Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score (D-FRS): Development and International Validation.


Journal

Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 May 2023
Historique:
medline: 29 11 2023
pubmed: 8 7 2022
entrez: 7 7 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To develop 2 distinct preoperative and intraoperative risk scores to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) to improve preventive and mitigation strategies, respectively. POPF remains the most common complication after DP. Despite several known risk factors, an adequate risk model has not been developed yet. Two prediction risk scores were designed using data of patients undergoing DP in 2 Italian centers (2014-2016) utilizing multivariable logistic regression. The preoperative score (calculated before surgery) aims to facilitate preventive strategies and the intraoperative score (calculated at the end of surgery) aims to facilitate mitigation strategies. Internal validation was achieved using bootstrapping. These data were pooled with data from 5 centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2007-2016) to assess discrimination and calibration in an internal-external validation procedure. Overall, 1336 patients after DP were included, of whom 291 (22%) developed POPF. The preoperative distal fistula risk score (preoperative D-FRS) included 2 variables: pancreatic neck thickness [odds ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.17 per mm increase] and pancreatic duct diameter (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.32-1.65 per mm increase). The model performed well with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76) upon internal-external validation. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (<10%), intermediate risk (10%-25%), and high risk (>25%) for POPF with 238 (18%), 684 (51%), and 414 (31%) patients, respectively. The intraoperative risk score (intraoperative D-FRS) added body mass index, pancreatic texture, and operative time as variables with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85). The preoperative and the intraoperative D-FRS are the first validated risk scores for POPF after DP and are readily available at: http://www.pancreascalculator.com . The 3 distinct risk groups allow for personalized treatment and benchmarking.

Sections du résumé

OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To develop 2 distinct preoperative and intraoperative risk scores to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) to improve preventive and mitigation strategies, respectively.
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
POPF remains the most common complication after DP. Despite several known risk factors, an adequate risk model has not been developed yet.
METHODS METHODS
Two prediction risk scores were designed using data of patients undergoing DP in 2 Italian centers (2014-2016) utilizing multivariable logistic regression. The preoperative score (calculated before surgery) aims to facilitate preventive strategies and the intraoperative score (calculated at the end of surgery) aims to facilitate mitigation strategies. Internal validation was achieved using bootstrapping. These data were pooled with data from 5 centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2007-2016) to assess discrimination and calibration in an internal-external validation procedure.
RESULTS RESULTS
Overall, 1336 patients after DP were included, of whom 291 (22%) developed POPF. The preoperative distal fistula risk score (preoperative D-FRS) included 2 variables: pancreatic neck thickness [odds ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.17 per mm increase] and pancreatic duct diameter (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.32-1.65 per mm increase). The model performed well with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76) upon internal-external validation. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (<10%), intermediate risk (10%-25%), and high risk (>25%) for POPF with 238 (18%), 684 (51%), and 414 (31%) patients, respectively. The intraoperative risk score (intraoperative D-FRS) added body mass index, pancreatic texture, and operative time as variables with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The preoperative and the intraoperative D-FRS are the first validated risk scores for POPF after DP and are readily available at: http://www.pancreascalculator.com . The 3 distinct risk groups allow for personalized treatment and benchmarking.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35797608
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005497
pii: 00000658-990000000-00086
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e1099-e1105

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Références

Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it’s time to randomize. Surgery. 2015;157:45–55.
Diener MK, Seiler CM, Rossion I, et al. Efficacy of stapler versus hand-sewn closure after distal pancreatectomy (DISPACT): a randomised, controlled multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377:1514–1522.
Ferrone CR, Warshaw AL, Rattner DW, et al. Pancreatic fistula rates after 462 distal pancreatectomies: staplers do not decrease fistula rates. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:1691–1697; discussion 1697–1698.
Nakamura M, Wakabayashi G, Miyasaka Y, et al. Multicenter comparative study of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using propensity score-matching. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22:731–736.
Knaebel HP, Diener MK, Wente MN, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of technique for closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg. 2005;92:539–546.
Rodríguez JR, Germes SS, Pandharipande PV, et al. Implications and cost of pancreatic leak following distal pancreatic resection. Arch Surg. 2006;141:361–365; discussion 366.
Kawai M, Tani M, Okada K, et al. Stump closure of a thick pancreas using stapler closure increases pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. Am J Surg. 2013;206:352–359.
Roberts KJ, Storey R, Hodson J, et al. Pre-operative prediction of pancreatic fistula: is it possible? Pancreatology. 2013;13:423–428.
Sledzianowski JF, Duffas JP, Muscari F, et al. Risk factors for mortality and intra-abdominal morbidity after distal pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2005;137:180–185.
Kah Heng CA, Salleh I, San TS, et al. Pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: incidence, risk factors and management. ANZ J Surg. 2010;80:619–623.
Zhang H, Zhu F, Shen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing three techniques for pancreatic remnant closure following distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg. 2015;102:4–15.
Hashimoto Y, Traverso LW. After distal pancreatectomy pancreatic leakage from the stump of the pancreas may be due to drain failure or pancreatic ductal back pressure. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:993–1003.
Ecker BL, McMillan MT, Allegrini V, et al. Risk factors and mitigation strategies for pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: analysis of 2026 resections from the International, Multi-institutional Distal Pancreatectomy Study Group. Ann Surg. 2019;269:143–149.
McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, et al. Multicenter, prospective trial of selective drain management for pancreatoduodenectomy using risk stratification. Ann Surg. 2017;265:1209–1218.
McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, et al. Drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: reappraisal of a prospective randomized trial using risk stratification. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:798–809.
Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:1–14.
Mungroop TH, van Rijssen LB, van Klaveren D, et al. Alternative fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): design and international external validation. Ann Surg. 2019;269:937–943.
Van Buren G, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg. 2014;259:605–612.
Antila A, Siiki A, Sand J, et al. Perioperative hydrocortisone treatment reduces postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after open distal pancreatectomy. A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pancreatology. 2019;19:786–792.
Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ. 2015;350:g7594.
Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, et al. A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3163–3170.
Butturini G, Partelli S, Crippa S, et al. Perioperative and long-term results after left pancreatectomy: a single-institution, non-randomized, comparative study between open and laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2871–2878.
Pulvirenti A, Landoni L, Borin A, et al. Reinforced stapler versus ultrasonic dissector for pancreatic transection and stump closure for distal pancreatectomy: a propensity matched analysis. Surgery, 166:271–276.
Molinari E, Bassi C, Salvia R, et al. Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of a prospective study in 137 patients. Ann Surg, 246:281–287.
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017;161:584–591.
Chang C-M, Yin W-Y, Wei C-K, et al. Adjusted age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score as a risk measure of perioperative mortality before cancer surgery. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148076.
Posada D, Buckley TR. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of akaike information criterion and bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst Biol. 2004;53:793–808.
Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21:128–138.
Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. New York, NY: Springer; 2009.
Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE. Prediction models need appropriate internal, internal-external, and external validation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:245–247.
McMillan MT, Soi S, Asbun HJ, et al. Risk-adjusted outcomes of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: a model for performance evaluation. Ann Surg. 2016;264:344–352.
Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, et al. External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges. BMJ. 2016;353:i3140.
Mendoza AS, Han H-S, Ahn S, et al. Predictive factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a 10-year single-institution experience. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:649–656.
Jutric Z, Johnston WC, Grendar J, et al. Preoperative computed tomography scan to predict pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy using gland and tumor characteristics. Am J Surg. 2016;211:871–876.
Ammann RW, Heitz PU, Klöppel G. Course of alcoholic chronic pancreatitis: a prospective clinicomorphological long-term study. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:224–231.
Friess H, Malfertheiner P, Isenmann R, et al. The risk of pancreaticointestinal anastomosis can be predicted preoperatively. Pancreas. 1996;13:202–208.
Sugimoto M, Takahashi S, Gotohda N, et al. Schematic pancreatic configuration: a risk assessment for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:1744–1751.
Bilimoria MM, Cormier JN, Mun Y, et al. Pancreatic leak after left pancreatectomy is reduced following main pancreatic duct ligation. Br J Surg. 2003;90:190–196.
Soejima Y, Shirabe K, Yoshizumi T, et al. A simple and secure ligation of the main pancreatic duct in distal pancreatectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:e23–e25.
Asbun HJ, Van Hilst J, Tsamalaidze L, et al. Technique and audited outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy combining the clockwise approach, progressive stepwise compression technique, and staple line reinforcement. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:231–239.
Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA. Laparoscopic approach to distal and subtotal pancreatectomy: a clockwise technique. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2643–2649.
Nathan H, Cameron JL, Goodwin CR, et al. Risk factors for pancreatic leak after distal pancreatectomy. Ann Surg. 2009;250:277–281.
Hackert T, Klaiber U, Hinz U, et al. Sphincter of Oddi botulinum toxin injection to prevent pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2017;161:1444–1450.
Allen PJ, Gönen M, Brennan MF, et al. Pasireotide for postoperative pancreatic fistula. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2014–2022.
Goyert N, Eeson G, Kagedan DJ, et al. Pasireotide for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265:2–10.
Maggino L, Vollmer CM. Pasireotide for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula: time to curb the enthusiasm? Ann Surg. 2018;267:e94–e96.
Esposito A, Ramera M, Casetti L, et al. 401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:7025–7037.
Al Abbas AI, Wang C, Hamad AB, et al. Mentorship and formal robotic proficiency skills curriculum improve subsequent generations’ learning curve for the robotic distal pancreatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23:1849–1855.
Landoni L, De Pastena M, Fontana M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of stapled versus ultrasonic transection in distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:4033–4041.
Wennerblom J, Ateeb Z, Jönsson C, et al. Reinforced versus standard stapler transection on postoperative pancreatic fistula in distal pancreatectomy: multicentre randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2021;108:265–270.
Matsumoto I, Kamei K, Satoi S, et al. Efficacy of the slow firing method using a reinforced triple-row stapler for preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Today. 2022;52:260–267.

Auteurs

Matteo De Pastena (M)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Eduard A van Bodegraven (EA)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Timothy H Mungroop (TH)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Frederique L Vissers (FL)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Leia R Jones (LR)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, Poliambulanza Institute Hospital Foundation, Brescia, Italy.

Giovanni Marchegiani (G)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Alberto Balduzzi (A)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Sjors Klompmaker (S)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.

Salvatore Paiella (S)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Shazad Tavakoli Rad (S)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Bas Groot Koerkamp (B)

Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Casper van Eijck (C)

Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Olivier R Busch (OR)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Ignace de Hingh (I)

Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Misha Luyer (M)

Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Caleb Barnhill (C)

Department of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA.

Thomas Seykora (T)

Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Trudeau Maxwell T (T)

Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Thijs de Rooij (T)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Massimiliano Tuveri (M)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Giuseppe Malleo (G)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Alessandro Esposito (A)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Luca Landoni (L)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Luca Casetti (L)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Adnan Alseidi (A)

Department of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA.

Roberto Salvia (R)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Ewout W Steyerberg (EW)

Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Mohammad Abu Hilal (M)

Department of Surgery, Poliambulanza Institute Hospital Foundation, Brescia, Italy.
Department of Surgery, Southampton University, Southampton, UK.

Charles M Vollmer (CM)

Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Marc G Besselink (MG)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Claudio Bassi (C)

General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH