Performance Feedback May Not Improve Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: The Surgical Report Card (SuRep) Study.

PURPOSE: Oncologic, urinary, and sexual outcomes are important to patients receiving prostate cancer surgery. The objective of this study was to determine if providing surgical report cards (SuReps) to surgeons resulted in improved patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective before-and-after study was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital. A total of 422 consecutive patients undergoing radical prostatectomy were enrolled. The intervention was provision of report cards to surgeons. The control cohort was patients treated before report card feedback (pre-SuRep), and the intervention cohort was patients treated after report card feedback (post-SuRep). The primary outcomes were postoperative erectile function, urinary continence, and positive surgical margins. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Almost all patients (99%) were continent and the majority (59%) were potent prior to surgery. Complete 1-year followup was available for 400 patients (95%). Nerve sparing surgery increased from 70% pre-SuRep to 82% post-SuRep (p=0.01). There was a nonstatistically significant increase in the proportion of patients with a positive surgical margin post-SuRep (31% pre-SuRep vs 39% post-SuRep, p=0.08). There was no difference in postoperative erectile function (17% vs 18%, p=0.7) and a decrease in continence (75% vs 65%, p=0.02) at 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The SuRep platform allows accurate reporting of surgical outcomes that can be used for patient counseling. However, the provision of surgical report cards did not improve functional or oncologic outcomes. Longer durations of feedback, report card modifications, or targeted interventions are likely necessary to improve outcomes.

Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART I.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Please refer to Part II for discussion of the management of castration-resistant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1[Figure: see text] and detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.

Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA GUIDELINE PART II-Surgical Evaluation and Treatment.

PURPOSE: Surgical therapies for symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are many, and vary from minimally invasive office based to high-cost operative approaches. This Guideline presents effective evidence-based surgical management of male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary/attributed to BPH (LUTS/BPH). See accompanying algorithm for a detailed summary of procedures (figure[Figure: see text]). MATERIALS/METHODS: The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and AHRQ databases to identify eligible studies published between January 2007 and September 2020, which includes the initial publication (2018) and amendments (2019, 2020). The Team also reviewed articles identified by Guideline Panel Members. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table[Table: see text]). RESULTS: Twenty-four guideline statements pertinent to pre-operative and surgical management were developed. Appropriate levels of evidence and supporting text were created to direct urologic providers towards suitable and safe operative interventions for individual patient characteristics. A re-treatment section was created to direct attention to longevity and outcomes with individual approaches to help guide patient counselling and therapeutic decisions. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative and surgical management of BPH requires attention to individual patient characteristics and procedural risk. Clinicians should adhere to recommendations and familiarize themselves with criteria that yields the highest likelihood of surgical success when choosing a particular approach for a particular patient.

Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients with castration-resistant disease. Please refer to Part I for discussion of the management of patients with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1[Figure: see text] and detailed herein. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.

Objective assessment of intraoperative skills for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): results from the ERUS Scientific and Educational Working Groups Metrics Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and seek consensus from procedure experts on the metrics that best characterise a reference robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and determine if the metrics distinguished between the objectively assessed RARP performance of experienced and novice urologists, as identifying objective performance metrics for surgical training in robotic surgery is imperative for patient safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In Study 1, the metrics, i.e. 12 phases of the procedure, 81 steps, 245 errors and 110 critical errors for a reference RARP were developed and then presented to an international Delphi panel of 19 experienced urologists. In Study 2, 12 very experienced surgeons (VES) who had performed >500 RARPs and 12 novice urology surgeons performed a RARP, which was video recorded and assessed by two experienced urologists blinded as to subject and group. Percentage agreement between experienced urologists for the Delphi meeting and Mann-Whitney U- and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for construct validation of the newly identified RARP metrics. RESULTS: At the Delphi panel, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of the metrics for a reference RARP. In Study 2, the results showed that the VES performed ~4% more procedure steps and made 72% fewer procedure errors than the novices (P = 0.027). Phases VIIa and VIIb (i.e. neurovascular bundle dissection) best discriminated between the VES and novices. LIMITATIONS: VES whose performance was in the bottom half of their group demonstrated considerable error variability and made five-times as many errors as the other half of the group (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The international Delphi panel reached high-level consensus on the RARP metrics that reliably distinguished between the objectively scored procedure performance of VES and novices. Reliable and valid performance metrics of RARP are imperative for effective and quality assured surgical training.

