Pathologic nodal downstaging in men with clinically involved lymph nodes undergoing radical prostatectomy: Implications for definitive locoregional therapy.

A prostate cancer (CaP) patient with nonmetastatic but clinical positive lymph nodes (cN+) represents a difficult clinical scenario. We compare overall survival (OS) between cN+ men that underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and were found to have negative node status (pN) with those found to have positive nodal status (pN+), and assess predictors of discordant nodal status. We queried the National Cancer Data Base between 2004 and 2015 for patients that were cT1-3 cN+ cM0 CaP treated with RP. Patients with 0 nodes, cT4, or cM1 disease were excluded. We compared groups based on pathologic nodal status: Discordant (cN+ -> pN) & Concordant (cN+ -> pN+). Kaplan Meier estimations were used to compare OS. Logistic regression was used to determine possible predictors of nodal status. We find that of 6470 cN+ patients, 1,367 (21.1%) underwent RP, 866 (13.4%) had confirmed nodal status. Discordant status was found in 159 (18.4%) and concordant staging in 707 (81.6%). Differences exist in PSA at diagnosis (7.3 vs. 11.2), biopsy group, # of nodes examined (7 vs. 10), race, and Charlson index. Discordant staging had longer OS compared to Concordant staging (P = 0.007) and similar OS to a 3:1 matched cohort of high risk localized CaP patients used as reference (P = 0.46). Lower Gleason Score (GG1-3) was associated with an increased likelihood of discordant staging. Clinical nodal staging is associated with a substantial false positive rate. Discordant status had better OS than Concordant status and similar OS to matched patients with localized CaP. Clinical nodal staging may inappropriately lead to noncurative therapy in a substantial number of men with potentially curable disease.

Societal costs of localized renal cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital-related costs of renal cancer surgery have been described, but the societal costs of surgery-related lost productivity are poorly understood. We estimated the societal cost of renal cancer surgery by assessing surgery-related time off work (TOW) taken by patients and their caretakers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 413 subjects who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy enrolled in an IRB-approved prospective study received an occupational survey assessing employment status, work physicality, income, surgery-related TOW, and caretaker assistance. We excluded subjects with incomplete occupational information or metastatic disease. We estimated potential wages lost using individual income and TOW, and used logistic regression to evaluate for factors predictive of TOW > 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 219 subjects who responded, 138 were employed at time of surgery. Ninety-seven subjects returned to work, met the inclusion criteria, and were analyzed. Mean age was 54 and 56% of subjects had sedentary jobs. TOW ranged from 7 to 92 days; mean and median TOW was 35 and 33 days, respectively and 58% of subjects took > 30 days off. Mean potential wages lost for TOW was $10,152. Eighty-three percent of subjects had at least one caretaker take TOW (mean/median caretaker TOW: 11/7 days, respectively) to assist in recovery. Subjects with sedentary jobs were less likely to take > 30 days off (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Most renal cancer surgery patients take over 1 month off work. Recognizing the associated societal costs may allow better adjustment of patient expectations, and more comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses in renal cancer care.

Systematic Review of the Volume-Outcome Relationship for Radical Prostatectomy.

CONTEXT: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the most complex urological procedures performed. Higher surgical volume has been found previously to be associated with better patient outcomes and reduced costs to the health care system. This has resulted in some regionalization of care toward high-volume facilities and providers; however, the preponderance of RPs is still performed at low-volume institutions. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated systematic review of the association of hospital and surgeon volume on patient and system outcomes after RP, including robot-assisted RP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of literature was undertaken, searching PubMed (1959-2016) for original articles. Selection criteria included RP, hospital and/or surgeon volumes as predictor variables, categorization of hospital and/or surgeon volumes, and measurable end points. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall 49 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies demonstrated that higher-volume surgeries are associated with better outcomes including reduced mortality, morbidity, postoperative complications, length of stay, readmission, and cost-associated factors. The volume-outcome relationship is maintained in robotic surgery. Eleven studies assessed hospital and surgeon volume simultaneously, and findings reflect that neither is an independent predictor variable affecting outcomes. The studies varied in how volume cutoffs were categorized as well as how the volume-outcome relationship was methodologically evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary evidence continues to support the relationship between high-volume surgeries with improved RP outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that the volume-outcome relationship applies to robot-assisted RP and may be applied for potential cost savings in health care. An increase in the number of international studies suggests reproducibility of the association. Although regionalization of surgical care remains a contentious issue, there is an increasing body of evidence that short-term outcomes are improved at high-volume centers for RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: This systematic review of the latest literature found that higher surgical volume was associated with improved outcomes for radical prostatectomy.

Urologic Emergencies.

The diagnosis and management of urologic emergencies are incorporated into the basic training of all urology residents. In institutions without access to urologic services, it is usually left to the General Surgeon or Emergency Medicine physician to provide timely care. This article discusses diagnoses that are important to recognize and treatment that is practically meaningful for the non-Urologist to identify and treat. The non-Urology provider, after reading this article, will have a better understanding and a higher comfort level with treating patients with urologic emergencies.