Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beitrag von „patient-reported outcomes“ zur Verbesserung der Ergebnisqualität

Radikale Prostatektomie in DKG-zertifizierten Zentren

Contribution of patient-reported outcomes to improving treatment outcomes

Radical prostatectomy in DKG-certified centers

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Onkologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

„Patient-reported outcomes measurements“ (PROM) haben sich ergänzend zu objektiven Messverfahren in vielen Bereichen der Onkologie etabliert. PROM erlauben die Beurteilung von Krankheitsverläufen und Therapieansprechen aus der Perspektive der Betroffenen und können zur langfristigen Behandlungszufriedenheit der Patienten beitragen.

Ergebnisse

Der Casemix-adjustierte Vergleich von PROM im Rahmen der deutschen Teilstudie der Prostate-Cancer-Outcome(PCO)-Studie berichtet von signifikanten Unterschieden in der Ergebnisqualität zertifizierter Zentren nach lokoregionärer Therapie des lokal begrenzten Prostatakarzinoms.

Schlussfolgerung

Am Beispiel der radikalen Prostatektomie werden im vorliegenden Artikel anhand der bestehenden Literatur die Entwicklungen von Maßnahmen, die in einer besseren Ergebnisqualität münden, erörtert. Der Blick auf internationale Kooperationsprojekte liefert wertvolle Anstöße und demonstriert, wie zielgerichtete Coaching-Programme helfen, die Ergebnisqualität zu steigern, und den Gedanken des Voneinander-Lernens unterstützen.

Abstract

Background

Patient-reported outcomes measurements (PROM) have proven to be a useful addition to traditional objective methods of measurements, involving many aspects of oncology. PROMs allow for a valid assessment of disease progression and therapeutic response from the patient’s perspective and therefore contribute to long-term treatment satisfaction.

Results

Case-mix-adjusted PROM reports as part of the Prostate Cancer Outcome (PCO) Study have shown significant variations in functional outcomes of prostate cancer patients following local treatment in certified cancer centers in Germany.

Conclusions

In this article, current literature data on appropriate interventions to improve radical prostatectomy outcomes are discussed. International collaborative projects regarding quality improvement have effectively shown the implementation of surgical training interventions to enhance patient-reported outcomes and promote the concept of learning from each other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. AK Laparoskopie und roboterassistierte Chirurgie der DGU, Deutsche Gesellschaft für roboterassistierte Urologie, Siemer, Stolzenburg et al. (2021) Deutsches Roboter Urologie Curriculum

    Google Scholar 

  2. Basal S, Wambi C, Acikel C, Gupta M, Badani K (2013) Optimal strategy for penile rehabilitation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy based on preoperative erectile function. BJU Int 111(4):658–665

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, Oerline M, Carlin AM, Nunn AR, Dimick J, Banerjee M et al (2013) Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 369(15):1434–1442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Borregales LD, Berg WT, Tal O, Wambi C, Kaufman S, Gaya JM, Urzúa C, Badani KK (2013) ‘Trifecta’ after radical prostatectomy: is there a standard definition? BJU Int 112(1):60–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Butea-Bocu MC, Müller G, Pucheril D, Kröger E, Otto U (2021) Is there a clinical benefit from prostate cancer center certification? An evaluation of functional and oncologic outcomes from 22,649 radical prostatectomy patients. World J Urol 39(1):5–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cathcart P, Sridhara A, Ramachandran N, Briggs T, Senthil N, Kelly J (2015) Achieving quality assurance of prostate cancer surgery during reorganisation of cancer services. Eur Urol 68(1):22–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen I‑HA, Ghazi A, Sridhar A, Stoyanov D, Slack M, Kelly JD, Collins JW (2020) Evolving robotic surgery training and improving patient safety, with the integration of novel technologies. World J Urol 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03467-7

  8. Chen J, Oh PJ, Cheng N, Shah A, Montez J, Jarc A, Liheng G, Inderbir GS et al (2018) Use of automated performance metrics to measure surgeon performance during robotic vesicourethral anastomosis and methodical development of a training tutorial. J Urol 200(4):895–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Collins JW, Patel H, Adding C, Annerstedt M, Dasgupta P, Khan SM, Artibani W, Gaston R et al (2016) Enhanced recovery after robot-assisted radical Cystectomy: EAU robotic urology section scientific working group consensus view. Eur Urol 70(4):649–660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Das Handbuch zur Prostata Cancer Outcome (PCO) Studie zum TrueNTH Global Registry im Zertifizierungssystem der DKG. https://www.pco-study.com/DownloadData/pco-handbuch-D1%20(200402).pdf. Zugegriffen: 31. März 2021