Quantifying the "Assistant Effect" in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP): Measures of Technical Performance.

PURPOSE: Surgeons are reliant on the bedside assistant during robotic surgeries. Using a modified global rating scale (GRS), we aim to assess the association between an assistant's technical skill on surgeon performance in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Prospective, intraoperative video from RARP cases at three centers were collected. Baseline demographic and RARP-experience data were collected from participating surgeons and trainees. The dissection of the prostatic pedicle and neurovascular bundle step (NVB) was analyzed. Expert analysts scored the console surgeon performance using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS), and the bedside assistant performance using a modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (aOSATS). The primary outcome is the association between console surgeon performance, as measured by GEARS, and assistant skill, as measured by aOSATS. Spearman's rho correlations were used to test the relationship between assistant and surgeon technical performance, and a multivariable linear regression model was created to test this association while controlling for patient factors. RESULTS: 92 RARP cases were available for the analysis, comprising 14 console surgeons and 22 different bedside assistants. In only 5 (5.4%) cases, the neurovascular bundle step was completed by a trainee, and in 13 (14.1%) of cases, a staff-level surgeon acted as the bedside assistant. aOSATS score was significantly associated with robotic console experience (P = 0.011), and prior laparoscopic experience (P < 0.001). Assistant aOSATS score showed a weak but significant correlation with surgeon GEARS score during the neurovascular bundle step (spearman's rho = 0.248, P = 0.028). On linear regression, aOSATS remained a significant predictor of console surgeon performance (P = 0.016), after controlling for patient age and BMI, prostate volume, tumor stage, and presence of nerve-sparing. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the association between assistant technical skill and surgeon performance in RARP. Additionally, we have provided validity evidence for a modified OSATS global rating scale for training and assessing bedside assistant performance.

[Surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction: Guidelines from the Committee for Male Voiding Disorders of the French Urology Association]. / Traitement chirurgical et interventionnel de l'obstruction sous-vésicale liée à une hyperplasie bénigne de prostate : revue systématique de la littérature et recommandations de bonne pratique clinique du Comité des Troubles Mictionnels de l'Homme.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Committee (CTMH) of the French Urology Association was to propose an update of the guidelines for surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS: All available data published on PubMed® between 2018 and 2020 were systematically searched and reviewed. All papers assessing surgical and interventional management of adult patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) were included for analysis. After studies critical analysis, conclusions with level of evidence and French guidelines were elaborated in order to answer the predefined clinical questions. RESULTS/GUIDELINES: Offer a trans-uretral incision of the prostate to treat patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with a prostate volume<30cm3, without a middle lobe. TUIP increases the chances of preserving ejaculation. Propose mono- or bipolar trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS with a prostate volume between 30 and 80cm3. Vaporization by Greenlight™ or by bipolar energy can be offered as an alternative to TURP. Offer a Greenlight™ laser vaporization to patients at risk of bleeding. Offer endoscopic prostate enucleation to surgically treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS as an alternative to TURP and open prostatectomy (OP). Minimally invasive prostatectomy is an alternative to OP in centers without access to adequate endoscopic procedures. Embolization of the prostatic arteries may be offered in the event of a contraindication or refusal of surgery for prostates with a volume>80cm3. Prostatic uretral lift is an alternative in patients interested in preserving their ejaculatory function and with a prostate volume<70cm3 without a middle lobe. Aquablation and Rezum™ are under evaluation and should be offered in research protocols. CONCLUSION: Major changes in surgical management of BPO have occurred and aim at reducing morbidity and improving quality of life of patients.

