C Groeben1, R Koch2, M Baunacke1, M P Wirth1, J Huber1. 1. Department of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 2. Department of Medical Statistics and Biometry, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess trends in the distribution of patients for radical prostatectomy in Germany from 2006 to 2013 and the impact of robotic surgery on annual caseloads. We hypothesized that the advent of robotics and the establishment of certified prostate cancer centers caused centralization in the German radical prostatectomy market. METHODS: Using remote data processing we analyzed the nationwide German billing data from 2006 to 2013. We supplemented this database with additional hospital characteristics like the prostate cancer center certification status. Inclusion criteria were a prostate cancer diagnosis combined with radical prostatectomy. Hospitals with certification or a surgical robot in 2009 were defined as 'early' group. Linear covariant-analytic models were applied to describe trends over time. RESULTS: Annual radical prostatectomy numbers declined from 28 374 (2006) to 21 850 (2013). High-volume hospitals (⩾100 cases) decreased from 87 (22.0%) in 2006 to 43 (10.4%) in 2013. Low-volume hospitals (<50 cases) increased from 193 (48.7%) to 280 (67.4%). Mean radical prostatectomy caseloads of hospitals with early vs without certification declined from 155 to 130 vs 77 to 39 (P=0.021 for trend comparison). Early robotic hospitals maintained their volume >200 cases per year contrary to the overall trend (P<0.001 for trend comparison). A multivariate model for caseload numbers of 2013 indicated a robotic system to be the most important factor for higher caseloads (multiplication factor 7.3; 95% confidence interval: 6.6-8.0). A prostate cancer center certification (multiplication factor 1.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.50-1.59) had a much smaller impact. CONCLUSIONS: We found decentralization of radical prostatectomy in Germany. The driving force for this development might consist in the overall decline of radical prostatectomy numbers. The most important factor for achieving higher caseloads was the presence of a robotic system. In order to optimize outcomes of radical prostatectomy additional health policy measures might be necessary.
BACKGROUND: To assess trends in the distribution of patients for radical prostatectomy in Germany from 2006 to 2013 and the impact of robotic surgery on annual caseloads. We hypothesized that the advent of robotics and the establishment of certified prostate cancer centers caused centralization in the German radical prostatectomy market. METHODS: Using remote data processing we analyzed the nationwide German billing data from 2006 to 2013. We supplemented this database with additional hospital characteristics like the prostate cancer center certification status. Inclusion criteria were a prostate cancer diagnosis combined with radical prostatectomy. Hospitals with certification or a surgical robot in 2009 were defined as 'early' group. Linear covariant-analytic models were applied to describe trends over time. RESULTS: Annual radical prostatectomy numbers declined from 28 374 (2006) to 21 850 (2013). High-volume hospitals (⩾100 cases) decreased from 87 (22.0%) in 2006 to 43 (10.4%) in 2013. Low-volume hospitals (<50 cases) increased from 193 (48.7%) to 280 (67.4%). Mean radical prostatectomy caseloads of hospitals with early vs without certification declined from 155 to 130 vs 77 to 39 (P=0.021 for trend comparison). Early robotic hospitals maintained their volume >200 cases per year contrary to the overall trend (P<0.001 for trend comparison). A multivariate model for caseload numbers of 2013 indicated a robotic system to be the most important factor for higher caseloads (multiplication factor 7.3; 95% confidence interval: 6.6-8.0). A prostate cancer center certification (multiplication factor 1.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.50-1.59) had a much smaller impact. CONCLUSIONS: We found decentralization of radical prostatectomy in Germany. The driving force for this development might consist in the overall decline of radical prostatectomy numbers. The most important factor for achieving higher caseloads was the presence of a robotic system. In order to optimize outcomes of radical prostatectomy additional health policy measures might be necessary.
Authors: Scott M Gilbert; Rodney L Dunn; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Zaojun Ye; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Urology Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Benjamin Hager; Klaus Kraywinkel; Bastian Keck; Alexander Katalinic; Martin Meyer; Sylke Ruth Zeissig; Roland Stabenow; Michael Froehner; Johannes Huber Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 6.280
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: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marnique Basto; Niranjan Sathianathen; Luc Te Marvelde; Shane Ryan; Jeremy Goad; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Anthony J Costello; Daniel A Moon; Alexander G Heriot; Jim Butler; Declan G Murphy Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Chad R Ritch; Amy J Graves; Kirk A Keegan; Shenghua Ni; Jeffrey C Bassett; Sam S Chang; Matthew J Resnick; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Angelika Borkowetz; Johannes Bruendl; Martin Drerup; Jonas Herrmann; Hendrik Isbarn; Burkhard Beyer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Luka Flegar; Aristeidis Zacharis; Cem Aksoy; Hendrik Heers; Marcus Derigs; Nicole Eisenmenger; Angelika Borkowetz; Christer Groeben; Johannes Huber Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Margit Pohle; Ahmed Magheli; Tom Fischer; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Jonas Busch; Hannes Cash; Kurt Miller; Stefan Hinz Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Ajay Aggarwal; Daniel Lewis; Malcolm Mason; Arnie Purushotham; Richard Sullivan; Jan van der Meulen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jae Heon Kim; So Young Kim; Seok-Joong Yun; Jae Il Chung; Hoon Choi; Ho Song Yu; Yun-Sok Ha; In-Chang Cho; Hyung Joon Kim; Hyun Chul Chung; Jun Sung Koh; Wun-Jae Kim; Jong-Hyock Park; Ji Youl Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 4.679