Harveshp D Mogal1, Nora Fino2, Clancy Clark1, Perry Shen1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative outcomes predicted by the ACS NSQIP universal risk calculator have not been validated for specific procedures like pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: A random sample of 400 PD patients from the NSQIP database was analyzed. Patients were categorized into four groups of 100 each based on ICD-9 diagnosis (211.6, 157.0, 156.2, and 577.1). Estimated risks of postoperative outcomes recorded by the calculator were compared to observed outcomes using the Brier Score (BS). The calculated BS was compared to a null model BS. A BS of zero indicated perfect prediction, while a BS of one indicated the poorest prediction. RESULTS: BS for all groupings was generally low, reflecting good prediction. BS for any and major complications was higher (0.23 and 0.22, respectively). This was also seen within ICD-9 subgroups. For patients with ampullary cancer, BS for these outcomes was higher (0.27 and 0.26, respectively). Comparison to the null model BS (0.24 and 0.24, respectively) correlated lesser predictive accuracy of the calculator for this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS NSQIP risk calculator, although accurate in predicting outcomes in patients undergoing PD, shows variation when accounting for specific ICD-9 diagnoses. Incorporating the diagnosis may better guide surgeons and patients preoperatively in making informed decisions. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:157-162.
BACKGROUND: Postoperative outcomes predicted by the ACS NSQIP universal risk calculator have not been validated for specific procedures like pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: A random sample of 400 PDpatients from the NSQIP database was analyzed. Patients were categorized into four groups of 100 each based on ICD-9 diagnosis (211.6, 157.0, 156.2, and 577.1). Estimated risks of postoperative outcomes recorded by the calculator were compared to observed outcomes using the Brier Score (BS). The calculated BS was compared to a null model BS. A BS of zero indicated perfect prediction, while a BS of one indicated the poorest prediction. RESULTS: BS for all groupings was generally low, reflecting good prediction. BS for any and major complications was higher (0.23 and 0.22, respectively). This was also seen within ICD-9 subgroups. For patients with ampullary cancer, BS for these outcomes was higher (0.27 and 0.26, respectively). Comparison to the null model BS (0.24 and 0.24, respectively) correlated lesser predictive accuracy of the calculator for this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS NSQIP risk calculator, although accurate in predicting outcomes in patients undergoing PD, shows variation when accounting for specific ICD-9 diagnoses. Incorporating the diagnosis may better guide surgeons and patients preoperatively in making informed decisions. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:157-162.
Authors: Bruce L Hall; Barton H Hamilton; Karen Richards; Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Yaoming Liu; Jennifer L Paruch; Lynn Zhou; Thomas E Kmiecik; Clifford Y Ko; Mark E Cohen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Stephen W Behrman; Ben L Zarzaur; Abhishek Parmar; Taylor S Riall; Bruce L Hall; Henry A Pitt Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Christina W Lee; Henry A Pitt; Taylor S Riall; Sean S Ronnekleiv-Kelly; Jacqueline S Israel; Glen E Leverson; Abhishek D Parmar; E Molly Kilbane; Bruce L Hall; Sharon M Weber Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Joshua S Hill; Zheng Zhou; Jessica P Simons; Sing Chau Ng; Theodore P McDade; Giles F Whalen; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-02-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: David Yu Greenblatt; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Victoria Rajamanickam; Yin Wan; Todd Hanson; Robert Rettammel; Emily R Winslow; Clifford S Cho; Sharon M Weber Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-02-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christopher R Shubert; Michael L Kendrick; Kristine M Thomsen; Michael B Farnell; Elizabeth B Habermann Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Jessica P Simons; Shimul A Shah; Sing Chau Ng; Giles F Whalen; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kota Sahara; Anghela Z Paredes; Katiuscha Merath; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Fabio Bagante; Francesca Ratti; Hugo P Marques; Olivier Soubrane; Eliza W Beal; Vincent Lam; George A Poultsides; Irinel Popescu; Sorin Alexandrescu; Guillaume Martel; Workneh Aklile; Alfredo Guglielmi; Tom Hugh; Luca Aldrighetti; Itaru Endo; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Esmaeel Reza Dadashzadeh; Patrick Bou-Samra; Lauren V Huckaby; Giacomo Nebbia; Robert M Handzel; Patrick R Varley; Shandong Wu; Allan Tsung Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 2.192