Assessing the Quality of Surgical Care for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from the CEASAR Study.

PURPOSE: Prior studies suggest that nationally endorsed quality measures for prostate cancer care are not linked closely with outcomes. Using a prospective, population based cohort we measured clinically relevant variation in structure, process and outcome measures in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) Study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2011 to 2012 with 1,069 meeting the final inclusion criteria. Quality of life was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) and clinical data by chart review. Six quality measures were assessed, including pelvic lymphadenectomy with risk of lymph node involvement 2% or greater, appropriate nerve sparing, negative surgical margins, urinary and sexual function, treatment by high volume surgeon, and 30-day and 1-year complications. Receipt of high quality care was compared across categories of race, age, surgeon volume and surgical approach via multivariable analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in quality across race, age or surgeon volume strata, except for worse urinary incontinence in Black men. However, robotic surgery patients experienced fewer complications (3% vs 9.3% short-term and 11% vs 16% long-term), were more likely to be treated by a high volume surgeon (47% vs 25%) and demonstrated better sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort we did not identify meaningful variation in quality of care across racial groups, age groups and surgeon volume strata, suggesting that men are receiving comparable quality of care across these strata. However, we did find variation between open and robotic surgery with fewer complications, improved sexual function and increased use of high volume surgeons in the robotic group, possibly reflecting differences in quality between approaches, differences in practice patterns and/or biases in patient selection.

Multi-Institutional Assessment of Routine Same Day Discharge Surgery for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: We assessed the multi-institutional safety of same day discharge for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy within a single health care system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 358 patients undergoing planned same day discharge for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at 6 French centers. Primary outcomes were same day discharge failure, and 30-day complication and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included preoperative characteristics, perioperative parameters, Chung score and pain visual analogue scale at discharge, pathological features and followup. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 64.7 years. Mean operative time and blood loss were 147.5 minutes and 228 ml, respectively. Concomitant lymph node dissection and nerve sparing procedures were performed in 43% and 62% of cases, respectively. No patient required transfusion or conversion. The same day discharge failure, complication and readmission rates were 4.2%, 16.8% and 2.8%, respectively. The most frequent complications were low grade complications including urinary infection (6.4%) and ileus (2.8%). Blood loss, lymph node dissection and pain visual analogue scale were significantly correlated with same day discharge failure. Same day discharge failure was reported in 7.8% of patients with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with only 1.5% of patients who did not undergo lymph node dissection (p=0.003). ASA® score was the only factor significantly associated with postoperative complications (p=0.023). The only factor correlated with readmission was the pain visual analogue scale at discharge (p=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: This first multi-institutional evaluation confirms the safety of same day discharge robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a single health care system and identifies for the first time factors associated with same day discharge failure and readmission. These findings may help physicians anticipate ideal same day discharge candidates and adapt postoperative followup.

Incorporation and validation of clinically relevant performance metrics of simulation (CRPMS) into a novel full-immersion simulation platform for nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (NS-RARP) utilizing three-dimensional printing and hydrogel casting technology.

