Initiatief Comprehensive Prostate Cancer Network (CPCN) in Zuidoost Nederland

Basten, Jean‐Paul A. van; Somford, R.; Baaij, Joost de; Sedelaar, Michiel; Vrijhof, Eric

doi:10.1007/s13629-017-0186-z

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2013, two hospitals (Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands [CHE] and Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands [CWH]) decided to collaborate and concentrate their RARP procedures in a single location (CWH) [15] . Between March 2013 and July 2016, 125 men with PCa diagnosed in CHE who were eligible for RP were referred to CWH.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the basis of these data, the Dutch Society of Urology increased the minimal annual number of RARP procedures per hospital to 100 in January 2019. To meet the volume standard of 100 procedures, networks and partnerships between hospitals have been formed in which RARP procedures are concentrated at one location [15] . One of the challenges for these collaborations is the uniformity of the diagnostic workup and the indication for RARP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning

Hoekstra

Goossens

Beulens

et al. 2021

European Urology Open Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The minimum volume standard is 100 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) procedures per hospital in the Netherlands, so patients have to be referred to high-volume surgical centers for RARP. During preoperative work-up, prostate biopsies taken elsewhere are reassessed, with upgrading or downgrading of the initial Gleason grade group a possible consequence. Objective To determine if prostate biopsy reassessment leads to adjustment of the surgical plan regarding a nerve-sparing approach and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) during RARP. Design, setting, and participants For 125 men who were referred to the Prosper prostate center at Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital (CWH) in the Netherlands between 2013 and 2016, results for the initial assessment of prostate biopsy by a local uropathologist were compared to results for biopsy reassessment by dedicated uropathologists at CWH. Results and limitations The pathologists reached agreement in 80% of the cases. In cases for which there was disagreement ( n = 25), biopsy revision involved upgrading of the initial grade group in 68% and downgrading in 32%. Biopsy reassessment led to a change in surgical plan in ten cases (8%). As a result of upgrading, ePLND was performed in three patients (2%). ePLND was omitted in one patient (1%) because of downgrading. For three patients (2%) a non–nerve-sparing procedure was planned after upgrading of the initial grade group. For four patients (3%), a unilateral nerve-sparing procedure was performed after downgrading. Conclusions This study shows that there is large interobserver agreement between uropathologists in the assessment of Gleason grade group in prostate biopsy specimens. Reassessment rarely leads to a change in surgical plan regarding the indication for a nerve-sparing approach and ePLND. Therefore, reassessment of prostate biopsy before radical prostatectomy can be omitted when the initial pathological assessment was performed by a dedicated uropathologist. Patient summary Reassessment of the initial prostate biopsy specimen for patients referred to a specialist center for robot-assisted removal of the prostate rarely influences surgical planning and can be omitted.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning

Hoekstra

Goossens

Beulens

et al. 2021

European Urology Open Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,10,11 The eld of video review and postoperative results analysis is focused on predicting postoperative results and reducing complications. 1,2,12,13 Even though multiple groups have investigated the possibility of video review it is unclear if video review has found its place in daily clinical practice. Earlier research of our group has shown Dutch experts are willing to participate in surgical video review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Survey on the Influence of Postoperative Results Analysis and Surgical Video Review on Postoperative Complications and Functional Results.

Beulens

Veerman

Brinkman

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Effective training and assessment of performance are fundamental to ensuring that surgeons reach their intended goal and operate safely with maximum preservation of functions. The field of video review and postoperative results analysis is focused on predicting postoperative results and reducing complications. Even though multiple groups have investigated the possibility of video review it is unclear if video review has found its place in daily clinical practice. To investigate the experiences and opinions of surgeons in the field of Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) on the influence of video reviews and postoperative results analysis on postoperative complications and functional results.Design, Setting, and Participants: RARP surgeons who were expected to perform video reviews and postoperative results analysis were identified. A total of 93 RARP surgeons were invited to participate in this survey. Online questionnaires were distributed. The questionnaire contained the following domains: background information of the RARP surgeons, evaluation of the use of postoperative results analysis and surgical video review, and future recommendations.Results: A total of 30 RARP surgeons responded to the questionnaire. 27 respondents organized periodical results analyses, 17 of them reviewed edited videos as part of standard clinical practice in their hospital. Most respondents recommend video review, and are convinced it improves outcomes through self-reflection, feedback from a colleague, or from seeing different techniques and ‘tricks’. Conclusion: RARP surgeons have accepted the implementation of postoperative results analysis and surgical video review as forms of quality assurance and self-reflection. They use edited surgical videos to gain insight into the specific facets of RARP related to postoperative complications and functional outcomes.

show abstract

Initiatief Comprehensive Prostate Cancer Network (CPCN) in Zuidoost Nederland

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning

Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Survey on the Influence of Postoperative Results Analysis and Surgical Video Review on Postoperative Complications and Functional Results.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About