Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 1;157(2):136-144.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.6215.

Patient- and Surgeon-Level Variation in Patient-Reported Sexual Function Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy Over 2 Years: Results From a Statewide Surgical Improvement Collaborative

Nnenaya Agochukwu-Mmonu  1   2 , Ji Qi  3   4 , Rodney L Dunn  3   4 , James Montie  3   4 , Daniela Wittmann  3   4 , David Miller  3   4 , Rabia Martin  3   4 , Tae Kim  5 , William K Johnston 3rd  6 , James Peabody  7
Affiliations

Patient- and Surgeon-Level Variation in Patient-Reported Sexual Function Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy Over 2 Years: Results From a Statewide Surgical Improvement Collaborative

Nnenaya Agochukwu-Mmonu et al. JAMA Surg. .

Erratum in

  • Error in Table.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] JAMA Surg. 2022 Mar 1;157(3):282. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.7286. JAMA Surg. 2022. PMID: 34985505 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Importance: Of patient-reported outcomes for individuals undergoing radical prostatectomy, sexual function outcomes are among the most reported and the most detrimental to quality of life. Understanding variations at the patient and surgeon level may inform collaborative quality improvement.

Objective: To describe patient- and surgeon-level sexual function outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and to examine the correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants: This is a prospective cohort study using the MUSIC registry and patient-reported sexual function outcome data. Patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes were examined among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy from May 2014 to August 2019. Sexual function outcome data were collected using validated questionnaires, which were completed before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up following surgery. All participants were male. Race and ethnicity data were self-reported and were included to examine potential variation in outcomes by race and/or ethnicity. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2021.

Main outcomes and measures: There were 4 outcomes in this study, including the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) sexual function scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up; patient-level sexual function recovery at 12- and 24-month follow-up; surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes at 12- and 24-month follow-up; and correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes.

Results: A total of 1426 male patients met inclusion criteria for this study. The median (IQR) age was 64 (58-68) years. A total of 115 participants (8%) were Black, 1197 (84%) were White, 25 (2%) were of another race or ethnicity (consolidated owing to low numbers), and 89 (6%) were of unknown race or ethnicity. Among patients undergoing bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) EPIC-26 sexual function scores at 12- and 24-month follow-up (12 months, 39 [28]; 24 months, 63 [29]) did not return to baseline levels. There was wide variation in EPIC-26 sexual function scores at both 12-month follow-up (range, 23-69; P < .001) and 24-month follow-up (range, 27-64; P < .001). Similar variations were found in EPIC-26 sexual function scores and recovery of sexual function by surgeon. Recovery rates ranged from 0% to 40% of patients at 12-month follow-up (18 surgeons; P < .001) and 3% to 44% of patients at 24-month follow-up (12 surgeons; P < .001). Surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes were not significantly correlated. On multivariable analysis, the following variables were associated with better recovery at 24-month follow-up: younger age (P < .001), lower baseline EPIC-26 sexual function score (P < .001), lower Gleason score (P = .05), and nonobesity (P = .03).

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, there was significant patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function recovery over 2 years following radical prostatectomy. Variation in surgeon-level sexual function outcomes presents an opportunity and model for surgical collaborative quality improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Mr Qi reports salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan during the conduct of the study. Dr Wittmann reports serving as Associate Editor of the Journal of Sexual Medicine without compensation. Ms Martin reports support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Mean 26-Item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) Sexual Domain Scores at 12- and 24-Month Follow-up by Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) Surgeon
EPIC-26 sexual domain score was summarized among patients with good baseline function (defined as a baseline score of 73 or higher) who underwent bilateral nerve sparing. All surgeons had at least 10 patients with patient-reported outcomes data at respective times (12 or 24 months). Error bars indicate 95% CIs. P values are based on a multivariable mixed-effects regression model controlling for patient characteristics.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Proportion of Patients Achieving Sexual Function Recovery at 12- and 24-Month Follow-up by Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) Surgeon
The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite sexual domain score was summarized among patients with good baseline function (defined as a baseline score of 73 or higher) who underwent bilateral nerve sparing. All surgeons had at least 10 patients with patient-reported outcomes data at respective time points (12 or 24 months). Error bars indicate 95% CIs. P values are based on multivariable mixed-effects regression model controlling for patient characteristics.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Mahal BA, Butler S, Franco I, et al. Use of active surveillance or watchful waiting for low-risk prostate cancer and management trends across risk groups in the United States, 2010-2015. JAMA. 2019;321(7):704-706. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19941 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kaps B, Leapman M, An Y. Trends in prostatectomy utilization: increasing upfront prostatectomy and postprostatectomy radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Cancer Med. 2020;9(23):8754-8764. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3482 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoffman RM, Hunt WC, Gilliland FD, Stephenson RA, Potosky AL. Patient satisfaction with treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. Cancer. 2003;97(7):1653-1662. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11233 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):436-445. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1209978 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fode M, Frey A, Jakobsen H, Sønksen J. Erectile function after radical prostatectomy: do patients return to baseline? Scand J Urol. 2016;50(3):160-163. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2015.1102964 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types