OBJECTIVES: To incorporate and validate clinically relevant performance metrics of simulation (CRPMS) into a hydrogel model for nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (NS-RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anatomically accurate models of the human pelvis, bladder, prostate, urethra, neurovascular bundle (NVB) and relevant adjacent structures were created from patient MRI by injecting polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) hydrogels into three-dimensionally printed injection molds. The following steps of NS-RARP were simulated: bladder neck dissection; seminal vesicle mobilization; NVB dissection; and urethrovesical anastomosis (UVA). Five experts (caseload >500) and nine novices (caseload <50) completed the simulation. Force applied to the NVB during the dissection was quantified by a novel tension wire sensor system fabricated into the NVB. Post-simulation margin status (assessed by induction of chemiluminescent reaction with fluorescent dye mixed into the prostate PVA) and UVA weathertightness (via a standard 180-mL leak test) were also assessed. Objective scoring, using Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) and Robotic Anastomosis Competency Evaluation (RACE), was performed by two blinded surgeons. GEARS scores were correlated with forces applied to the NVB, and RACE scores were correlated with UVA leak rates. RESULTS: The expert group achieved faster task-specific times for nerve-sparing (P = 0.007) and superior surgical margin results (P = 0.011). Nerve forces applied were significantly lower for the expert group with regard to maximum force (P = 0.011), average force (P = 0.011), peak frequency (P = 0.027) and total energy (P = 0.003). Higher force sensitivity (subcategory of GEARS score) and total GEARS score correlated with lower nerve forces (total energy in Joules) applied to NVB during the simulation with a correlation coefficient (r value) of -0.66 (P = 0.019) and -0.87 (P = 0.000), respectively. Both total and force sensitivity GEARS scores were significantly higher in the expert group compared to the novice group (P = 0.003). UVA leak rate highly correlated with total RACE score r value = -0.86 (P = 0.000). Mean RACE scores were also significantly different between novices and experts (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: We present a realistic, feedback-driven, full-immersion simulation platform for the development and evaluation of surgical skills pertinent to NS-RARP. The correlation of validated objective metrics (GEARS and RACE) with our CRPMS suggests their application as a novel method for real-time assessment and feedback during robotic surgery training. Further work is required to assess the ability to predict live surgical outcomes.

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

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.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and automated performance metrics in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with and without trainee involvement.

PURPOSE: In this study, we investigate the effect of trainee involvement on surgical performance, as measured by automated performance metrics (APMs), and outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We compared APMs (instrument tracking, EndoWrist® articulation, and system events data) and clinical outcomes for cases with varying resident involvement. Four of 12 standardized RARP steps were designated critical ("cardinal") steps. Comparison 1: cases where the attending surgeon performed all four cardinal steps (Group A) and cases where a trainee was involved in at least one cardinal step (Group B). Comparison 2, where Group A is split into Groups C and D: cases where attending performs the whole case (Group C) vs. cases where a trainee performed at least one non-cardinal step (Group D). Mann-Whitney U and Chi-squared tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Comparison 1 showed significant differences in APM profiles including camera movement time, third instrument usage, dominant instrument moving time, velocity, articulation, as well as non-dominant instrument moving time and articulation (all favoring Group A p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in re-admission rates (10.9% in Group A vs 0% in Group B, p < 0.02), but not for post-operative outcomes. Comparison 2 demonstrated a significant difference in dominant instrument articulation (p < 0.05) but not in post-operative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee involvement in RARP is safe. The degree of trainee involvement does not significantly affect major clinical outcomes. APM profiles are less efficient when trainees perform at least one cardinal step but not during non-cardinal steps.

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.

Laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: perioperative outcomes from the ACS NSQIP database.

PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative outcomes associated with laser enucleation of the prostate (LEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) using a national database. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was reviewed for patients who underwent TURP or LEP from 2008 to 2016. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and predisposition to bleeding were compared between TURP and LEP. The 30-day perioperative outcomes including operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), return to the operating room (OR), bleeding requiring transfusion, and organ system-specific complications were compared between the procedures. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusting for the type of surgery and other covariates. RESULTS: The series included 37,577 TURP and 2869 LEP procedures. While TURP was associated with a shorter operative time (55.20 ± 37.80 min) than LEP (102.80 ± 62.30 min), the latter was associated with a shorter hospital stay (1.29 ± 2.73 days) than TURP (2.05 ± 5.20 days). Compared to TURP, LEP had 0.52 (0.47-0.58) times the odds of a LOS > 1 day and 0.67 (0.54-0.83) times the odds of developing urinary tract infections. Nevertheless, no difference was found for other postoperative complications, need for transfusion, and return to OR. CONCLUSION: Real-life data from a large national database confirmed that LEP is a safe and reproducible procedure to treat benign prostatic obstruction. Compared to TURP, LEP was associated with a lower rate of infectious complications and a shorter LOS at the expense of an increased operative time.

