PortalPublikationenAdherence of the indication to European Association of Urolo...

Adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology guideline recommended pelvic lymph node dissection at a high-volume Center: Differences between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Standard

Adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology guideline recommended pelvic lymph node dissection at a high-volume Center: Differences between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. / Schiffmann, J; Haese, A; Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi; Salomon, G; Steuber, T; Schlomm, T; Boehm, K; Beyer, B; Larcher, A; Michl, U; Heinzer, H; Huland, H; Graefen, M; Karakiewicz, P I.

in: EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC, Jahrgang 41, Nr. 11, 11.2015, S. 1547-53.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Schiffmann, J, Haese, A, Leyh-Bannurah, S-R, Salomon, G, Steuber, T, Schlomm, T, Boehm, K, Beyer, B, Larcher, A, Michl, U, Heinzer, H, Huland, H, Graefen, M & Karakiewicz, PI 2015, 'Adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology guideline recommended pelvic lymph node dissection at a high-volume Center: Differences between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy', EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC, Jg. 41, Nr. 11, S. 1547-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2015.05.008

APA

Schiffmann, J., Haese, A., Leyh-Bannurah, S-R., Salomon, G., Steuber, T., Schlomm, T., Boehm, K., Beyer, B., Larcher, A., Michl, U., Heinzer, H., Huland, H., Graefen, M., & Karakiewicz, P. I. (2015). Adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology guideline recommended pelvic lymph node dissection at a high-volume Center: Differences between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC, 41(11), 1547-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2015.05.008

Vancouver

Schiffmann J, Haese A, Leyh-Bannurah S-R, Salomon G, Steuber T, Schlomm T et al. Adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology guideline recommended pelvic lymph node dissection at a high-volume Center: Differences between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC. 2015 Nov;41(11):1547-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2015.05.008

Bibtex

@article{12004c439a6e4c50808653f5ff0f55fd,
title = "Adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology guideline recommended pelvic lymph node dissection at a high-volume Center: Differences between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Contemporary adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline recommendation for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at either open (ORP) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at a high-volume center is unknown. To assess guideline recommended and observed PLND rates in a high-volume center cohort.METHODS: We relied on the Martini-Clinic database and focused on patients treated with either ORP or RARP, between 2010 and 2013. Actual performed PLND was compared to European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline recommendation defined by nomogram predicted risk of lymph node invasion >5%. Categorical and multivariable logistic regression analyses targeted two endpoints: 1) probability of guideline recommended PLND and 2) probability of no PLND, when not recommended by EAU guideline.RESULTS: Within 7868 PCa patients, adherence to EAU PLND guideline recommendation was 97.1% at ORP and 96.8% at RARP (p = 0.7). When PLND was not recommended, it was more frequently performed at RARP (71.6%) than at ORP (66.2%) (p = 0.002). Gleason score, PSA and number of positive biopsy cores were independent predictors for both either PLND when recommended, or no PLND when not recommended (all p < 0.05). Clinical tumor stage, age and surgical approach were also independent predictors for no PLND when not recommended (all p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Adherence of the indication to EAU guideline recommended PLND is high at this high-volume center. Neither ORP nor RARP represent a barrier for PLND, when recommended. However, a high number of patients underwent PLND despite absence of guideline recommendation. Possible staging advantages and PLND related complications needs to be individually considered, especially, when LNI risk is low.",
author = "J Schiffmann and A Haese and Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah and G Salomon and T Steuber and T Schlomm and K Boehm and B Beyer and A Larcher and U Michl and H Heinzer and H Huland and M Graefen and Karakiewicz, {P I}",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
year = "2015",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1016/j.ejso.2015.05.008",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "1547--53",
journal = "EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC",
issn = "0748-7983",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology guideline recommended pelvic lymph node dissection at a high-volume Center: Differences between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

AU - Schiffmann, J

AU - Haese, A

AU - Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi

AU - Salomon, G

AU - Steuber, T

AU - Schlomm, T

AU - Boehm, K

AU - Beyer, B

AU - Larcher, A

AU - Michl, U

AU - Heinzer, H

AU - Huland, H

AU - Graefen, M

AU - Karakiewicz, P I

N1 - Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2015/11

Y1 - 2015/11

N2 - PURPOSE: Contemporary adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline recommendation for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at either open (ORP) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at a high-volume center is unknown. To assess guideline recommended and observed PLND rates in a high-volume center cohort.METHODS: We relied on the Martini-Clinic database and focused on patients treated with either ORP or RARP, between 2010 and 2013. Actual performed PLND was compared to European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline recommendation defined by nomogram predicted risk of lymph node invasion >5%. Categorical and multivariable logistic regression analyses targeted two endpoints: 1) probability of guideline recommended PLND and 2) probability of no PLND, when not recommended by EAU guideline.RESULTS: Within 7868 PCa patients, adherence to EAU PLND guideline recommendation was 97.1% at ORP and 96.8% at RARP (p = 0.7). When PLND was not recommended, it was more frequently performed at RARP (71.6%) than at ORP (66.2%) (p = 0.002). Gleason score, PSA and number of positive biopsy cores were independent predictors for both either PLND when recommended, or no PLND when not recommended (all p < 0.05). Clinical tumor stage, age and surgical approach were also independent predictors for no PLND when not recommended (all p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Adherence of the indication to EAU guideline recommended PLND is high at this high-volume center. Neither ORP nor RARP represent a barrier for PLND, when recommended. However, a high number of patients underwent PLND despite absence of guideline recommendation. Possible staging advantages and PLND related complications needs to be individually considered, especially, when LNI risk is low.

AB - PURPOSE: Contemporary adherence of the indication to European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline recommendation for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at either open (ORP) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at a high-volume center is unknown. To assess guideline recommended and observed PLND rates in a high-volume center cohort.METHODS: We relied on the Martini-Clinic database and focused on patients treated with either ORP or RARP, between 2010 and 2013. Actual performed PLND was compared to European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline recommendation defined by nomogram predicted risk of lymph node invasion >5%. Categorical and multivariable logistic regression analyses targeted two endpoints: 1) probability of guideline recommended PLND and 2) probability of no PLND, when not recommended by EAU guideline.RESULTS: Within 7868 PCa patients, adherence to EAU PLND guideline recommendation was 97.1% at ORP and 96.8% at RARP (p = 0.7). When PLND was not recommended, it was more frequently performed at RARP (71.6%) than at ORP (66.2%) (p = 0.002). Gleason score, PSA and number of positive biopsy cores were independent predictors for both either PLND when recommended, or no PLND when not recommended (all p < 0.05). Clinical tumor stage, age and surgical approach were also independent predictors for no PLND when not recommended (all p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Adherence of the indication to EAU guideline recommended PLND is high at this high-volume center. Neither ORP nor RARP represent a barrier for PLND, when recommended. However, a high number of patients underwent PLND despite absence of guideline recommendation. Possible staging advantages and PLND related complications needs to be individually considered, especially, when LNI risk is low.

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.05.008

DO - 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.05.008

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 26117216

VL - 41

SP - 1547

EP - 1553

JO - EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC

JF - EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC

SN - 0748-7983

IS - 11

ER -