INTRODUCTION: Morbidity and mortality rates after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are important quality parameters to compare peritoneal surface malignancy centers. A major problem to assess postoperative outcomes among centers is the inconsistent reporting due to two coexisting systems, the diagnose-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) classification and the therapy-oriented Clavien-Dindo classification. We therefore assessed and compared both reporting systems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Complications after CRS/HIPEC were recorded in 147 consecutive patients and independently graded by an expert board using both systems. In a next step, a group of residents, experienced surgeons, and medical oncologists evaluated a set of twelve real complications, either with the Clavien-Dindo or CTCAE classification. RESULTS: The postoperative complication rate after CRS/HIPEC was 37 % (54/147), 6.8 % (10/147) were reoperated, and three (2 %) patients died. The most frequent complications were intestinal fistula or abscess, pulmonary complications, and ileus. Grading of complications with the CTCAE classification resulted in a significantly higher major morbidity rate compared to the Clavien-Dindo classification (25 vs. 8 %, p = 0.001). Evaluating a set of complications, residents, surgeons, and oncologists correctly assessed significantly more complications with the Clavien-Dindo compared to the CTCEA classification (p < 0.001). In addition, all participants evaluated the Clavien-Dindo classification as more simple. Residents (p < 0.001) and surgeons (p < 0.01) required less time with the Clavien-Dindo classification; there was no difference for oncologist. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data indicate that there is a different interpretation of severity grades of complications after CRS/HIPEC between the two classifications. There is a need for a common language in the field of CRS/HIPEC, which should be defined by a new consensus to compare surgical outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Morbidity and mortality rates after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are important quality parameters to compare peritoneal surface malignancy centers. A major problem to assess postoperative outcomes among centers is the inconsistent reporting due to two coexisting systems, the diagnose-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) classification and the therapy-oriented Clavien-Dindo classification. We therefore assessed and compared both reporting systems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Complications after CRS/HIPEC were recorded in 147 consecutive patients and independently graded by an expert board using both systems. In a next step, a group of residents, experienced surgeons, and medical oncologists evaluated a set of twelve real complications, either with the Clavien-Dindo or CTCAE classification. RESULTS: The postoperative complication rate after CRS/HIPEC was 37 % (54/147), 6.8 % (10/147) were reoperated, and three (2 %) patients died. The most frequent complications were intestinal fistula or abscess, pulmonary complications, and ileus. Grading of complications with the CTCAE classification resulted in a significantly higher major morbidity rate compared to the Clavien-Dindo classification (25 vs. 8 %, p = 0.001). Evaluating a set of complications, residents, surgeons, and oncologists correctly assessed significantly more complications with the Clavien-Dindo compared to the CTCEA classification (p < 0.001). In addition, all participants evaluated the Clavien-Dindo classification as more simple. Residents (p < 0.001) and surgeons (p < 0.01) required less time with the Clavien-Dindo classification; there was no difference for oncologist. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data indicate that there is a different interpretation of severity grades of complications after CRS/HIPEC between the two classifications. There is a need for a common language in the field of CRS/HIPEC, which should be defined by a new consensus to compare surgical outcomes.
Authors: Jan Franko; Qian Shi; Charles D Goldman; Barbara A Pockaj; Garth D Nelson; Richard M Goldberg; Henry C Pitot; Axel Grothey; Steven R Alberts; Daniel J Sargent Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: O Glehen; D Osinsky; E Cotte; F Kwiatkowski; G Freyer; S Isaac; V Trillet-Lenoir; A C Sayag-Beaujard; Y François; J Vignal; F N Gilly Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Bernard Nordlinger; Halfdan Sorbye; Bengt Glimelius; Graeme J Poston; Peter M Schlag; Philippe Rougier; Wolf O Bechstein; John N Primrose; Euan T Walpole; Meg Finch-Jones; Daniel Jaeck; Darius Mirza; Rowan W Parks; Murielle Mauer; Erik Tanis; Eric Van Cutsem; Werner Scheithauer; Thomas Gruenberger Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ksenija Slankamenac; Nina Nederlof; Patrick Pessaux; Jeroen de Jonge; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Stefan Breitenstein; Christian E Oberkofler; Rolf Graf; Milo A Puhan; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gabriel Glockzin; Justine Rochon; Dirk Arnold; Sven A Lang; Frank Klebl; Florian Zeman; Michael Koller; Hans J Schlitt; Pompiliu Piso Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 4.430