements for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panelists were recruited from MUSIC urology practices. Combinations of parameters thought to influence decision making were used to create and score 160 theoretical clinical scenarios for appropriateness of active surveillance. Recent rates of active surveillance among real patients across the state were assessed using the MUSIC registry. RESULTS: Low volume Gleason 6 was deemed highly appropriate for active surveillance whereas high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4 were deemed appropriate to uncertain. No scenario was deemed inappropriate or highly inappropriate. Prostate specific antigen density, race and life expectancy impacted scores for intermediate and high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. The greatest degree of score dispersion (disagreement) occurred in scenarios with long life expectancy, high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. Recent rates of active surveillance use among real patients ranged from 0% to 100% at the provider level for low or intermediate biopsy volume Gleason 6, demonstrating a clear opportunity for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: By virtue of this work urologists have the opportunity to present specific recommendations from the panel to their individual patients. Community-wide efforts aimed at increasing rates of active surveillance and reducing practice and physician level variation in the choice of active surveillance vs treatment are warranted.

Comparison of Pathological Outcomes for Men with Low Risk Prostate Cancer from Diverse Practice Settings: Similar Results from Immediate Prostatectomy or Initial Surveillance with Delayed Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: We compared pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy for a population based sample of men with low risk prostate cancer initially on active surveillance and undergoing delayed prostatectomy vs those treated with immediate surgery in order to better understand this expectant management approach outside of the context of academic cohorts. We hypothesized that delays in surgery due to initial surveillance would not impact surgical pathological outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of 2 groups of patients with NCCN low risk prostate cancer from practices in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, that is 1) men who chose initial active surveillance and went on to delayed prostatectomy and 2) men who chose immediate prostatectomy. Diagnoses occurred from January 2011 through August 2015. For these 2 groups we compared radical prostatectomy Gleason scores, and rates of extraprostatic disease, positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node metastases. RESULTS: During a median followup of 506 days 79 (6%) of 1,359 low risk men choosing initial surveillance transitioned to prostatectomy. Compared to those treated with immediate prostatectomy (778), men undergoing delayed surgery were more likely to have Gleason score 7 or greater disease (69.2% vs 48.8%, respectively, p=0.004), but were no more likely to have positive margins, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion or lymph node metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low risk prostate cancer who enter active surveillance have higher grade disease at prostatectomy compared to those undergoing immediate surgery. However, the lack of difference in other adverse pathological outcomes suggests preservation of the window of curability.

Notable Outcomes and Trackable Events after Surgery: Evaluating an Uncomplicated Recovery after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: A priority of MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative) is to improve patient outcomes after radical prostatectomy. As part of these efforts we developed a novel system that uses unambiguous events to define an uncomplicated 30-day postoperative recovery and compares these outcomes across diverse urology practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MUSIC used a consensus approach to develop an uncomplicated recovery pathway comprising a set of precise perioperative events that are reliably measured and collectively reflect resource utilization, technical complications and coordination of care. Events that occurred outside the uncomplicated recovery pathway were considered deviations, including rectal injury, high blood loss, extended length of stay, prolonged drain or catheter placement, catheter replacement, hospital readmission or mortality. For men undergoing radical prostatectomy trained abstractors prospectively recorded clinical and perioperative data in an electronic registry. When a deviation from the NOTES (Notable Outcomes and Trackable Events after Surgery) pathway occurred, precipitating events were described by abstractors and we analyzed the events. RESULTS: From April 2014 through July 2015 a total of 2,245 radical prostatectomies were performed by 100 surgeons in a total of 37 diverse participating MUSIC practices. In the 29 practices in which 10 or more radical prostatectomies were performed during the interval analyzed the risk adjusted deviation rate ranged from 0.0% to 46.1% (p <0.0001). Anastomotic and gastrointestinal events were contributing factors in 50.2% of deviated cases. CONCLUSIONS: The novel NOTES system provides comparative data on unambiguous and actionable short-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy. The observed variation in outcomes across practices suggests opportunities for quality improvement initiatives. Decreasing anastomotic and gastrointestinal events represents a high impact opportunity for initial quality improvement efforts.

MUSIC: patterns of care in the radiographic staging of men with newly diagnosed low risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: MUSIC is a statewide consortium of 42 urology practices that aims to improve the quality of prostate cancer care in Michigan. As an initial priority, we examined patterns of care in the radiographic staging of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. We determined whether collaborative-wide data review and performance feedback would decrease the imaging rate in men with low risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Practices submitted standardized data, including the use and results of staging computerized tomography and bone scan, to a web based clinical registry of all men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. We identified all patients with low risk prostate cancer and compared imaging use patterns before and after practice level performance feedback and guideline review, which were provided at collaborative-wide meetings. RESULTS: In MUSIC 813 patients were newly diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer during the 19-month study period. Of 410 patients diagnosed in the prefeedback period (phase I) 15 (3.7%) and 21 (5.2%) underwent bone scan and computerized tomography, respectively. Of 403 patients diagnosed after feedback (phase II) radiographic staging was done in 5 men (1.3%) with bone scan and in 13 (3.2%) with computerized tomography (p = 0.03 and 0.17, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of radiographic staging in men with newly diagnosed low risk prostate cancer was appropriately low. The imaging rate decreased even further after collaborative education and performance feedback. MUSIC appears to be a successful tool for quality improvement, affecting practice patterns and increasing efficiency of care.

