C Fischer1, H Lingsma1, R Hardwick2, D A Cromwell3, E Steyerberg1, O Groene3. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Cambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. 3. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for oesophagogastric cancer surgery are compared with the aim of benchmarking quality of care. Adjusting for patient characteristics is crucial to avoid biased comparisons between providers. The study objective was to develop a case-mix adjustment model for comparing 30- and 90-day mortality and anastomotic leakage rates after oesophagogastric cancer resections. METHODS: The study reviewed existing models, considered expert opinion and examined audit data in order to select predictors that were consequently used to develop a case-mix adjustment model for the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit, covering England and Wales. Models were developed on patients undergoing surgical resection between April 2011 and March 2013 using logistic regression. Model calibration and discrimination was quantified using a bootstrap procedure. RESULTS: Most existing risk models for oesophagogastric resections were methodologically weak, outdated or based on detailed laboratory data that are not generally available. In 4882 patients with oesophagogastric cancer used for model development, 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 2·3 and 4·4 per cent respectively, and 6·2 per cent of patients developed an anastomotic leak. The internally validated models, based on predictors selected from the literature, showed moderate discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0·646 for 30-day mortality, 0·664 for 90-day mortality and 0·587 for anastomotic leakage) and good calibration. CONCLUSION: Based on available data, three case-mix adjustment models for postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing curative surgery for oesophagogastric cancer were developed. These models should be used for risk adjustment when assessing hospital performance in the National Health Service, and tested in other large health systems.
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for oesophagogastric cancer surgery are compared with the aim of benchmarking quality of care. Adjusting for patient characteristics is crucial to avoid biased comparisons between providers. The study objective was to develop a case-mix adjustment model for comparing 30- and 90-day mortality and anastomotic leakage rates after oesophagogastric cancer resections. METHODS: The study reviewed existing models, considered expert opinion and examined audit data in order to select predictors that were consequently used to develop a case-mix adjustment model for the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit, covering England and Wales. Models were developed on patients undergoing surgical resection between April 2011 and March 2013 using logistic regression. Model calibration and discrimination was quantified using a bootstrap procedure. RESULTS: Most existing risk models for oesophagogastric resections were methodologically weak, outdated or based on detailed laboratory data that are not generally available. In 4882 patients with oesophagogastric cancer used for model development, 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 2·3 and 4·4 per cent respectively, and 6·2 per cent of patients developed an anastomotic leak. The internally validated models, based on predictors selected from the literature, showed moderate discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0·646 for 30-day mortality, 0·664 for 90-day mortality and 0·587 for anastomotic leakage) and good calibration. CONCLUSION: Based on available data, three case-mix adjustment models for postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing curative surgery for oesophagogastric cancer were developed. These models should be used for risk adjustment when assessing hospital performance in the National Health Service, and tested in other large health systems.
Authors: Ivy N Haskins; Matthew D Kroh; Richard L Amdur; Jeffrey L Ponksy; John H Rodriguez; Khashayar Vaziri Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: H G van den Boorn; E G Engelhardt; J van Kleef; M A G Sprangers; M G H van Oijen; A Abu-Hanna; A H Zwinderman; V M H Coupé; H W M van Laarhoven Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240