10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improving risk models for patients having emergency bowel cancer surgery using linked electronic health records: a national cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Life-saving emergency major resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a high-risk procedure. Accurate prediction of postoperative mortality for patients undergoing this procedure is essential for both healthcare performance monitoring and preoperative risk assessment. Risk-adjustment models for CRC patients often include patient and tumour characteristics, widely available in cancer registries and audits. The authors investigated to what extent inclusion of additional physiological and surgical measures, available through linkage or additional data collection, improves accuracy of risk models.

          Methods:

          Linked, routinely-collected data on patients undergoing emergency CRC surgery in England between December 2016 and November 2019 were used to develop a risk model for 90-day mortality. Backwards selection identified a ‘selected model’ of physiological and surgical measures in addition to patient and tumour characteristics. Model performance was assessed compared to a ‘basic model’ including only patient and tumour characteristics. Missing data was multiply imputed.

          Results:

          Eight hundred forty-six of 10 578 (8.0%) patients died within 90 days of surgery. The selected model included seven preoperative physiological and surgical measures (pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, breathlessness, sodium, urea, albumin, and predicted peritoneal soiling), in addition to the 10 patient and tumour characteristics in the basic model (calendar year of surgery, age, sex, ASA grade, TNM T stage, TNM N stage, TNM M stage, cancer site, number of comorbidities, and emergency admission). The selected model had considerably better discrimination compared to the basic model (C-statistic: 0.824 versus 0.783, respectively).

          Conclusion:

          Linkage of disease-specific and treatment-specific datasets allowed the inclusion of physiological and surgical measures in a risk model alongside patient and tumour characteristics, which improves the accuracy of the prediction of the mortality risk for CRC patients having emergency surgery. This improvement will allow more accurate performance monitoring of healthcare providers and enhance clinical care planning.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice

          Multiple imputation by chained equations is a flexible and practical approach to handling missing data. We describe the principles of the method and show how to impute categorical and quantitative variables, including skewed variables. We give guidance on how to specify the imputation model and how many imputations are needed. We describe the practical analysis of multiply imputed data, including model building and model checking. We stress the limitations of the method and discuss the possible pitfalls. We illustrate the ideas using a data set in mental health, giving Stata code fragments. 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration

            The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.

              The performance of prediction models can be assessed using a variety of methods and metrics. Traditional measures for binary and survival outcomes include the Brier score to indicate overall model performance, the concordance (or c) statistic for discriminative ability (or area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve), and goodness-of-fit statistics for calibration.Several new measures have recently been proposed that can be seen as refinements of discrimination measures, including variants of the c statistic for survival, reclassification tables, net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Moreover, decision-analytic measures have been proposed, including decision curves to plot the net benefit achieved by making decisions based on model predictions.We aimed to define the role of these relatively novel approaches in the evaluation of the performance of prediction models. For illustration, we present a case study of predicting the presence of residual tumor versus benign tissue in patients with testicular cancer (n = 544 for model development, n = 273 for external validation).We suggest that reporting discrimination and calibration will always be important for a prediction model. Decision-analytic measures should be reported if the predictive model is to be used for clinical decisions. Other measures of performance may be warranted in specific applications, such as reclassification metrics to gain insight into the value of adding a novel predictor to an established model.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Surg
                Int J Surg
                JS9
                International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                1743-9191
                1743-9159
                March 2024
                29 January 2024
                : 110
                : 3
                : 1564-1576
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
                [b ]Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England
                [c ]Department of Applied Health Research, University College London
                [d ]Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
                [e ]Department of Anaesthesia and Peri-operative Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
                [f ]Anaesthetic Department, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
                [g ]Division of Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary
                [h ]Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. Tel.: +44 20 7679 9634. E-mail: helen.blake@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk (H.A. Blake).
                Article
                IJS-D-23-01625 00027
                10.1097/JS9.0000000000000966
                10942147
                38285065
                7a8d0692-0b9e-4297-8f52-9596296b2b48
                Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History
                : 1 August 2023
                : 21 November 2023
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                Surgery
                colorectal cancer,emergency surgery,risk model,postoperative mortality,record linkage,electronic health records

                Comments

                Comment on this article