| 1. |
- Persson, Josefin, et al.
(författare)
-
Interobserver variability in the pathological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens: Findings of the Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO) study.
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian journal of urology. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 2168-1813 .- 2168-1805. ; 48:2, s. 160-167
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Abstract Objective. The aim of this study was to strengthen the validity of future findings in the Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO) study by investigating the extent of interobserver variability between local pathologists and re-evaluating reference pathologists. Material and methods. LAPPRO is a Swedish prospective study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy to open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Patients were recruited from 2008 to 2011. A random selection of 289 prostatectomy specimens was re-evaluated, in a blind fashion, by two reference pathologists from a University Hospital in Denmark and compared with original reports from local pathologists. Results. The exact concordance rate of Gleason score (GS) between local and reference pathologists was 56% (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.54). Exact concordance rates (κ value) for pathological tumour stage (pT), extraprostatic extension (EPE), surgical margin status (SMS) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) were 87% (0.63), 86% (0.59), 92% (0.76) and 98% (0.82), respectively. In subanalyses for surgical technique, exact concordance rates of GS, pT, EPE, SMS and SVI were 58%, 83%, 84%, 90% and 97%, respectively, for surgical technique 1 (ST1), compared to 55%, 88%, 87%, 93% and 98%, for surgical technique 2 (ST2). In ST1 specimens undergrading of GS by the local pathologists compared to central review was more common than overgrading (26% vs 16%). The inverse relationship was seen in ST2 specimens (14% vs 32%). Conclusion. Re-evaluation of randomly selected prostatectomy specimens in the LAPPRO cohort showed comparable results compared to previous studies of this kind. A systematic variation in the assessment of GS exists, attributable to individual differences in judgement between pathologists. Dichotomising GS (≤ 7 vs ≥ 8) overcomes the systematic variation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Secin, Fernando P., et al.
(författare)
-
The Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: An International Multicenter Study
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Journal of Urology. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1527-3792 .- 0022-5347. ; 184:6, s. 2291-2296
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: It is not yet possible to estimate the number of cases required for a beginner to become expert in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We estimated the learning curve of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for positive surgical margins compared to a published learning curve for open radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: We reviewed records from 8,544 consecutive patients with prostate cancer treated laparoscopically by 51 surgeons at 14 academic institutions in Europe and the United States. The probability of a positive surgical margin was calculated as a function of surgeon experience with adjustment for pathological stage, Gleason score and prostate specific antigen. A second model incorporated prior experience with open radical prostatectomy and surgeon generation. Results: Positive surgical margins occurred in 1,862 patients (22%). There was an apparent improvement in surgical margin rates up to a plateau at 200 to 250 surgeries. Changes in margin rates once this plateau was reached were relatively minimal relative to the CIs. The absolute risk difference for 10 vs 250 prior surgeries was 4.8% (95% CI 1.5, 8.5). Neither surgeon generation nor prior open radical prostatectomy experience was statistically significant when added to the model. The rate of decrease in positive surgical margins was more rapid in the open vs laparoscopic learning curve. Conclusions: The learning curve for surgical margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy plateaus at approximately 200 to 250 cases. Prior open experience and surgeon generation do not improve the margin rate, suggesting that the rate is primarily a function of specifically laparoscopic training and experience.
|
|
