Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the number of radical prostatectomies per hospital per year is associated with stage distribution, surgical techniques or quality related outcome in Germany. Materials and Methods: A German Internet-based database was analyzed. Hospitals were categorized according to their yearly radical prostatectomy (RP) volume. Patient’s characteristics, RP techniques, and outcome-related parameters were compared between the different hospital volume categories. Results: A total of 6,447 patients were analyzed. The highest rate of organ-confined disease and the lowest rate of extracapsular invasion have been demonstrated in very low-volume centres (72.6% <pT3, 27% pT ≥3). High-volume centres had the highest rate of open (92%) and robot-assisted RP approaches (5.5%). Regarding outcome, the lowest rate of positive surgical margins (11.7%) and the lowest intraoperative blood loss (3.3 g/dL) have been observed in high-volume centres. Conclusion: A higher number or RPs per year was associated with better outcome regarding quality-related parameters like surgical margin status and blood loss. However, the tumour stage distribution did not significantly differ between the low, intermediate and high-volume centres suggesting that till date the allocation of patients to the different centres is not triggered by the tumour risk classification.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy, Hospital volume, Radical prostatectomy quality, Surgical techniques
1.
Groeben C, Koch R, Baunacke M, Wirth MP, Huber J: High volume is the key for improving in-hospital outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2013. World J Urol 2017; 35: 1045–1053.
2.
Pavlovich CP, Rocco B, Druskin SC, Davis JW: Urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy-anatomical/reconstructive and nerve-sparing techniques to improve outcomes. BJU Int 2017; 120: 185–196.
3.
Trinh QD, Sun M, Kim SP, Sammon J, Kowalczyk KJ, Friedman AA, Sukumar S, Ravi P, Muhletaler F, Agarwal PK, Shariat SF, Hu JC, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI: The impact of hospital volume, residency, and fellowship training on perioperative outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urologic Oncol 2014; 32: 29.e13–e20.
4.
Gershman B, Meier SK, Jeffery MM, Moreira DM, Tollefson MK, Kim SP, Karnes RJ, Shah ND: Redefining and contextualizing the hospital volume-outcome relationship for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications for centralization of care. J Urol 2017; 198: 92–99.
5.
Tallman JE, Packiam VT, Wroblewski KE, Paner GP, Eggener SE: Influence of pathologist experience on positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2017; 35: 461.e1–461.e6.
6.
Stiftung B: Weisse Liste, 2015. https://weisse-liste.de
7.
Avulova S, Zhao Z, Lee D, Huang LC, Koyama T, Hoffman KE, Conwill RM, Wu XC, Chen V, Cooperberg MR, Goodman M, Greenfield S, Hamilton AS, Hashibe M, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Resnick MJ, Penson DF, Barocas DA: The effect of nerve sparing status on sexual and urinary function: 3-year results from the CEASAR study. J Urol 2018; 199: 1202–1209.
8.
Nyarangi-Dix JN, Tichy D, Hatiboglu G, Pahernik S, Tosev G, Hohenfellner M: Complete bladder neck preservation promotes long-term post-prostatectomy continence without compromising midterm oncological outcome: analysis of a randomised controlled cohort. World J Urol 2018; 36: 349–355.
9.
Herlemann A, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR: Community-based outcomes of open versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 215–223.
10.
Barocas DA, Mitchell R, Chang SS, Cookson MS: Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2010; 28: 243–250.
11.
Pompe RS, Tian Z, Preisser F, Tennstedt P, Beyer B, Michl U, Graefen M, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI, Tilki D: Short- and long-term functional outcomes and quality of life after radical prostatectomy: patient-reported outcomes from a tertiary high-volume center. Eur Urol Focus 2017; 3: 615–620.
12.
Groeben C, Koch R, Baunacke M, Wirth MP, Huber J: Robots drive the German radical prostatectomy market: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2013. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2016; 19: 412–416.
13.
Maurice MJ, Zhu H, Kim SP, Abouassaly R: Robotic prostatectomy is associated with increased patient travel and treatment delay. Can Urol Assoc J 2016; 10: 192–201.
14.
Schiffmann J, Larcher A, Sun M, Tian Z, Berdugo J, Leva I, Widmer H, Lattouf JB, Zorn K, Haese A, Shariat SF, Saad F, Montorsi F, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI: Differences in patient characteristics among men choosing open or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in contemporary practice – analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. Urol Int 2017; 98: 40–48.
15.
Hirasawa Y, Yoshioka K, Nasu Y, Yamamoto M, Hinotsu S, Takenaka A, Fujisawa M, Shiroki R, Tozawa K, Fukasawa S, Kashiwagi A, Tatsugami K, Tachibana M, Terachi T, Gotoh M; Japanese Society of Endourology: Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on the safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study based on a national database. Urol Int 2017; 98: 334–342.
16.
Orberger M, Palisaar J, Roghmann F, Mittelstadt L, Bischoff P, Noldus J, Loppenberg B: Association between the surgical apgar score and perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2017; 98: 61–70.
17.
Kranz J, Deserno O, Fischer K, Anheuser P, Reisch B, Steffens J: [Radical prostatectomy in a certified prostate cancer center: medical treatment and outcome]. Urologe A 2014; 53: 1350–1357.
18.
Leow JJ, Leong EK, Serrell EC, Chang SL, Gruen RL, Png KS, Beaule LT, Trinh QD, Menon MM, Sammon JD: Systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Irology Focus 2017:pii:S2405-4569(17)30076-7.
19.
Fichtner J, Kowalski C, Wesselmann S, Albers P: [Indicator analysis of prostate cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society 2015]. Urologe 2015; 54: 1530.
20.
Albkri A, Girier D, Mestre A, Costa P, Droupy S, Chevrot A: Urinary incontinence, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret after prostate cancer treatment: a French National Study. Urol Int 2018; 100: 50–56.
21.
Pushkar DY, Dyakov VV, Vasilyev AO, Kotenko DV: [Comparison of functional outcomes after retropubic and robot-assisted radical nerve-sparing prostatectomy conducted by surgeons with total caseloads of over 1000 prostatectomies]. Urologiia 2017: 50–53.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.