  11. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft Das Zertifizierungsprogramm der deutschen Krebsgesellschaft. https://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/deutsche-krebsgesellschaft/zertifizierung.html. Zugegriffen: 31. März 2021

  12. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft (Hrsg) (2020) Prostate Cancer Outcome (PCO) Studie – Ergebnisbericht an die Studienzentren Dezember 2020. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  13. ERASSociety.org® https://erassociety.org/specialties/. Zugegriffen: 31. März 2021

  14. Evans SM, Millar JL, Moore CM, Lewis JD, Huland H, Sampurno F, Connor SE, Villanti P et al (2017) Cohort profile: the TrueNTH Global Registry—an international registry to monitor and improve localised prostate cancer health outcomes. BMJ Open 7(11):e17006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Menon M, Montorsi F et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):405–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Frees SK, Aning J, Black P, Struss W, Bell R, Chavez-Munoz C, Gleave M, So AI (2018) A prospective randomized pilot study evaluating an ERAS protocol versus a standard protocol for patients treated with radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer. World J Urol 36(2):215–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gershman B, Meier SK, Jeffery MM, Moreira DM, Tollefson MK, Kim SP, Karnes RJ, Shah ND (2017) Redefining and contextualizing the hospital volume-outcome relationship for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications for centralization of care. J Urol 198(1):92–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldenberg MG, Goldenberg L, Grantcharov TP (2017) Surgeon performance predicts early continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 31(9):858–863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldenberg MG, Nabhani J, Wallis CJD, Chopra S, Hung AJ, Schuckman A, Djaladat H, Daneshmand S et al (2017) Feasibility of expert and crowd-sourced review of intraoperative video for quality improvement of intracorporeal urinary diversion during robotic radical cystectomy. Can Urol Assoc J 11(10):331–336

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hogg ME, Zenati M, Novak S, Chen Y, Jun Y, Steve J, Kowalsky SJ, Bartlett DL et al (2016) Grading of surgeon technical performance predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula for pancreaticoduodenectomy independent of patient-related variables. Ann Surg 264(3):482–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hussein AA, Ghani KR, Peabody J, Sarle R, Abaza R, Daniel E, Hu J, Fumo M et al (2017) Development and validation of an objective scoring tool for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: prostatectomy assessment and competency evaluation. J Urol 197(5):1237–1244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWIG) (2016) Allgemeine Methoden. https://www.iqwig.de/. Zugegriffen: 30. März 2021

  23. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard sets. https://www.ichom.org/standardsets/. Zugegriffen: 31. März 2021

  24. Jenkins DP, Cooper G (2017) Publicly available outcome data for individual surgeons: lessons from cardiac surgery. Eur Urol 71(3):309–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Karl A, Buchner A, Becker A, Staehler M, Seitz M, Khoder W, Schneevoigt B, Weninger E et al (2014) A new concept for early recovery after surgery for patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: results of a prospective randomized study. J Urol 191(2):335–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kowalski C, Ansmann L (n. d.) Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung (krebsgesellschaft.de)

  27. Kowalski C, Hübner J (2020) Patient-reported outcome measures. Forum 35(5):401–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kowalski C, Roth R, Carl G, Feick G, Oesterle A, Hinkel A, Steiner T, Brock M et al (2020) A multicenter paper-based and web-based system for collecting patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer: first experiences. J Patient Rep Outcomes 4(1):56–57

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lent V, Schultheis HM, Strauß L, Laaser MK, Buntrock S (2013) Belastungsinkontinenz nach Prostatektomie in der Versorgungswirklichkeit. Urologe A 52(8):1104–1109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lützner C, Lange T, Lützner J (2017) Grundlagen patientenberichteter Ergebnisse (Patient-reported Outcome – PRO). Orthop Unfallchir Up2date 12(06):661–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Martin NE, Massey L, Stowell C, Bangma C, Briganti A, Bill-Axelson A, Blute M, Catto J et al (2015) Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67(3):460–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). https://musicurology.com. Zugegriffen: 31. März 2021