Experts vs super-experts: differences in automated performance metrics and clinical outcomes for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate automated performance metrics (APMs) and clinical data of experts and super-experts for four cardinal steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): bladder neck dissection; pedicle dissection; prostate apex dissection; and vesico-urethral anastomosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We captured APMs (motion tracking and system events data) and synchronized surgical video during RARP. APMs were compared between two experience levels: experts (100-750 cases) and super-experts (2100-3500 cases). Clinical outcomes (peri-operative, oncological and functional) were then compared between the two groups. APMs and outcomes were analysed for 125 RARPs using multi-level mixed-effect modelling. RESULTS: For the four cardinal steps selected, super-experts showed differences in select APMs compared with experts (P < 0.05). Despite similar PSA and Gleason scores, super-experts outperformed experts clinically with regard to peri-operative outcomes, with a greater lymph node yield of 22.6 vs 14.9 nodes, respectively (P < 0.01), less blood loss (125 vs 130 mL, respectively; P < 0.01), and fewer readmissions at 30 days (1% vs 13%, respectively; P = 0.02). A similar but nonsignificant trend was seen for oncological and functional outcomes, with super-experts having a lower rate of biochemical recurrence compared with experts (5% vs 15%, respectively; P = 0.13) and a higher continence rate at 3 months (36% vs 18%, respectively; P = 0.14). CONCLUSION: We found that experts and super-experts differed significantly in select APMs for the four cardinal steps of RARP, indicating that surgeons do continue to improve in performance even after achieving expertise. We hope ultimately to identify associations between APMs and clinical outcomes to tailor interventions to surgeons and optimize patient outcomes.

Focal laser ablation as clinical treatment of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project.

PURPOSE: To define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method. METHODS: A panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings. RESULTS: Thirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation. CONCLUSION: Focal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified.

Development and Validation of Objective Performance Metrics for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: We explore and validate objective surgeon performance metrics using a novel recorder ("dVLogger") to directly capture surgeon manipulations on the da Vinci® Surgical System. We present the initial construct and concurrent validation study of objective metrics during preselected steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Kinematic and events data were recorded for expert (100 or more cases) and novice (less than 100 cases) surgeons performing bladder mobilization, seminal vesicle dissection, anterior vesicourethral anastomosis and right pelvic lymphadenectomy. Expert/novice metrics were compared using mixed effect statistical modeling (construct validation). Expert reviewers blindly rated seminal vesicle dissection and anterior vesicourethral anastomosis using GEARS (Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills). Intraclass correlation measured inter-rater variability. Objective metrics were correlated to corresponding GEARS metrics using Spearman's test (concurrent validation). RESULTS: The performance of 10 experts (mean 810 cases, range 100 to 2,000) and 10 novices (mean 35 cases, range 5 to 80) was evaluated in 100 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy cases. For construct validation the experts completed operative steps faster (p <0.001) with less instrument travel distance (p <0.01), less aggregate instrument idle time (p <0.001), shorter camera path length (p <0.001) and more frequent camera movements (p <0.03). Experts had a greater ratio of dominant-to-nondominant instrument path distance for all steps (p <0.04) except anterior vesicourethral anastomosis. For concurrent validation the median experience of 3 expert reviewers was 300 cases (range 200 to 500). Intraclass correlation among reviewers was 0.6-0.7. For anterior vesicourethral anastomosis and seminal vesicle dissection, kinematic metrics had low associations with GEARS metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Objective metrics revealed experts to be more efficient and directed during preselected steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Objective metrics had limited associations to GEARS. These findings lay the foundation for developing standardized metrics for surgeon training and assessment.

