Danny Lascano1, Jamie S Pak2, Max Kates3, Julia B Finkelstein2, Mark Silva2, Elizabeth Hagen2, Arindam RoyChoudhury4, Trinity J Bivalacqua3, G Joel DeCastro2, Mitchell C Benson2, James M McKiernan2. 1. The J. Bentley Squier Urologic Clinic, Department of Urology at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Herbert Irvine Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: dl2178@columbia.edu. 2. The J. Bentley Squier Urologic Clinic, Department of Urology at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Herbert Irvine Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medicine/Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively validate and compare a modified frailty index predicting adverse outcomes and other risk stratification tools among patients undergoing urologic oncological surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried from 2005 to 2013 to identify patients undergoing cystectomy, prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and nephroureterectomy. Using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Frailty Index, 11 variables were matched to the database; 4 were also added because of their relevance in oncology patients. The incidence of mortality, Clavien-Dindo IV complications, and adverse events were assessed with patients grouped according to their modified frailty index score. RESULTS: We identified 41,681 patients who were undergoing surgery for presumed urologic malignancy. Patients with a high frailty index score of >0.20 had a 3.70 odds of a Clavien-Dindo IV event (CI: 2.865-4.788, P<0.0005) and a 5.95 odds of 30-day mortality (CI: 3.72-9.51, P<0.0005) in comparison with nonfrail patients after adjusting for race, sex, age, smoking history, and procedure. Using C-statistics to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the predictive ability of different models per risk stratification tool and the Akaike information criteria to assess for the fit of the models with the data, the modified frailty index was comparable or superior to the Charlson comorbidity index but inferior to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class in predicting 30-day mortality or Clavien-Dindo IV events. When the modified frailty index was augmented with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class, the new index was superior in all aspects in comparison to other risk stratification tools. CONCLUSION: Existing risk stratification tools may be improved by incorporating variables in our 15-point modified frailty index as well as other factors such as walking speed, exhaustion, and sarcopenia to fully assess frailty. This is relevant in diseases such as kidney and prostate cancer, where surveillance and other nonsurgical interventions exist as alternatives to a potentially complicated surgery. In these scenarios, our modified frailty index augmented by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class may help inform which patients have increased surgical complications that may outweigh the benefit of surgery although this index needs prospective validation.
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively validate and compare a modified frailty index predicting adverse outcomes and other risk stratification tools among patients undergoing urologic oncological surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried from 2005 to 2013 to identify patients undergoing cystectomy, prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and nephroureterectomy. Using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Frailty Index, 11 variables were matched to the database; 4 were also added because of their relevance in oncology patients. The incidence of mortality, Clavien-Dindo IV complications, and adverse events were assessed with patients grouped according to their modified frailty index score. RESULTS: We identified 41,681 patients who were undergoing surgery for presumed urologic malignancy. Patients with a high frailty index score of >0.20 had a 3.70 odds of a Clavien-Dindo IV event (CI: 2.865-4.788, P<0.0005) and a 5.95 odds of 30-day mortality (CI: 3.72-9.51, P<0.0005) in comparison with nonfrail patients after adjusting for race, sex, age, smoking history, and procedure. Using C-statistics to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the predictive ability of different models per risk stratification tool and the Akaike information criteria to assess for the fit of the models with the data, the modified frailty index was comparable or superior to the Charlson comorbidity index but inferior to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class in predicting 30-day mortality or Clavien-Dindo IV events. When the modified frailty index was augmented with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class, the new index was superior in all aspects in comparison to other risk stratification tools. CONCLUSION: Existing risk stratification tools may be improved by incorporating variables in our 15-point modified frailty index as well as other factors such as walking speed, exhaustion, and sarcopenia to fully assess frailty. This is relevant in diseases such as kidney and prostate cancer, where surveillance and other nonsurgical interventions exist as alternatives to a potentially complicated surgery. In these scenarios, our modified frailty index augmented by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class may help inform which patients have increased surgical complications that may outweigh the benefit of surgery although this index needs prospective validation.
Authors: Howard Bergman; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack Guralnik; David B Hogan; Silvia Hummel; Sathya Karunananthan; Christina Wolfson Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Pierre A Clavien; Jeffrey Barkun; Michelle L de Oliveira; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Daniel Dindo; Richard D Schulick; Eduardo de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Ksenija Slankamenac; Claudio Bassi; Rolf Graf; René Vonlanthen; Robert Padbury; John L Cameron; Masatoshi Makuuchi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kenneth Rockwood; Xiaowei Song; Chris MacKnight; Howard Bergman; David B Hogan; Ian McDowell; Arnold Mitnitski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Martin A Makary; Dorry L Segev; Peter J Pronovost; Dora Syin; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Purvi Patel; Ryan Takenaga; Lara Devgan; Christine G Holzmueller; Jing Tian; Linda P Fried Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: A C Panayi; A R Orkaby; D Sakthivel; Y Endo; D Varon; D Roh; D P Orgill; R L Neppl; H Javedan; S Bhasin; I Sinha Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Anne M Suskind; Louise C Walter; Chengshi Jin; John Boscardin; Saunak Sen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Emily Finlayson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-01-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sudhir Isharwal; Jason M Johanning; Jennifer G Dwyer; Kendra K Schimid; Chad A LaGrange Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Harveshp Mogal; Sarah A Vermilion; Rebecca Dodson; Fang-Chi Hsu; Russell Howerton; Perry Shen; Clancy J Clark Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 5.344