Search results for: Suseela D. Chandran

Authors: Jemini Vyas, Oluwatobi Adeyoe, Jenny Branagan, Chandran Tanabalan, Aakash Pai

Abstract:

Introduction: Radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are both viable options for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Over the years medicine has evolved towards a patient-centred approach. Patient decision-making is not motivated by clinical outcomes alone. Geographical location and ease of access to treating clinician are contributory factors. With the development of robotic surgery, prostatectomy has been centralised into tertiary centres. This has impacted on the distances that patients and their families are expected to travel. Methods: A single centre retrospective study was undertaken over a five-year period. All patients with localised prostate cancer, undergoing radical radiotherapy or prostatectomy were collected pre-centralisation. This was compared to the total number undergoing these treatments post centralisation. Results: Pre-centralisation, both radiotherapy and prostatectomy groups had to travel a median of less than five miles for treatment. Post-centralisation of pelvic surgery, prostatectomy patients had to travel a median of more than 40 miles, whilst travel distance for the radiotherapy group was unchanged. In the post centralisation cohort, there was a 63% decline in the number of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy per month from a mean of 5.1 to 1.9. The radical radiotherapy group had a concurrent 41% increase in patient numbers with a mean increase from 13.3 to 18.8 patients per month. Conclusion: Choice of radical treatment in localised prostate cancer is based on multiple factors. This study infers that local availability can influence choice of radical treatment. It is imperative that efforts are made to maintain accessibility to all viable options for prostate cancer patients, so that patient choice is not compromised.

Keywords: prostate, prostatectomy, radiotherapy, centralisation

Procedia PDF Downloads 84

Authors: Jemini Vyas, Oluwatobi Adeyoe, Jenny Branagan, Chandran Tanabalan, John Beatty, Aakash Pai

Abstract:

Introduction: The development of robotic surgery has accelerated centralisation to tertiary centres, where robotic radical prostatectomy (RP) is offered. The purpose of concentrating treatment in high volume specialist centres is to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the impact on clinical outcomes of centralisation for locally diagnosed patients undergoing RP. Methods: Clinical outcomes for 169 consecutive laparoscopic & open RP pre-centralisation were retrospectively compared with 50 consecutive robotic RP conducted over a similar period post-centralisation. Preoperative risk stratification and time to surgery were collected. Perioperative outcomes, including length of stay (LOS) and complications, were collated. Post-operative outcomes, including erectile dysfunction (ED), biochemical recurrence (BCR), and urinary continence, were assessed. Results: Preoperative risk stratification showed no difference between the two groups. The median time from diagnosis to treatment was similar between the two groups (pre-centralisation, 121 days, post-centralisation, 117 days). The mean length of stay (pre-centralisation, 2.1 days, post-centralisation, 1.6 days) showed no significant difference (p=0.073). Proportion of overall complications (pre-centralisation, 11.4%, post-centralisation, 8.7%) and complications, above Clavien-Dindo 2, were similar between the two groups (pre-centralisation1.2%, post-centralisation 2.2%). Post operative functional parameters, including continence and ED, were comparable. Five-year BCR free rate was 78% for the pre-centralisation group and 79% for the post centralisation group. Conclusion: For our cohort of patients, clinical outcomes have remained static during centralisation. It is imperative that centralisation is accompanied by increased capacity, streamlining of pathways, and training to ensure that improved quality of care is achieved. Our institution has newly acquired a robot, and prospectively studying this data may support the reversal of centralisation for RP surgery.

Keywords: prostate, cancer, prostatectomy, clinical

Procedia PDF Downloads 85