Biopsy Core Features are Poor Predictors of Adverse Pathology in Men with Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Active surveillance is often restricted to patients with low risk prostate cancer who have 3 or fewer positive cores. We aimed to identify predictors of adverse pathology results for low risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy and determine whether a threshold number of positive cores could help the decision process for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 3,359 men with low risk prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy between January 2000 and August 2016. We analyzed the relationship between biopsy core features and adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy, defined as Grade Group 3 or greater, seminal vesicle invasion or lymph node involvement. RESULTS: Of the 171 cases (5.1%) with adverse pathology findings at radical prostatectomy 144 (4.3%) were upgraded to Grade Group 3 or greater, 31 (0.9%) had seminal vesicle invasion and 15 (0.4%) had lymph node involvement. Prostate specific antigen and patient age were the only predictors of adverse pathology results. There was no significant association with the number of positive cores, the total mm of cancer or the maximum percent of cancer in any core. When we expanded the definition of adverse pathology to include Grade Group 2 and extraprostatic extension, the association between core features and outcome was statistically significant but clinically weak, and with no evidence of threshold effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is little basis for excluding patients with otherwise low risk prostate cancer on biopsy from active surveillance based on criteria such as the number of positive cores or the maximum cancer involvement of biopsy cores.

Use of Automated Performance Metrics to Measure Surgeon Performance during Robotic Vesicourethral Anastomosis and Methodical Development of a Training Tutorial.

PURPOSE: We sought to develop and validate automated performance metrics to measure surgeon performance of vesicourethral anastomosis during robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Furthermore, we sought to methodically develop a standardized training tutorial for robotic vesicourethral anastomosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We captured automated performance metrics for motion tracking and system events data, and synchronized surgical video during robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Nonautomated performance metrics were manually annotated by video review. Automated and nonautomated performance metrics were compared between experts with 100 or more console cases and novices with fewer than 100 cases. Needle driving gestures were classified and compared. We then applied task deconstruction, cognitive task analysis and Delphi methodology to develop a standardized robotic vesicourethral anastomosis tutorial. RESULTS: We analyzed 70 vesicourethral anastomoses with a total of 1,745 stitches. For automated performance metrics experts outperformed novices in completion time (p <0.01), EndoWrist® articulation (p <0.03), instrument movement efficiency (p <0.02) and camera manipulation (p <0.01). For nonautomated performance metrics experts had more optimal needle to needle driver positioning, fewer needle driving attempts, a more optimal needle entry angle and less tissue trauma (each p <0.01). We identified 14 common robotic needle driving gestures. Random gestures were associated with lower efficiency (p <0.01), more attempts (p <0.04) and more trauma (p <0.01). The finalized tutorial contained 66 statements and figures. Consensus among 8 expert surgeons was achieved after 2 rounds, including among 58 (88%) after round 1 and 8 (12%) after round 2. CONCLUSIONS: Automated performance metrics can distinguish surgeon expertise during vesicourethral anastomosis. The expert vesicourethral anastomosis technique was associated with more efficient movement and less tissue trauma. Standardizing robotic vesicourethral anastomosis and using a methodically developed tutorial may help improve robotic surgical training.

The transverse and vertical distribution of prostate cancer in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy is the most common method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer and the basis for further treatment. Confirmation using radical prostatectomy specimens is the most reliable method for verifying the accuracy of template-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. The study aimed to reveal the spatial distribution of prostate cancer in template-guided transperineal saturation biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. METHODS: Between December 2012 to December 2016, 171 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer via template-guided transperineal prostate biopsy and subsequently underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The spatial distributions of prostate cancer were analyzed and the consistency of the tumor distribution between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens were compared. RESULTS: The positive rate of biopsy in the apex region was significantly higher than that of the other biopsy regions (43% vs 28%, P < 0.01). In radical prostatectomy specimens, the positive rate was highest at the region 0.9-1.3 cm above the apex, and it had a tendency to decrease towards the base. There was a significant difference in the positive rate between the cephalic and caudal half of the prostate (68% vs 99%, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the anterior and posterior zones for either biopsy or radical prostatectomy specimens. CONCLUSION: The tumor spatial distribution generated by template-guided transperineal prostate biopsy was consistent with that of radical prostatectomy specimens in general. The positive rate was consistent between anterior and posterior zones. The caudal half of the prostate, especially the vicinity of the apex, was the frequently occurred site of the tumor.