Implementation of a Surgeon-Level Comparative Quality Performance Review to Improve Positive Surgical Margin Rates during Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Success in the era of value-based payment will depend on the capacity of health systems to improve quality while controlling costs. Comparative quality performance review can be used to drive improvements in surgical outcomes and thereby reduce costs. We sought to determine the efficacy of a comparative quality performance review to improve a surgeon-level measure of surgical oncologic quality, that is the positive surgical margin rate at the time of radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight surgeons who performed consecutive radical prostatectomies at a single high volume institution between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015 were included in analysis. Individual surgeons were provided with confidential report cards every 6 months detailing their case mix, case volume and pT2 radical prostatectomy positive surgical margin rate relative to 1) their own self-matched data, 2) the de-identified data of their colleagues and 3) institutional aggregate data during the study period. Positive surgical margin rates were compared before and after intervention. Hierarchal logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association of study period on the odds of positive surgical margins, adjusted for prostate specific antigen level and National Comprehensive Cancer Network® risk group. RESULTS: Overall, 1,822 (1,392 before and 430 after intervention) radical prostatectomies were performed that met study inclusion criteria. The aggregate departmental unadjusted positive surgical margin rates were 10.6% and 7.4% in the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups, respectively. After adjusting for higher risk cancer in the post-intervention group, there was a significant protective association of post-intervention status on positive margins (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.97, p = 0.03). All 5 surgeons with positive surgical margin rates higher than the aggregate department rate in the pre-intervention period showed improvement after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative quality performance review can be implemented at the surgeon level and can promote improvement in an objective measure of surgical oncology quality.

Utility of Risk Models in Decision Making After Radical Prostatectomy: Lessons from a Natural History Cohort of Intermediate- and High-Risk Men.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines suggest adjuvant radiation therapy for men with adverse pathologic features (APFs) at radical prostatectomy (RP). We examine at-risk men treated only with RP until the time of metastasis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicopathologic risk models can help guide postoperative therapeutic decision making. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing RP in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era were identified (n=3089). Only men with initial undetectable PSA after surgery and who received no therapy prior to metastasis were included. APFs were defined as pT3 disease or positive surgical margins. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for time to event data was used to measure the discrimination performance of the risk factors. Cumulative incidence curves were constructed using Fine and Gray competing risks analysis to estimate the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) or metastasis, taking censoring and death due to other causes into consideration. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 43% of the cohort (n=1327) had APFs at RP. Median follow-up for censored patients was 5 yr. Cumulative incidence of metastasis was 6% at 10 yr after RP for all patients. Cumulative incidence of metastasis among men with APFs was 7.5% at 10 yr after RP. Among men with BCR, the incidence of metastasis was 38% 5 yr after BCR. At 10 yr after RP, time-dependent AUC for predicting metastasis by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical or Eggener risk models was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.97) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.97) in the APF population, respectively. At 5 yr after BCR, these values were lower (0.58 [95% CI, 0.50-0.66] and 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63-0.76]) among those who developed BCR. Use of risk model cut points could substantially reduce overtreatment while minimally increasing undertreatment (ie, use of an Eggener cut point of 2.5% for treatment of men with APFs would spare 46% from treatment while only allowing for metastatic events in 1% at 10 yr after RP). CONCLUSIONS: Use of risk models reduces overtreatment and should be a routine part of patient counseling when considering adjuvant therapy. Risk model performance is significantly reduced among men with BCR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Use of current risk models can help guide decision making regarding therapy after surgery and reduce overtreatment.

