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.

Less is More: Fulfillment of Opioid Prescriptions Before and After Implementation of a Modifier 22 Based Quality Incentive for Opioid-Free Vasectomies.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the percentage of patients who filled peri-procedural opioid prescriptions before and after Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) launched a modifier 22 payment incentive for opioid-sparing vasectomies in Michigan on July 1, 2019. METHODS: We evaluated BCBSM administrative claims data from February 1, 2018 - November 16, 2020 for men 20 - 64 years old who underwent vasectomy or a control office-based urologic procedure (cystourethroscopy, prostate biopsy, circumcision, and transurethral destruction of prostate tissue.) The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who filled opioid prescriptions 30 days before to 3 days after their procedure. We performed an interrupted time series analysis to estimate changes in the percentage of patients who filled opioid prescriptions in the vasectomy and control group before and after July 1, 1019. RESULTS: Our cohort included 4,559 men who had a vasectomy and 4,679 men who had a control procedure. Within each group, demographics and clinical factors were similar before and after July 1, 2019. Before implementation of the modifier 22 policy, 32.5% of men who had a vasectomy filled an opioid prescription whereas only 12.6% of men filled an opioid prescription after July 1, 2019 -a 19.9% absolute reduction and 61.0% relative reduction (P < .001). In the control group, there was no significant change in the percentage of patients who filled opioid prescriptions before and after July 1, 2019 (0.8% absolute increase, P = .671). CONCLUSION: Implementation of modifier 22 based financial incentive for opioid-sparing vasectomies was associated with decrease in the percentage of men who filled opioid prescriptions after vasectomy.

Appropriateness Criteria for Ureteral Stent Omission following Ureteroscopy for Urinary Stone Disease.

Objective: To bridge the gap between evidence and clinical judgement, we defined scenarios appropriate for ureteral stent omission after uncomplicated ureteroscopy (URS) using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). We retrospectively assessed rates of appropriate stent omission, with the goal to implement these criteria in clinical practice. Methods: A panel of 15 urologists from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) met to define uncomplicated URS and the variables that influence stent omission decision-making. Over two rounds, they scored clinical scenarios for Appropriateness Criteria (AC) for stent omission based on a combination of variables. AC were defined by median scores: 1 to 3 (inappropriate), 4 to 6 (uncertain), and 7 to 9 (appropriate). Multivariable analysis determined the association of each variable with AC scores. Uncomplicated URS cases in the MUSIC registry were assigned AC scores and stenting rates assessed. Results: Seven variables affecting stent decision-making were identified. Of the 144 scenarios, 26 (18%) were appropriate, 88 (61%) inappropriate, and 30 (21%) uncertain for stent omission. Most scenarios appropriate for omission were pre-stented (81%). Scenarios with ureteral access sheath or stones >10mm were only appropriate if pre-stented. Stenting rates of 5,181 URS cases correlated with AC scores. Stents were placed in 61% of cases appropriate for omission (practice range, 25% to 98%). Conclusion: We defined objective variables and AC for stent omission following uncomplicated URS. AC scores correlated with stenting rates but there was substantial practice variation. Our findings demonstrate that the appropriate use of stent omission is underutilized.

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.

Impact of Decipher Biopsy testing on clinical outcomes in localized prostate cancer in a prospective statewide collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Decipher Biopsy is a commercially available gene expression classifier used in risk stratification of newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). Currently, there are no prospective data evaluating its clinical utility. We seek to assess the clinical utility of Decipher Biopsy in localized PCa patients. METHODS: A multi-institutional study of 855 men who underwent Decipher Biopsy testing between February 2015 and October 2019. All patients were tracked through the prospective Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and linked to the Decipher Genomics Resource Information Database (GRID®; NCT02609269). Patient matching was performed by an independent third-party (ArborMetrix Inc.) using two or more unique identifiers. Cumulative incidence curves for time to treatment (TTT) and time to failure (TTF) were constructed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the independent association of high-risk Decipher scores with the conversion from AS to radical therapy and treatment failure (biochemical failure or receipt of salvage therapy). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Eight hundred fifty-five patients underwent Decipher Biopsy testing during the study period. Of the 855 men, 264 proceeded to AS (31%), and 454 (53%) received radical therapy. In men electing AS, after adjusting for NCCN risk group, age, PSA, prostate volume, body mass index, and percent positive cores, a high-risk Decipher score was independently associated with shorter TTT (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.52-4.13 p < 0.001). Similarly, in patients that underwent radical therapy, a high-risk Decipher score was independently associated with TTF (HR 2.98, 95% CI 1.22-7.29, p = 0.01) on multivariable analysis. Follow-up time was a limitation. CONCLUSION: In a prospective statewide registry, high-risk Decipher Biopsy score was strongly and independently associated with conversion from AS to definitive treatment and treatment failure. These real-world data support the clinical utility of Decipher Biopsy. An ongoing phase 3 randomized trial (NCT04396808) will provide level 1 evidence of the clinical impact of Decipher biopsy testing.

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.

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.

Establishing a global quality of care benchmark report.

BACKGROUND: The Movember funded TrueNTH Global Registry (TNGR) aims to improve care by collecting and analysing a consistent dataset to identify variation in disease management, benchmark care delivery in accordance with best practice guidelines and provide this information to those in a position to enact change. We discuss considerations of designing and implementing a quality of care report for TNGR. METHODS: Eleven working group sessions were held prior to and as reports were being built with representation from clinicians, data managers and investigators contributing to TNGR. The aim of the meetings was to understand current data display approaches, share literature review findings and ideas for innovative approaches. Preferred displays were evaluated with two surveys (survey 1: 5 clinicians and 5 non-clinicians, 83% response rate; survey 2: 17 clinicians and 18 non-clinicians, 93% response rate). RESULTS: Consensus on dashboard design and three data-display preferences were achieved. The dashboard comprised two performance summary charts; one summarising site's relative quality indicator (QI) performance and another to summarise data quality. Binary outcome QIs were presented as funnel plots. Patient-reported outcome measures of function score and the extent to which men were bothered by their symptoms were presented in bubble plots. Time series graphs were seen as providing important information to supplement funnel and bubble plots. R Markdown was selected as the software program principally because of its excellent analytic and graph display capacity, open source licensing model and the large global community sharing program code enhancements. CONCLUSIONS: International collaboration in creating and maintaining clinical quality registries has allowed benchmarking of process and outcome measures on a large scale. A registry report system was developed with stakeholder engagement to produce dynamic reports that provide user-specific feedback to 132 participating sites across 13 countries.

Evaluation of Patient- and Surgeon-Specific Variations in Patient-Reported Urinary Outcomes 3 Months After Radical Prostatectomy From a Statewide Improvement Collaborative.

Importance: Understanding variation in patient-reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy may inform efforts to reduce morbidity after this procedure. Objective: To describe patient-reported urinary outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the diverse practice settings of a statewide quality improvement program and to explore whether surgeon-specific variations in observed outcomes persist after accounting for patient-level factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective population-based cohort study included 4582 men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative who underwent radical prostatectomy as primary management of localized prostate cancer between April 2014 and July 2018 and who agreed to complete validated questionnaires prior to surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed from 2019 to June 2019. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient- and surgeon-level analyses of patient-reported urinary function 3 months after radical prostatectomy. Outcomes were measured using validated questionnaires with results standardized using previously published methods. Urinary function survey scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 100 with good function established as a score of 74 or higher. Results: For the 4582 men undergoing radical prostatectomy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative who agreed to complete surveys, mean (SD) age was 63.3 (7.1) years. Survey response rates varied: 3791 of 4582 (83%) responded at baseline, 3282 of 4137 (79%) at 3 months, 2975 of 3770 (79%) at 6 months, and 2213 of 2882 (77%) at 12 months. Mean (SD) urinary function scores were 88.5 (14.3) at baseline, 53.6 (27.5) at 3 months, 68.0 (25.1) at 6 months, and 73.7 (23.0) at 12 months. Regression analysis demonstrated that older age, lower baseline urinary function score, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 or higher, clinical stage T2 or higher, and lack of bilateral nerve-sparing surgery were associated with a lower probability of reporting good urinary function 3 months after surgery. When evaluating patients with good baseline function, the rate at which individual surgeons' patients reported good urinary function 3 months after surgery varied broadly (0% to 54.5%; P < .001). Patients receiving surgery from top-performing surgeons were more likely to report good 3-month function. This finding persisted after accounting for patient risk factors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patient- and surgeon-level urinary outcomes following prostatectomy varied substantially. Documenting surgeon-specific variations after accounting for patient factors may facilitate identification of surgical factors associated with superior outcomes.

Impact of Early Confirmatory Tests on Upgrading and Conversion to Treatment in Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of confirmatory tests on active surveillance (AS) biopsy disease reclassification and progression to treatment in men with favorable risk prostate cancer (FRPC). METHODS: We searched the MUSIC registry for men with FRPC managed with AS without or with a confirmatory test. Confirmatory tests included (1) repeat prostate biopsy, (2) genomic tests, (3) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or (4) MRI followed by a post-MRI biopsy. Confirmatory test results were deemed reassuring (RA) or nonreassuring (nonRA) according to predefined criteria. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare surveillance biopsy disease reclassification-free survival and treatment-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 2,514 men with FRPC who were managed on AS, 1211 (48%) men obtained a confirmatory test. We noted differences in the 12-month unadjusted surveillance biopsy disease reclassification-free probability (68%, 83%, and 90%, P < .0001) and 24-month unadjusted treatment-free probability (55%, 81%, and 79%, P < .0001), for men with nonRA confirmatory tests, no confirmatory test, and RA confirmatory tests, respectively. Excluding patients with genomic confirmatory tests, men with RA confirmatory tests were associated with a lower hazard (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.84, P = .005) and men with nonRA confirmatory tests had an increased hazard (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.22-3.19, P = .006) of surveillance disease reclassification compared with men without confirmatory tests in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION: These data suggest men with RA confirmatory tests have less surveillance biopsy reclassification and remain on AS longer than men with nonRA test results. Confirmatory tests may help risk stratify men considering active surveillance.

Overtreatment and Underutilization of Watchful Waiting in Men With Limited Life Expectancy: An Analysis of the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of watchful waiting (WW) vs treatment in prostate cancer (PCa) and limited life expectancy (LE) and assess determinants of management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PCa between 2012 and 2018 with <10 years LE were identified from the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with management choice among NCCN low-risk PCa patients. Data from high-volume practices were analyzed to understand practice variation. RESULTS: Total 2393 patients were included. Overall, WW was performed in 8.1% compared to 23.3%, 25%, 11.2%, and 3.6% who underwent AS, radiation (XRT), prostatectomy (RP), and brachytherapy (BT), respectively. In men with NCCN low-risk disease (n = 358), WW was performed in 15.1%, compared to AS (69.3%), XRT (4.2%), RP (6.7%), and BT (2.5%). There was wide variation in management among practices in low-risk men; WW (6%-35%), AS (44%-81%), and definitive treatment (0%-30%). Older age was associated with less likelihood of undergoing AS vs WW (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, P < .001) or treatment vs WW (OR 0.83, P < .0001). Presence of ≥cT2 disease (OR 8.55, P = .014) and greater number of positive biopsy cores (OR 1.41, P = .014) was associated with greater likelihood of treatment vs WW and Charlson comorbidity score of 1 vs 0 (OR 0.23, P = .043) was associated with less likelihood of treatment vs WW. CONCLUSION: Wide practice level variation exists in management for patients with low- and favorable-risk PCa and <10-year LE. Utilization of WW is poor, suggesting overtreatment in men who will experience little benefit.

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.

Quality of Care for Renal Masses: The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative-Kidney Mass: Identifying & Defining Necessary Evaluation & Therapy (MUSIC-KIDNEY).

INTRODUCTION: We describe the establishment of the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative-Kidney mass: Identifying and Defining Necessary Evaluation and therapY (MUSIC-KIDNEY) to improve the quality of care that patients in Michigan receive for localized, 7 cm or smaller (T1) renal masses. METHODS: The MUSIC-KIDNEY collaborative is comprised of 45 urologists from 8 group practices. From June 2017 to November 2018 surgeons collected data for 821 patients with newly diagnosed T1 renal masses. Goals are to reduce the overall burden of treatment for T1 renal masses specifically by avoiding treatment when a noninterventional approach is appropriate, reducing the treatment of benign renal masses, preventing radical nephrectomy when a kidney sparing approach is appropriate, and decreasing length of hospitalization and readmission rates. RESULTS: Median age at diagnosis was 66 years, 56.8% of patients were male and 83.8% were Caucasian. The patient populations differed across practice sites for age (p <0.001), tumor size (p=0.002), race (p <0.001), Charlson comorbidity index and insurance type (p <0.001). Tumor complexity was infrequently reported (35.1%). Initial management included surveillance/repeat imaging (45.1%), biopsy (15.4%), intervention (39.1%) and second opinion (0.6%). No treatment at initial presentation (0% to 74.5%) and nephron sparing treatment (0% to 100%) varied significantly among practices (p <0.001). Of 133 patients with T1 renal masses who underwent radical nephrectomy (39.8%) 53 had tumors smaller than 4 cm and/or surgical findings without malignancy. Readmission or emergency department visit within 30 days after renal surgery occurred in 7.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Initial findings of MUSIC-KIDNEY indicate practice level variation and several quality improvement opportunities. Focusing on these goals may optimize practice patterns and surgical outcomes across Michigan.

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.