A Statewide Intervention to Reduce Hospitalizations after Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: Recent data suggest that increasing rates of hospitalization after prostate biopsy are mainly due to infections from fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria. We report the initial results of a statewide quality improvement intervention aimed at reducing infection related hospitalizations after transrectal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2012 through May 2014 data on patient demographics, comorbidities, prophylactic antibiotics and post-biopsy complications were prospectively entered into an electronic registry by trained abstractors in 30 practices participating in the MUSIC. During this period each practice implemented one or both of the interventions aimed at addressing fluoroquinolone resistance, namely 1) use of rectal swab culture directed antibiotics or 2) augmented antibiotic prophylaxis with a second agent in addition to standard fluoroquinolone therapy. We identified all patients with an infection related hospitalization within 30 days after biopsy and validated these events with claims data for a subset of patients. We then compared the frequency of infection related hospitalizations before (5,028 biopsies) and after (4,087 biopsies) implementation of the quality improvement intervention. RESULTS: Overall the proportion of patients with infection related hospitalizations after prostate biopsy decreased by 53% from before to after implementation of the quality improvement intervention (1.19% before vs 0.56% after, p=0.002). Among post-implementation biopsies the rates of hospitalization were similar for patients receiving culture directed (0.47%) vs augmented (0.57%) prophylaxis. At a practice level the relative change in hospitalization rates varied from a 7.4% decrease to a 3.0% increase. Fourteen practices had no post-implementation hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: A statewide intervention aimed at addressing fluoroquinolone resistance reduced post-prostate biopsy infection related hospitalizations in Michigan by 53%.

Understanding the Performance of Active Surveillance Selection Criteria in Diverse Urology Practices.

PURPOSE: We used data from MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative) to evaluate the performance of published selection criteria for active surveillance in diverse urology practice settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For several active surveillance guidelines we calculated the proportion of men meeting each set of selection criteria who actually entered active surveillance, defined as the sensitivity of the guideline. After identifying the most sensitive guideline for the entire cohort we compared demographic and tumor characteristics between patients who met this guideline and entered active surveillance, and those who received initial definitive therapy. RESULTS: Of 4,882 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer 18% underwent active surveillance. When applied to the entire cohort, the sensitivity of published guidelines ranged from 49% in Toronto to 62% at Johns Hopkins. At a practice level the sensitivity of Johns Hopkins criteria varied widely from 27% to 84% (p <0.001). Compared with men undergoing active surveillance, those meeting Johns Hopkins criteria who received definitive therapy were younger (p <0.001) and more likely to have a positive family history (p = 0.003), lower prostate specific antigen (p <0.001), a greater number of positive cores (2 vs 1) on biopsy (p <0.001) and a higher cancer volume in positive core(s) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of published active surveillance selection criteria varies widely across diverse urology practices. Among patients meeting the most stringent criteria those who received initial definitive therapy had characteristics suggesting greater cancer risk, underscoring the nuanced clinical factors that influence treatment decisions.

Variation in prostate cancer detection rates in a statewide quality improvement collaborative.

PURPOSE: There remains significant controversy surrounding the optimal criteria for recommending prostate biopsy. To examine this issue further urologists in MUSIC assessed statewide prostate biopsy practice patterns and variation in prostate cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MUSIC is a statewide, physician led collaborative designed to improve prostate cancer care. From March 2012 through June 2013 at 17 MUSIC practices standardized clinical and pathological data were collected on a total of 3,015 men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy. We examined pathological biopsy outcomes according to patient characteristics and across MUSIC practices. RESULTS: The average cancer detection rate was 52% with significant variability across MUSIC practices (range 43% to 70%, p<0.0001). Of all patients biopsied 27% were older than 69 years, ranging from 19% to 36% at individual practices. Men with prostate specific antigen less than 4 ng/ml comprised an average of 26% of the study population (range 10% to 37%). The detection rate in patients older than 69 years ranged from 42% to 86% at individual practices (p=0.0008). In the 793 patients with prostate specific antigen less than 4 ng/ml the cancer detection rate ranged from 22% to 58% across individual practices (p=0.0065). The predicted probability of cancer detection varied significantly across MUSIC practices even after adjusting for patient age, prostate specific antigen, prostate size, family history and digital rectal examination findings (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While overall detection rates are higher than previously reported, the cancer yield of prostate biopsy varies widely across urology practices in Michigan. These data serve as a foundation for our efforts to understand and improve patient selection for prostate biopsy.