  33. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB (2016) The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther 20(2):105–113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63(7):737–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Myers SN, Ghani KR, Dunn RL, Lane BR, Schervish EW, Yuqing G, Linsell SM, Miller DC et al (2016) Notable outcomes and trackable events after surgery: evaluating an uncomplicated recovery after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 196(2):399–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Patel VR, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Schatloff O, Coelho RF, Valero R, Ko YH, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ et al (2011) Critical review of ‘pentafecta’ outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in high-volume centres. BJU Int 108(6b):1007–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA, Camacho I, Coughlin G et al (2011) Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59(5):702–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Paterson C, McLuckie S, Yew-Fung C, Benjie T, Lang S, Nabi G (2016) Videotaping of surgical procedures and outcomes following extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol 114(8):1016–1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Peabody JO, Dunn RL, Brachulis A, Tae K, Linsell S, Lane BR, Sarle R, Montie J et al (2017) PD58-06 SURGICAL SKILL AND PATIENT OUTCOMES AFTER ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. J Urol 197(e1129):4

    Google Scholar 

  40. Petzold T, Deckert S, Eberlein-Gonska M, Michael AD, Schmitt J (2015) Evidenzbasierte Qualitätsmessung als Voraussetzung für Value-based Healthcare. Monit Versorgungsforsch 8(03):49–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Porter ME, Larsson S, Lee TH (2016) Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. N Engl J Med 374(6):504–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Prebay ZJ, Peabody JO, Miller DC, Ghani KR (2019) Video review for measuring and improving skill in urological surgery. Nat Rev Urol 16(4):261–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. PROQOLID database Sucheintrag vom 31.03.2021. www.eprovide.mapi-trust.org. Zugegriffen: 31.03.2021

  44. Schlomm T, Huland H, Graefen M (2014) Improving outcome of surgical procedures is not possible without adequate quality measurement. Eur Urol 65(6):1017–1019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sibert NT, Hein R, Dieng S, Wesselmann S, Kowalski C (2019) Casemix-Adjustierung für Patient-reported outcome-Befragungen: Erste Ergebnisse aus der PCO-Studie. Gesundheitswesen 81(08/09):1G–12

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sibert NT, Dieng S, Oesterle A, Feick G, Carl G, Steiner T, Minner J, Roghmann F et al (2021) Psychometric validation of the German version of the EPIC-26 questionnaire for patients with localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. World J Urol 39(1):11–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Skolarus TA, Dunn RL, Sanda MG, Chang P, Greenfield TK, Litwin MS, Wei JT et al (2015) Minimally important difference for the expanded prostate cancer index composite short form. Urology 85(1):101–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Stranne J, Axen E, Franck-Lissbrant I, Fransson P, Frånlund M, Hugosson J, Khatami A, Koss-Modig K et al (2020) Single institution followed by national implementation of systematic surgical quality control and feedback for radical prostatectomy: a 20-year journey. World J Urol 38(6):1397–1411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tannenbaum C, Corcos J (2008) Outcomes in urinary incontinence: reconciling clinical relevance with scientific rigour. Eur Urol 53(6):1151–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. U.S. Department of Health Human Services F. D. A. Center for Drug Evaluation Research, U. S. Department of Health Human Services F. D. A. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health Human Services F. D. A. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2006) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vickers AJ, Sjoberg D, Basch E, Sculli F, Shouery M, Laudone V, Touijer K, Eastham J et al (2012) How do you know if you are any good? A surgeon performance feedback system for the outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 61(2):284–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wesselmann S (2015) Anforderungen an Organkrebszentren. Urologe 54(11):1517–1522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Williams K, Sansoni J, Morris D et al (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures: literature review. ASQHC, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wolboldt M, Saltzman B, Tenbrink P, Shahrour K, Jain S (2016) Same-day discharge for patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is safe and feasible: results of a pilot study. J Endourol 30(12):1296–1300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHO- QOL) (1995) The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 41:1403–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wu RC, Prebay ZJ, Patel P, Tae K, Qi J, Telang J, Linsell S, Kleer E et al (2020) Using video review to understand the technical variation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a statewide surgical collaborative. World J Urol 38(7):1607–1613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Würnschimmel C, Tilki D, Huland H, Graefen M, Beyer B (2021) Qualitätskriterien in der Urologie. Urologe A 60(2):193–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik-und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch-Straße, 17475, Greifswald, Deutschland

    P. Fülkell

Authors
  1. P. Fülkell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Fülkell.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

P. Fülkell gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fülkell, P. Beitrag von „patient-reported outcomes“ zur Verbesserung der Ergebnisqualität. Onkologe 27, 992–1003 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761-021-01019-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761-021-01019-1

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation