Brian M Blair1, Erik B Lehman2, Syed M Jafri3, Matthew G Kaag1, Jay D Raman4,5. 1. Division of Urology, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA. 3. The Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg Campus, Middletown, PA, USA. 4. Division of Urology, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA. jraman@pennstatehealth.psu.edu. 5. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA. jraman@pennstatehealth.psu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator for predicting risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: A single institution, multi-surgeon, prospectively maintained database was queried for patients undergoing PN for RCC from 1998 to 2015. 21 preoperative factors were analyzed for each patient with predicted risk for 30-day complications, mortality, and length of stay (LOS) calculated. Differences between the mean predicted risk and observed rate of surgical outcomes were determined using two-sided one-sample t test with significance at p < 0.05. Subgroup analyses of outcomes stratified by surgical approach were also performed. RESULTS: 470 patients undergoing PN for RCC were analyzed. Comparing NSQIP predicted to observed outcomes, clinically significant underestimations occurred with rates of overall complications (9.16 vs. 16.81%, p < 0.001), surgical site infections [SSI] (1.65 vs. 2.77%, p < 0.001), urinary tract infection [UTI] (1.41 vs. 3.40%, p < 0.001), and LOS (3.25 vs. 3.73 days, p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis, 209 open PN and 261 minimally invasive PN (MIPN) were performed. The NSQIP calculator consistently underestimated overall complications, SSI, UTI, and LOS (p < 0.001) among both surgical approaches, while overestimating MIPN severe complications (p < 0.001). Clinically important differences persisted when stratifying the MIPN group by laparoscopic (N = 111) and robotic (N = 150) approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator had significant discrepancies among observed and predicted outcomes. Additional analyses confirmed these differences remained significant irrespective of surgical approach. These findings emphasize the need for urologic oncology-specific calculators to better predict surgical outcomes in this complex patient population.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator for predicting risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: A single institution, multi-surgeon, prospectively maintained database was queried for patients undergoing PN for RCC from 1998 to 2015. 21 preoperative factors were analyzed for each patient with predicted risk for 30-day complications, mortality, and length of stay (LOS) calculated. Differences between the mean predicted risk and observed rate of surgical outcomes were determined using two-sided one-sample t test with significance at p < 0.05. Subgroup analyses of outcomes stratified by surgical approach were also performed. RESULTS: 470 patients undergoing PN for RCC were analyzed. Comparing NSQIP predicted to observed outcomes, clinically significant underestimations occurred with rates of overall complications (9.16 vs. 16.81%, p < 0.001), surgical site infections [SSI] (1.65 vs. 2.77%, p < 0.001), urinary tract infection [UTI] (1.41 vs. 3.40%, p < 0.001), and LOS (3.25 vs. 3.73 days, p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis, 209 open PN and 261 minimally invasive PN (MIPN) were performed. The NSQIP calculator consistently underestimated overall complications, SSI, UTI, and LOS (p < 0.001) among both surgical approaches, while overestimating MIPN severe complications (p < 0.001). Clinically important differences persisted when stratifying the MIPN group by laparoscopic (N = 111) and robotic (N = 150) approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator had significant discrepancies among observed and predicted outcomes. Additional analyses confirmed these differences remained significant irrespective of surgical approach. These findings emphasize the need for urologic oncology-specific calculators to better predict surgical outcomes in this complex patient population.
Authors: Nathaniel C Wingert; James Gotoff; Edgardo Parrilla; Robert Gotoff; Laura Hou; Elie Ghanem Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: J Brian Szender; Peter J Frederick; Kevin H Eng; Stacey N Akers; Shashikant B Lele; Kunle Odunsi Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Hendrik Van Poppel; Luigi Da Pozzo; Walter Albrecht; Vsevolod Matveev; Aldo Bono; Andrzej Borkowski; Jean-Marie Marechal; Laurence Klotz; Eila Skinner; Thomas Keane; Ilse Claessens; Richard Sylvester Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kevin Arce; Eric J Moore; Christine M Lohse; Matthew D Reiland; Jacob G Yetzer; Kyle S Ettinger Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Danny Lascano; Jamie S Pak; Max Kates; Julia B Finkelstein; Mark Silva; Elizabeth Hagen; Arindam RoyChoudhury; Trinity J Bivalacqua; G Joel DeCastro; Mitchell C Benson; James M McKiernan Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Marc C Smaldone; Anthony T Corcoran; Matthew Hayn; Badrinath R Konety; Ronald L Hrebinko; Benjamin J Davies Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Bradley C Leibovich; Michael L Blute; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Amy L Weaver; Horst Zincke Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karim Touijer; Didier Jacqmin; Louis R Kavoussi; Francesco Montorsi; Jean Jacques Patard; Craig G Rogers; Paul Russo; Robert G Uzzo; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 20.096