Robot-assisted versus other types of radical prostatectomy: population-based safety and cost comparison in Japan, 2012-2013.

In 2012, Japanese national insurance started covering robot-assisted surgery. We carried out a population-based comparison between robot-assisted and three other types of radical prostatectomy to evaluate the safety of robot-assisted prostatectomy during its initial year. We abstracted data for 7202 open, 2483 laparoscopic, 1181 minimal incision endoscopic, and 2126 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies for oncological stage T3 or less from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database (April 2012-March 2013). Complication rate, transfusion rate, anesthesia time, postoperative length of stay, and cost were evaluated by pairwise one-to-one propensity-score matching and multivariable analyses with covariants of age, comorbidity, oncological stage, hospital volume, and hospital academic status. The proportion of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies dramatically increased from 8.6% to 24.1% during the first year. Compared with open, laparoscopic, and minimal incision endoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery was generally associated with a significantly lower complication rate (odds ratios, 0.25, 0.20, 0.33, respectively), autologous transfusion rate (0.04, 0.31, 0.10), homologous transfusion rate (0.16, 0.48, 0.14), lower cost excluding operation (differences, -5.1%, -1.8% [not significant], -10.8%) and shorter postoperative length of stay (-9.1%, +0.9% [not significant], -18.5%, respectively). However, robot-assisted surgery also resulted in a + 42.6% increase in anesthesia time and +52.4% increase in total cost compared with open surgery (all P < 0.05). Introduction of robotic surgery led to a dynamic change in prostate cancer surgery. Even in its initial year, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was carried out with several favorable safety aspects compared to the conventional surgeries despite its having the longest anesthesia time and the highest cost.

Nomograms for predicting the risk of arm lymphedema after axillary dissection in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lymphedema (LE) after axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is a multifactorial, chronic, and disabling condition that currently affects an estimated 4 million people worldwide. Although several risk factors have been described, it is difficult to estimate the risk in individual patients. We therefore developed nomograms based on a large data set. METHODS: Clinicopathologic features were collected from a prospective cohort comprising 1,054 women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing ALND as part of their surgical treatment from August 2001 to November 2002. LE was defined as a volume difference of at least 200 ml between arms at 6 months or more after surgery. The cumulative incidence of LE was ascertained by the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to predict the risk of developing LE on the basis of the available data at each time point: model 1, preoperatively; model 2, within 6 months from surgery; and model 3, at 6 months or later after surgery. RESULTS: The 5 year cumulative incidence of LE was 30.3%. Independent risk factors for LE were age, body mass index, ipsilateral arm chemotherapy infusions, level of ALND, location of radiotherapy field, development of postoperative seroma, infection, and early edema. When applied to the validation set, the concordance indices were 0.706, 0.729, and 0.736 for models 1, 2, and 3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed nomograms can help physicians and patients predict the 5 year probability of LE after ALND for breast cancer. Free online versions of the nomograms are available at http://www.lymphedemarisk.com/ .