Thea Helene Degett1, Ole Roikjær2,3, Lene Hjerrild Iversen4,3, Ismail Gögenur5,3. 1. Centre for Surgical Science (CSS), Zealand University Hospital, Lykkebækvej 1, 4600, Køge, Denmark. theadegett@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. 3. Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Surgery, Section of Coloproctology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Centre for Surgical Science (CSS), Zealand University Hospital, Lykkebækvej 1, 4600, Køge, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Postoperative mortality from colorectal cancer varies between surgical departments. Several models have been developed to predict the operative risk. This study aims to investigate whether the original and the revised Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) model can predict 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in Denmark. METHODS: Data were collected from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database which has > 95% completeness. All patients operated on from January 2007 to December 2013 were included. The individual estimated operative risk was calculated with the original and revised ACPGBI models. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated with a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and a Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 22,807 patients underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. After excluding 1437 patients because of missing data, 21,370 patients were left for the analyses. The observed 30-day mortality was 5.0%. The original and revised ACPGBI models estimated an operative risk of 7.0 and 4.0%, respectively, with a significant difference in observed and estimated mortality in both models. However, in patients with an estimated risk of at least 26%, i.e., high-risk, good calibration was found with the original ACPGBI model. Discrimination was good with an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.82-0.84) in both models. CONCLUSION: The original and revised ACPGBI models are not suitable prediction models for postoperative mortality in the Danish colorectal cancer population. However, the original model might be applicable in predicting mortality in high-risk patients.
PURPOSE: Postoperative mortality from colorectal cancer varies between surgical departments. Several models have been developed to predict the operative risk. This study aims to investigate whether the original and the revised Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) model can predict 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in Denmark. METHODS: Data were collected from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database which has > 95% completeness. All patients operated on from January 2007 to December 2013 were included. The individual estimated operative risk was calculated with the original and revised ACPGBI models. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated with a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and a Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 22,807 patients underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. After excluding 1437 patients because of missing data, 21,370 patients were left for the analyses. The observed 30-day mortality was 5.0%. The original and revised ACPGBI models estimated an operative risk of 7.0 and 4.0%, respectively, with a significant difference in observed and estimated mortality in both models. However, in patients with an estimated risk of at least 26%, i.e., high-risk, good calibration was found with the original ACPGBI model. Discrimination was good with an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.82-0.84) in both models. CONCLUSION: The original and revised ACPGBI models are not suitable prediction models for postoperative mortality in the Danish colorectal cancer population. However, the original model might be applicable in predicting mortality in high-risk patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
30-day mortality; ACPGBI; Calibration; Colorectal cancer; Prediction model; Study population
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Freddie Bray; Rebecca L Siegel; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Pascal H E Teeuwen; A J A Bremers; J M M Groenewoud; C J H M van Laarhoven; R P Bleichrodt Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-10-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Rafael Lozano; Mohsen Naghavi; Kyle Foreman; Stephen Lim; Kenji Shibuya; Victor Aboyans; Jerry Abraham; Timothy Adair; Rakesh Aggarwal; Stephanie Y Ahn; Miriam Alvarado; H Ross Anderson; Laurie M Anderson; Kathryn G Andrews; Charles Atkinson; Larry M Baddour; Suzanne Barker-Collo; David H Bartels; Michelle L Bell; Emelia J Benjamin; Derrick Bennett; Kavi Bhalla; Boris Bikbov; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Gretchen Birbeck; Fiona Blyth; Ian Bolliger; Soufiane Boufous; Chiara Bucello; Michael Burch; Peter Burney; Jonathan Carapetis; Honglei Chen; David Chou; Sumeet S Chugh; Luc E Coffeng; Steven D Colan; Samantha Colquhoun; K Ellicott Colson; John Condon; Myles D Connor; Leslie T Cooper; Matthew Corriere; Monica Cortinovis; Karen Courville de Vaccaro; William Couser; Benjamin C Cowie; Michael H Criqui; Marita Cross; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Nabila Dahodwala; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Allyne Delossantos; Julie Denenberg; Don C Des Jarlais; Samath D Dharmaratne; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Herbert Duber; Beth Ebel; Patricia J Erwin; Patricia Espindola; Majid Ezzati; Valery Feigin; Abraham D Flaxman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Richard Franklin; Marlene Fransen; Michael K Freeman; Sherine E Gabriel; Emmanuela Gakidou; Flavio Gaspari; Richard F Gillum; Diego Gonzalez-Medina; Yara A Halasa; Diana Haring; James E Harrison; Rasmus Havmoeller; Roderick J Hay; Bruno Hoen; Peter J Hotez; Damian Hoy; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Spencer L James; Rashmi Jasrasaria; Sudha Jayaraman; Nicole Johns; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nicholas Kassebaum; Andre Keren; Jon-Paul Khoo; Lisa Marie Knowlton; Olive Kobusingye; Adofo Koranteng; Rita Krishnamurthi; Michael Lipnick; Steven E Lipshultz; Summer Lockett Ohno; Jacqueline Mabweijano; Michael F MacIntyre; Leslie Mallinger; Lyn March; Guy B Marks; Robin Marks; Akira Matsumori; Richard Matzopoulos; Bongani M Mayosi; John H McAnulty; Mary M McDermott; John McGrath; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Catherine Michaud; Matthew Miller; Ted R Miller; Charles Mock; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Ali A Mokdad; Andrew Moran; Kim Mulholland; M Nathan Nair; Luigi Naldi; K M Venkat Narayan; Kiumarss Nasseri; Paul Norman; Martin O'Donnell; Saad B Omer; Katrina Ortblad; Richard Osborne; Doruk Ozgediz; Bishnu Pahari; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Andrea Panozo Rivero; Rogelio Perez Padilla; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Norberto Perico; David Phillips; Kelsey Pierce; C Arden Pope; Esteban Porrini; Farshad Pourmalek; Murugesan Raju; Dharani Ranganathan; Jürgen T Rehm; David B Rein; Guiseppe Remuzzi; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Roberts; Felipe Rodriguez De León; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Lesley Rushton; Ralph L Sacco; Joshua A Salomon; Uchechukwu Sampson; Ella Sanman; David C Schwebel; Maria Segui-Gomez; Donald S Shepard; David Singh; Jessica Singleton; Karen Sliwa; Emma Smith; Andrew Steer; Jennifer A Taylor; Bernadette Thomas; Imad M Tleyjeh; Jeffrey A Towbin; Thomas Truelsen; Eduardo A Undurraga; N Venketasubramanian; Lakshmi Vijayakumar; Theo Vos; Gregory R Wagner; Mengru Wang; Wenzhi Wang; Kerrianne Watt; Martin A Weinstock; Robert Weintraub; James D Wilkinson; Anthony D Woolf; Sarah Wulf; Pon-Hsiu Yeh; Paul Yip; Azadeh Zabetian; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Mohammad A AlMazroa; Ziad A Memish Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Dimitrios E Magouliotis; David Walker; Ioannis Baloyiannis; Maria P Fergadi; Ioannis Mamaloudis; Georgios Chasiotis; George A Tzovaras Journal: World J Surg Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: S Wilkins; K Oliva; E Chowdhury; B Ruggiero; A Bennett; E J Andrews; O Dent; P Chapuis; C Platell; C M Reid; P J McMurrick Journal: BJS Open Date: 2020-09-28