Racial disparities in oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To report race-based outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a cohort stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk category with updated follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies describing racial disparities in outcomes after RP are conflicting. We studied 15,993 white and 1634 African American (AA) pretreatment-naïve men who underwent RP at our institution (1992-2013) with complete preoperative and pathologic data. Pathologic outcomes were compared between races using appropriate statistical tests; biochemical recurrence (BCR) for men with complete follow-up was compared using multivariate models that controlled separately for preoperative and postoperative covariates. RESULTS: Very low- and low-risk AA men were more likely to have positive surgical margins (P <.01), adverse pathologic features (P <.01), and be upgraded at RP (P <.01). With a median follow-up of 4.0 years after RP, AA race was an independent predictor of BCR among NCCN low-risk (HR, 2.16; P <.001) and intermediate-risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; P = .024) classes and pathologic Gleason score ≤ 6 (HR, 2.42; P <.001) and Gleason score 7 (HR, 1.71; P <.001). BCR-free survival for very low-risk AA men was similar to low-risk white men (P = .890); BCR-free survival for low-risk AA men was similar to intermediate-risk white men (P = .060). CONCLUSION: When stratified by NCCN risk, AA men with very low-, low-, or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who undergo RP are more likely to have adverse pathologic findings and BCR compared with white men. AA men with "low risk" prostate cancer, especially those considering active surveillance, should be counseled that their recurrence risks can resemble those of whites in higher risk categories.

Allogeneic versus autologous blood transfusion and survival after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Potential adverse effects of blood transfusion (BT) remain controversial, especially for clinical outcomes after curative cancer surgery. Some postulate that immune modulation after allogeneic BT predisposes to recurrence and death, but autologous superiority is not established. This study assessed whether BT is associated with long-term prostate cancer recurrence and survival with a large single-institutional radical prostatectomy (RP) database. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Between 1994 and 2012, a total of 11,680 patients had RP with available outcome and transfusion data. A total of 7443 (64%) had complete covariate data. Clinical variables associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were identified with Cox proportional hazards models for three groups: no BT (reference, 27.7%, n = 2061), autologous BT only (68.8%, n = 5124), and any allogeneic BT (with or without autologous, 3.5%, n = 258). RESULTS: Median (range) follow-up was 6 (1-18) years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly decreased OS (but not BRFS or PCSS) in the allogeneic group versus autologous and no BT groups (p = 0.006). With univariate analysis, any allogeneic BT had a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.29 (range, 1.52-3.46; p < 0.0001) for OS, whereas autologous BT was not significant (HR, 1.04 [range, 0.82-1.32], p = 0.752). In multivariable models, neither autologous nor allogeneic BT was independently associated with BRFS, CSS, or OS, and a dose response was not observed for allogeneic units and BRFS. CONCLUSION: Although allogeneic but not autologous BT was associated with decreased long-term OS, after adjustment for confounding clinical variables, BT was not independently associated with OS, BRFS, or CSS regardless of transfusion type. Notably, no association was observed between allogeneic BT and cancer recurrence. Observed differences in OS may reflect confounding.

African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them?

PURPOSE: Active surveillance (AS) is a treatment option for men with very low-risk prostate cancer (PCa); however, favorable outcomes achieved for men in AS are based on cohorts that under-represent African American (AA) men. To explore whether race-based health disparities exist among men with very low-risk PCa, we evaluated oncologic outcomes of AA men with very low-risk PCa who were candidates for AS but elected to undergo radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 1,801 men (256 AA, 1,473 white men, and 72 others) who met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for very low-risk PCa and underwent RP. Presenting characteristics, pathologic data, and cancer recurrence were compared among the groups. Multivariable modeling was performed to assess the association of race with upgrading and adverse pathologic features. RESULTS: AA men with very low-risk PCa had more adverse pathologic features at RP and poorer oncologic outcomes. AA men were more likely to experience disease upgrading at prostatectomy (27.3% v 14.4%; P < .001), positive surgical margins (9.8% v 5.9%; P = .02), and higher Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Post-Surgical scoring system (CAPRA-S) scores. On multivariable analysis, AA race was an independent predictor of adverse pathologic features (odds ratio, [OR], 3.23; P = .03) and pathologic upgrading (OR, 2.26; P = .03). CONCLUSION: AA men with very low-risk PCa who meet criteria for AS but undergo immediate surgery experience significantly higher rates of upgrading and adverse pathology than do white men and men of other races. AA men with very low-risk PCa should be counseled about increased oncologic risk when deciding among their disease management options.