Assessing key cost drivers associated with caring for chronic kidney disease patients.

BACKGROUND: To examine key factors influencing chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients' total expenditure and offer recommendations on how to reduce total cost of CKD care without compromising quality. METHODS: Using the 2002-2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data, our cross-sectional study analyzed 197 patient records-79 patients with one record and 59 with two entries per patient (138 unique patients). We used three patient groups, based on international statistical classification of diseases version 9 code for condition (ICD9CODX) classification, to focus inference from the analysis: (a) non-dialysis dependent CKD, (b) dialysis and (c) transplant. Covariate information included region, demographic, co-morbid conditions and types of services. We used descriptive methods and multivariate generalized linear models to understand the impact of cost drivers. We compared actual and predicted CKD cost of care data using a hold-out sample of nine, randomly selected patients to validate the models. RESULTS: Total costs were significantly affected by treatment type, with dialysis being significantly higher than non-dialysis and transplant groups. Costs were highest in the West region of the U.S. Average costs for patients with public insurance were significantly higher than patients with private insurance (p < .0743), and likewise, for patients with co-morbid conditions over those without co-morbid conditions (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Managing CKD patients both before and after the onset of dialysis treatment and managing co-morbid conditions in individuals with CKD are potential sources of substantial cost savings in the care of CKD patients. Comparing total costs pre and post the United States Affordable Care Act could provide invaluable insights into managing the cost-quality tradeoff in CKD care.

Utilization of a Genomic Classifier for Prediction of Metastasis Following Salvage Radiation Therapy after Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Despite salvage radiation therapy (SRT) for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP), some patients still progress to metastases. Identifying these men would allow them to undergo systemic therapy including testing novel therapies to reduce metastases risk. OBJECTIVE: To test whether the genomic classifier (GC) predicts development of metastatic disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective multi-center and multi-ethnic cohort study from two academic centers and one Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the United States involving 170 men receiving SRT for recurrent PCa post-RP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Time from SRT to development of metastatic disease tested using Cox regression, survival c-index, and decision curve analysis. Performance of GC was compared to the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Score and Briganti risk models based on these metrics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median 5.7 yr follow-up after SRT, 20 patients (12%) developed metastases. On multivariable analysis, for each 0.1 unit increase in GC (scaled from 0 to 1), the hazard ratio for metastasis was 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.16-2.17; p=0.002). Adjusting for androgen deprivation therapy did not materially change the results. The c-index for GC was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.88) versus 0.63-0.65 for published clinico-pathologic risk models. The 5-yr cumulative incidence of metastasis post-SRT in patients with low, intermediate, and high GC scores was 2.7%, 8.4%, and 33.1%, respectively (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While validation in larger, prospectively collected cohorts is required, these data suggest GC is a strong predictor of metastases among men receiving SRT for recurrent PCa post-RP, accurately identifying men who are excellent candidates for systemic therapy due to their very high-risk of metastases. PATIENT SUMMARY: Genomic classifier and two clinico-pathologic risk models were evaluated on their ability to predict metastases among men receiving salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Genomic classifier was able to identify candidates for further therapies due to their very high-risk of metastases.

Robotic radical prostatectomy with the "Veil of Aphrodite" technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing.

OBJECTIVE: We have recently described a modification (Veil of Aphrodite) designed to preserve the lateral prostatic fascia (LPF) during robotic prostatectomy. Here, we histologically compare the Veil of Aphrodite technique (VT) and standard nerve-sparing technique (ST). METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive prostatectomies performed by a single surgeon were processed by the whole-mount method. The right and left anterolateral (AL) zones of each prostate were independently evaluated for LPF, plane of excision, capsular incision/margin status, margin clearance, and quantitative analysis of periprostatic nerve bundles using S100 immunostain. RESULTS: There were 42 AL zones with ST and 30 with VT. In all 42 ST zones, the plane of excision was outside the prostate and a rim of LPF was present. The mean margin clearance was 1.4 mm (0.6-2.8 mm) and the mean nerve bundle count was 10 (3-19). Capsular incision and margin status were negative in all 42. For VT, 24 of 30 zones lacked LPF and the plane of excision ran just by the prostatic edge. The mean margin clearance was 0.3 mm (0-1.7 mm) and the mean nerve bundle count was two (0-11). Two VT AL zones revealed capsular incision; the margin was negative for tumour in all 30. Differences in the margin clearances and nerve bundle counts between ST and VT were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The LPF contains nerve bundles that run along the surface of the AL zones. The VT is a safe procedure that effectively preserves the LPF and appears to provide enhanced nerve sparing as compared to the ST.

Learning curve using robotic surgery.

The da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) surgical system is being used by an increasing number of surgeons across several surgical specialties. The robotic interface is different not only to open surgery, but also to laparoscopy because it involves remote surgical control, stereoscopic vision, and lack of haptic feedback. As the transition is made from traditional open to robotic surgery, factors such as learning of robotic skills, assessment of proficiency in robotics, and structured training for urologists in practice and residents assumes importance. Understanding how the robotic surgical technique is learned and how such learning can be best assessed will enable us to define protocols for training and set standards for proficiency. Learning curve and surgical dexterity are two parameters that are used to compare surgical learning and training. This article presents the current gold standard for assessing skill training and compares surgical skill acquisition and proficiency using conventional laparoscopy and robotic interfaces.

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy and urinary diversion.

Radical cystectomy remains the standard for muscle-invasive, organ-confined urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. With the emergence of minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of urologic cancers, technologic advances using laparoscopy have led to the development of robotic assistance to increase the feasibility of performing this formidable operation. In this article, we describe the procedure of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy with urinary diversion and review the pertinent literature.

Health-related quality of life in treatment for prostate cancer: looking beyond survival.

Improvements in detecting and treating prostate cancer account for the need to evaluate strategies for optimizing quality of life (QOL) among survivors of prostate cancer. Several management options are available when prostate cancer is diagnosed at an early stage. However, the optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer is unknown, and reports in the literature are controversial regarding the best treatment modality. In this article, the authors will review the standard therapies used to treat localized prostate cancer and the effects of these therapies on a patient's QOL. Ultimately, the decision of which treatment modality to choose will be a decision based largely on individual patient preferences in concert with his physician and family members, in view of a thorough understanding of the available treatments and the full range of possible treatment-related side effects.