Public-Private Partnership: Allheilmittel für die Finanzkrisen der öffentlichen Haushalte oder Risikofaktor?

Public Private Partnership (PPP) findet in Deutschland in den letzten Jahren immer mehr Verbreitung. Die Bandbreite für PPP-Projekte reicht von Bundesfernstraßen bis zu Schulen, Verwaltungsgebäuden, Krankenhäusern, Schwimmbädern etc. Führt dieses Modell zu einer Optimierung von Kosten und Erträgen oder stellt es einen Risikofaktor für den öffentlichen Sektor dar? Gerold Krause-Junk, Universität Hamburg, sieht darin vor allem einen Weg, den Konflikt zwischen "Effizienz- und Verteilungszielen" zu entschärfen: "Die allokative Aufgabe wird dann dem privaten bzw. einem weitgehend nach privatwirtschaftlichem Kalkül handelnden Anbieter überlassen; die Verteilungsaufgabe bleibt beim Staat ..." Für Frank Littwin, Finanzministerium des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, sind die PPP-Projekte kein Allheilmittel und auch kein wesentlicher Beitrag zur Haushaltskonsolidierung, sie führen aber zu deutlich mehr Kostentransparenz und befördern wirtschaftliches Handeln. Und nicht zuletzt sind sie ein wichtiges Instrument zur Verwaltungsmodernisierung. Dietrich Budäus und Birgit Grüb, Universität Hamburg, betonen, dass die Wirtschaftlichkeitsbeurteilung bei PPP-Projekten eine Reihe von Problemen aufwirft. Und für Lars P. Feld und Jan Schnellenbach, Universität Heidelberg, hängt die finanzpolitische Sinnhaftigkeit von PPP-Arrangements von den Details der Kooperation ab. Dabei sollte der öffentliche Sektor vor allem die langfristigen Folgekosten seiner Investitionen im Blick haben, wenn er die Zusammenarbeit mit den Privaten sucht.Public Private Partnership, Öffentlicher Sektor, Öffentlicher Haushalt, Finanzmarktkrise, Deutschland

MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis

Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. Methods In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Results A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). Conclusions The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .)

Increasing the attractiveness of surgical disciplines for students: Implications of a robot-assisted hands-on training course for medical education

BackgroundStructured implementation of robot-assisted surgery in the field of medical education is lacking. We assessed students' interest in robot-assisted surgery and tested if the implementation of a hands-on robotic course into the curriculum could increase the interest to join a surgical discipline in general and especially in female students, since women are clearly underrepresented in surgical disciplines.MethodsAfter a prostate cancer focused seminar, 100 students were 1:1 randomized into two groups. Group B: Baseline characteristics and professional interest were assessed prior and after a hands-on robotic course, using a da Vinci® console with simulator (da Vinci® Surgical training, Intuitive Surgical Inc., USA). Group A served as post-interventional consistency control group, received the questionnaire only once after the hands-on training.ResultsThe male to female ratio of students was 54% and 46%. The interest to turn into urology/surgery, categorized as yes”, “no”, “maybe” changed from 18 to 16%, 36 to 30% and 46 to 54% respectively after the hands-on robotic course (p < 0.001). Also, the positive attitude towards the surgical field significantly increased (20 vs. 48%; p < 0.001). Comparing male and female students, virtually identical proportions (23 vs. 23%) opted for joining urology or surgery as a discipline, whereas rejection (45 vs. 25%) and perchance (32 vs. 50%) of that notion differed between genders (p = 0.12).ConclusionOur results demonstrate great demand for implementing robotic training into medical education for an up-to-date curriculum. Although the decision process on career choice is widely multifactorial, stereotypes associated with surgical disciplines should be eliminated. This could have a particularly positive effect on the recruitment of female medical students since women are clearly underrepresented in surgical disciplines although currently and with increasing proportions, more female students are enrolled in medical schools then male

Prognostic relevance of number and bilaterality of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: Positive surgical margin (PSM) status following radical prostatectomy (RP) is a well-established prognostic factor. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether number of PSMs or bilaterality of PSMs might have prognostic significance for biochemical recurrence (BCR) in the population with a PSM status following RP. METHODS: We evaluated 1,395 RP pathology reports from our center between 1980 and 2006. All patients who underwent (neo)-adjuvant therapy were excluded, leaving a cohort of 1,009 patients, with 249 (24.7%) subjects having a PSM at RP of whom 29.4% had multiple PSMs (>/= 2 sites), while 13.6% had bilateral PSMs. Median follow-up was 40 months (range 0-258 months). We used BCR-free survival as the primary study outcome. BCR was defined as any rise in PSA above or equal to 0.2 ng/ml. RESULTS: Of patients with a PSM status, 41% (95% CI: 33-49%) developed BCR within 5 years, compared to 12% (95% CI: 9-15%) in the population without a PSM. Multivariable analysis identified PSA at diagnosis and RP Gleason score as independent predictive factors for BCR. Increasing number and/or bilaterality of PSM did not lead to significant higher rates of BCR. CONCLUSION: In patients with a PSM, the number of positive sites or bilaterality of PSM status does not add prognostic information for risk of BCR. Survival curve slopes were different for patients with bilateral PSM, showing a significant tendency to progress to BCR earlier during follow-up than patients with unilateral PSM.1 februari 201