Dataset Information

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Testing the Physician-level Segregated and Differential Treatment Hypotheses.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mechanisms underlying racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open radical prostatectomy (ORP) are unclear. We sought to test two physician-level hypotheses: (1)-Segregated Treatment and (2)-Differential Treatment.

Methods

This observational study used the New York State Cancer Registry linked to discharge records and included patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer during 10/1/2008-12/31/2018. For hypothesis-(1), we examined the association between patient race and ethnicity and treating surgeon RARP use (high-use surgeons, low-use surgeons, and surgeons at non-RARP facilities). For hypothesis-(2), we determined the association between patient race and ethnicity and receipt of RARP when matching on treating surgeon, age, year of procedure, and Gleason group. We explored the role of insurance in both analyses.

Results

This study included 18,926 patients (8.0% Hispanic, 16.9% non-Hispanic Black, 75.1% non-Hispanic White), with a mean age of 60.4 ± 7.1 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients had higher odds of being treated by low-RARP-use surgeons (OR[95% CI]: 2.16[1.20-3.88] and 1.76[1.06-2.94], respectively) and by surgeons at non-RARP facilities (OR[95% CI]: 4.19[2.18-8.07] and 4.60[2.58-8.23], respectively). In the matched cohorts, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to receive RARP than non-Hispanic White patients (OR[95% CI]: 0.78[0.62-0.98] and 0.75[0.57-1.00], respectively). These associations were partially attenuated after accounting for insurance.

Conclusions

Racial and ethnic disparities in RARP use are related to patients being treated by different surgeons and treated differently by the same surgeons. Identifying and addressing multilevel barriers to equitable surgical treatment is needed to reduce disparities among prostate cancer patients.

SUBMITTER: Mao J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11340640 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: testing the physician-level segregated and differential treatment hypotheses.

Mao Jialin J Genkinger Jeanine M JM Rundle Andrew G AG Wright Jason D JD Insaf Tabassum Z TZ Schymura Maria J MJ Hu Jim C JC Tehranifar Parisa P

JNCI cancer spectrum 20240701 4

<h4>Background</h4>Mechanisms underlying racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open radical prostatectomy (ORP) are unclear. We sought to test 2 physician-level hypotheses: 1) Segregated Treatment and 2) Differential Treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>This observational study used the New York State Cancer Registry linked to discharge records and included patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer from October 1, 2008 to December 31, ...[more]

PMID: 39051676

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is not clear whether the routine placement of a pelvic drain after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a necessity. The aim of this study was to investigate this through a meta-analysis of RCTs and non-randomized studies.MethodsA search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science, up to 9 March 2023, for clinical trials comparing no drain with pelvic drain placement for patients with prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. A random-effect model was assumed for all analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and, for non-randomized studies, the ROBINS-I tool was used (where ROBINS-I stands for Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions). This meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023406429).ResultsA total of six studies with 1480 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both the meta-analysis of RCTs and the meta-analysis of non-randomized studies showed that patients without drains had a similar estimated blood loss (mean difference 40.49 ml, 95% c.i. -59.75 to 140.74 ml, P = 0.430, and mean difference -14.20 ml, 95% c.i. -32.26 to 3.87 ml, P = 0.120 respectively), overall complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.35 to 1.04, P = 0.070, and OR 0.90, 95% c.i. 0.59 to 1.39, P = 0.640 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complication rate (OR 0.62, 95% c.i. 0.34 to 1.13, P = 0.120, and OR 0.83, 95% c.i. 0.28 to 2.51, P = 0.750 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade III-V complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.10 to 3.69, P = 0.590, and OR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.25 to 3.39, P = 0.900 respectively), and duration of hospital stay (mean difference -0.08 days, 95% c.i. -0.45 to 0.29 days, P = 0.670, and mean difference -0.64 days, 95% c.i. -2.67 to 1.39 days, P = 0.540 respectively) compared with routinely drained patients. Meta-analysis of non-randomized studies revealed that the duration of operation for patients without drains was shorter than that for patients with drains (mean difference -34.88 min, 95% c.i. -43.58 to -26.18 min, P < 0.001), but the meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference -7.64 min, 95% c.i. -15.61 to 0.32 min, P = 0.060).ConclusionThe intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients without drains were not inferior to those of patients with drains. In selected patients, pelvic drains can be omitted after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe in detail the techniques for transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the da Vinci Si/Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and to evaluate functional and oncological outcomes in 35 patients with prostate cancer.Patients and methodsThirty-five patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled for transvesical RARP. The patients' preoperative data (mean ± sd age 63.4 ± 8.1 years, body mass index 28.6 ± 5.3 kg/m2 , total prostate-specific antigen 10.8 ± 4.9 ng/mL and prostate volume 30.6 ± 14.4 mL, and median [interquartile range {IQR}] biopsy Gleason score 6 [6-7], and International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]-5 score 18 [16-20]) were collected. Preoperative assessment revealed 28 cases of cT2a and seven cases of cT2b disease. All patients were continent preoperatively (defined as no pad required or one dry pad per day as a precaution). Surgical results and peri-operative complications were assessed. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively.ResultsThe mean operating time was 150 ± 35 min. Estimated blood loss was 100 ± 45 mL. Urinary infection was noted in one patient and managed with levofloxacin. Another patient complained of nocturia on postoperative day 14, which was relieved with solifenacin succinate. Urethral catheters were removed on postoperative day 7. Thirty-two patients achieved immediate urinary continence, with three patients returning to full continence on postoperative day 14. Postoperative pathology confirmed 24 pT2a cases, nine pT2b cases and two pT2c cases (median [IQR] Gleason score 6 [6-7]). Positive surgical margins were found in four patients (11.4%). No urethral stricture or urinary leakage was noted on urethrocystography taken 3 months after surgery. Urodynamic studies were performed preoperatively and 6 months after surgery: median (IQR) maximum urinary flow 12.2 (10.2-14.9) vs 13.7 (10.1-15.0) mL/s; bladder capacity 385.3 (351.3-410.2) vs 370.2 (330.1-395.4) mL; and voiding phase detrusor contractility 38.5 (27.8-42.3) vs 35.6 (28.3-41.3) mmH2 O, respectively. During a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, no biochemical recurrence was noted in any patient. The median (IQR) IIEF-5 score was 17 (16-19).ConclusionsThe transvesical approach is a valid alternative to RARP in selected patients, providing promising postoperative urinary continence. Long-term functional and oncological results require further investigation.