PURPOSE: We have previously reported that there is a learning curve for open radical prostatectomy. In the current study we determined whether the effects of the learning curve are modified by patient risk, as defined by preoperative tumor characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 7,683 eligible patients with prostate cancer treated with open radical prostatectomy by 1 of 72 surgeons. Surgeon experience was coded as the total prior number of radical prostatectomies done by the surgeon before a patient surgery. Multivariate survival time regression models were used to evaluate the association between surgeon experience and biochemical recurrence separately in each preoperative risk group. RESULTS: We saw no evidence that patient risk affected the learning curve. There was a statistically significant association between biochemical recurrence and surgeon experience on all analyses. The absolute risk difference in a patient receiving treatment from a surgeon with 10 vs 250 prior radical prostatectomies was 6.6% (95% CI 3.4-10.3), 12.0% (95% CI 6.9-18.2) and 9.7% (95% CI 1.2-18.2) in patients at low, medium and high preoperative risk. Recurrence-free probability in patients with low risk disease approached 100% for the most experienced surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer control after radical prostatectomy improves with increasing surgeon experience irrespective of patient risk. Excellent rates of cancer control in patients with low risk disease treated by the most experienced surgeons suggest that the primary reason that recurrence develops in such patients is inadequate surgical technique. The results have significant implications for clinical care.
PURPOSE: We have previously reported that there is a learning curve for open radical prostatectomy. In the current study we determined whether the effects of the learning curve are modified by patient risk, as defined by preoperative tumor characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 7,683 eligible patients with prostate cancer treated with open radical prostatectomy by 1 of 72 surgeons. Surgeon experience was coded as the total prior number of radical prostatectomies done by the surgeon before a patient surgery. Multivariate survival time regression models were used to evaluate the association between surgeon experience and biochemical recurrence separately in each preoperative risk group. RESULTS: We saw no evidence that patient risk affected the learning curve. There was a statistically significant association between biochemical recurrence and surgeon experience on all analyses. The absolute risk difference in a patient receiving treatment from a surgeon with 10 vs 250 prior radical prostatectomies was 6.6% (95% CI 3.4-10.3), 12.0% (95% CI 6.9-18.2) and 9.7% (95% CI 1.2-18.2) in patients at low, medium and high preoperative risk. Recurrence-free probability in patients with low risk disease approached 100% for the most experienced surgeons. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer control after radical prostatectomy improves with increasing surgeon experience irrespective of patient risk. Excellent rates of cancer control in patients with low risk disease treated by the most experienced surgeons suggest that the primary reason that recurrence develops in such patients is inadequate surgical technique. The results have significant implications for clinical care.
Authors: Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Laura D Cramer; Jose G Guillem; Peter B Bach; Colin B Begg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Paul A Fearn; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fei Dong; Alwyn M Reuther; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Ming Zhou; Patrick A Kupelian; Eric A Klein Journal: Urology Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Fernando J Bianco; Angel M Serio; James A Eastham; Deborah Schrag; Eric A Klein; Alwyn M Reuther; Michael W Kattan; J Edson Pontes; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Therese A Stukel; Andrea E Siewers; Philip P Goodney; David E Wennberg; F Lee Lucas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah J Drouin; Christophe Vaessen; Vincent Hupertan; Eva Comperat; Vincent Misraï; Alain Haertig; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; François Richard; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Anders Bjartell; Stephen J Freedland; Brent K Hollenbeck; Jim C Hu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Maxine Sun; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mira Keyes; Juanita Crook; W James Morris; Gerard Morton; Tom Pickles; Nawaid Usmani; Eric Vigneault Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Edward M Schaeffer; Bruce J Trock; Jonathan I Epstein; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Patrick C Walsh Journal: Urology Date: 2009-11-22 Impact factor: 2.649