Regular vs. selective use of closed suction drains following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a regional quality improvement collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Closed suction drain (CSD) placement is common in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Our goal is to quantify outcomes of RARP for patients undergoing RARP by surgeons who regularly or selectively use CSDs. METHODS: Patients undergoing RARP (4/2014-7/2017) were prospectively entered into the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS) >2 days, >16-day catheterization, 30-day readmission, and clinically significant urine leak or ileus. Retrospective analysis of each adverse event was performed comparing groups using chi-square tests. RESULTS: In all, 6746 RARPs were performed by 115 MUSIC surgeons. CSDs were used in 4451 RARP (66.0%), with wide variation in surgeon CSD use (median: 94.7%, range: 0-100%, IQR: 45-100%). The cohorts of patients treated by surgeons with regular vs. selective CSD usage were similar. CSD use pattern was not associated with rates of prolonged catheterization (4.6% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.17) or readmission (4.5% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.35) and multivariable analysis confirmed these findings (each p > 0.10). Regular CSD use was associated with LOS >2 days (8.4% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.001) and multivariable analyses indicated an odds ratio (OR) of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.12-1.79; p = 0.017) and increased likelihood of clinically significant ileus (OR: 1.64; CI: 1.14-2.35; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Although there are specific situations in which CSDs are beneficial, e.g. anastomotic leak or observed lymphatic drainage, regular CSD use during RARP was associated with a greater likelihood of LOS >2 days and clinically significant ileus. Our data suggest that CSD should be placed selectively rather than routinely after RARP.

Pelvic lymph node dissection at robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Assessing utilization and nodal metastases within a statewide quality improvement consortium.

PURPOSE: Several guidelines recommend pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) only when lymph node involvement (LN+) is >2%. Individual surgeon use of PLND is not well-known. We sought to examine variability in PLND performance and detection of LN+ across the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. METHODS: Data regarding all RARP (3/2012-9/2018) were prospectively collected, including patient and surgeon characteristics. Univariable and multivariable analyses of PLND rate and LN+ rate were performed. RESULTS: Among 9,751 men undergoing RARP, 79.8% had PLND performed (n = 7,781), of which 5.2% were LN+ (n = 404). In univariate and multivariable analyses, predictors of PLND included higher Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason grade (bGG), number of positive cores, and maximum core involvement at P < 0.05 for each. Higher PSA, cT stage, bGG, number of positive cores, and maximum core involvement predicted LN+ when PLND was performed (P < 0.05 for each). There was significant surgeon variation in the proportion of PLND performed at RARP, yet neither surgeon-annualized RARP volume nor % of PLND performed was associated with LN+ disease (P > 0.05). Grade was associated with PLND (60.0%, 77.6%, 91.0%, 97.3%, and 98.5%; P < 0.001) and LN+ (0.7%, 2.5%, 5.8%, 8.6%, and 19.9%; P < 0.001) for bGG 1,2,3,4,5, respectively. Maximum core involvement also strongly predicted LN+ with rates of 1.5%, 3.8%, and 9.4% for <35%, 35% to 65%, and >65%, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 80% of RARP in Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative were performed with PLND, including 60% of bGG1 patients (with LN+ in only 0.7%), but significant variability exists between surgeons. Our data indicate limited benefit for favorable-risk CaP patients and support efforts to decrease PLND use going forward.

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.

Utilization of Salvage Radiation Therapy for Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: For men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP), salvage radiation therapy (SRT), especially "early" SRT (PSA level ≤0.5 ng/mL), is a potentially curative option; however, its utilization is not well defined. We sought to determine factors associated with SRT utilization as well as variation in its administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing RP at 33 practices participating in the statewide Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative between 2012 and 2016 were prospectively followed. Eligible patients had at least 1 post-RP PSA level ≥0.1 ng/mL with ≥6 months of follow-up after the first detectable PSA level. Patients undergoing adjuvant radiation therapy were excluded. SRT utilization and clinical and pathologic patient characteristics were examined. RESULTS: Of 1010 eligible patients with a detectable PSA level, 29.5% underwent SRT. Of patients who received SRT, 46.9% either reached a PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL or were treated before reaching that PSA level. A total of 30.6% of patients had a PSA level ≥0.5 ng/mL without undergoing prior SRT; of this group, 42.1% later received SRT. After adjusting for patient and practice level factors, positive surgical margins, higher T stage, and higher grade group were all associated with receipt of SRT (P < .05). Even after adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, significant variation remained in the adjusted rate of SRT utilization across practices sites, ranging from 7% (95% confidence interval, 3%-17%) to 73% (95% confidence interval, 45%-90%, P < .001). Practices were grouped into tertiles based on SRT utilization, and those practices that used SRT more frequently overall were more likely to administer SRT across all patient-based predictors of SRT utilization. CONCLUSIONS: SRT utilization is low among men with a detectable post-RP PSA level, with significant variation in practice-level SRT utilization that cannot be explained by patient factors alone. Factors suggesting higher-risk disease were predictors of SRT administration. These data support the potential to expand the use of SRT, particularly among sites with low utilization.

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.