Centralizing Penile Cancer Care in Germany and Austria: Just a Dream or a Fast-Approaching Reality? Results of a Survey Study among Urological Department Chairs and Modeling of Real Treatment Numbers of Penile Cancer Patients

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftForschungsartikelBeigetragenBegutachtung

Beitragende

  • Abdulbaki Yakac - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie (Autor:in)
  • Steffen Lebentrau - , Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, GLG Werner Forßmann Klinikum Eberswalde (Autor:in)
  • Lukas Lusuardi - , Paracelsus Medizinischen Privatuniversität (Autor:in)
  • Semih Sarcan - , Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck (Autor:in)
  • Maximilian Burger - , Universität Regensburg (Autor:in)
  • Axel S. Merseburger - , Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck (Autor:in)
  • Jens Wiegland - , Brothers of Mercy Hospital (Autor:in)
  • Christian Gilfrich - , Brothers of Mercy Hospital (Autor:in)
  • Ingmar Wolff - , Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald (Autor:in)
  • Sascha Ahyai - , Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz (Autor:in)
  • Matthias May - , Brothers of Mercy Hospital (Gemeinsame:r Letztautor:in)
  • Christian Thomas - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie (Gemeinsame:r Letztautor:in)

Abstract

Introduction: In countries characterized by a centralization of therapy management, patients with penile cancer (PeCa) have shown improvements in guideline adherence and ultimately, improved carcinoma-specific survival. Germany and Austria (G + A) have no state-regulated centralization of PeCa management, and the perspectives of urological university department chairs (UUDCs) in these countries, who act as drivers of professional and political developments, on this topic are currently unknown. Methods: Surveys containing 36 response options, including specific questions regarding perspectives on PeCa centralization, were sent to the 48 UUDC in G + A in January 2023. In addition to analyzing the responses, closely following the CROSS checklist, a modeling of the real healthcare situation of in-house PeCa patients in G + A was conducted. Results: The response rate was 75% (36/48). 94% and 89% of the UUDCs considered PeCa centralization meaningful and feasible in the medium term, respectively. Among the UUDCs, 72% estimated centralization within university hospitals as appropriate, while 28% favored a geographically oriented approach. Additionally, 97% of the UUDCs emphasized the importance of bridging the gap until implementation of centralization by establishing PeCa second-opinion portals. No country-specific differences were observed. The median number of in-house PeCa cases at the university hospitals in G + A was 13 (interquartile range: 9-26). A significant positive correlation was observed between the annual number of in-house PeCa cases at a given university hospital and the perspective of the UUDCs that centralization as meaningful by its UUDC (0.024). Under assumptions permissible for modeling, the average number of in-house PeCa cases in academic hospitals in G + A was approximately 30 times higher than in nonacademic hospitals. Conclusion: This study provides the first data on the perspectives of UUDCs in G + A concerning centralization of PeCa therapy management. Even without state-regulated centralization in G + A, there is currently a clear focusing of PeCa treatments in university hospitals. Further necessary steps toward a structured PeCa centralization are discussed in this manuscript.

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)916-923
Seitenumfang8
FachzeitschriftUrologia internationalis
Jahrgang107
Ausgabenummer10-12
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 1 Dez. 2023
Peer-Review-StatusJa

Externe IDs

PubMed 37918360

Schlagworte

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Schlagwörter

  • Academic centers, Caseload, Nonacademic centers, Penile neoplasm, Second-opinion portal

Bibliotheksschlagworte