Development and external validation of DISPAIR fistula risk score for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula risk after distal pancreatectomy

Akseli Bonsdorff, Poya Ghorbani, Ilkka Helanterä, Timo Tarvainen, Tea Kontio, Hanna Belfrage, Jukka Sirén, Arto Kokkola, Ernesto Sparrelid, Ville Sallinen, Akseli Bonsdorff, Poya Ghorbani, Ilkka Helanterä, Timo Tarvainen, Tea Kontio, Hanna Belfrage, Jukka Sirén, Arto Kokkola, Ernesto Sparrelid, Ville Sallinen

Abstract

Background: Highly utilized risk scores for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) have guided clinical decision-making in pancreatoduodenectomy. However, none has been successfully developed for distal pancreatectomy. This study aimed to develop and validate a new fistula risk score for distal pancreatectomy.

Methods: Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland from 2013 to 2021, and at Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden, from 2010 to 2020, were included retrospectively. The outcome was CR-POPF, according to the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition. Preoperative clinical demographics and radiological parameters such as pancreatic thickness and duct diameter were measured. A logistic regression model was developed, internally validated with bootstrapping, and the performance assessed in an external validation cohort.

Results: Of 668 patients from Helsinki (266) and Stockholm (402), 173 (25.9 per cent) developed CR-POPF. The final model consisted of three variables assessed before surgery: transection site (neck versus body/tail), pancreatic thickness at transection site, and diabetes. The model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.904 (95 per cent c.i. 0.855 to 0.949) after internal validation, and 0.798 (0.748 to 0.848) after external validation. The calibration slope and intercept on external validation were 0.719 and 0.192 respectively. Four risk groups were defined in the validation cohort for clinical applicability: low (below 5 per cent), moderate (at least 5 but below 30 per cent), high (at least 30 but below 75 per cent), and extreme (75 per cent or more). The incidences in these groups were 8.7 per cent (11 of 126), 22.0 per cent (36 of 164), 63 per cent (57 of 91), and 81 per cent (17 of 21) respectively.

Conclusion: The DISPAIR score after distal pancreatectomy may guide decision-making and allow a risk-adjusted outcome comparison for CR-POPF.

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow chart POPF, postoperative pancreatic fistula; CR, clinically relevant.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Pancreatic thickness measurements a Preoperative and b postoperative CT images. a Pancreatic thickness was measured at the transection site (23 mm, right [red] line), and at the neck of the pancreas (12 mm, left [blue] line). Main pancreatic duct diameter was measured at the same locations (not marked in this figure), and 1 mm was entered if not visible. The dashed (orange) line in b represents the transection site (body of pancreas in this patient).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Calibration plots for DISPAIR score development and validation cohorts a Development cohort (Helsinki) and b validation cohort (Stockholm). Histograms represent the distribution of predicted risk. a AUROC 0.904, R2 = 0.533, Brier score 0.084, intercept –0.109, slope 1.135; b AUROC 0.798, R2 = 0.253, Brier score 0.162, intercept 0.192, slope 0.719.

References

    1. Miao Y, Lu Z, Yeo CJ, Vollmer CM, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Ghaneh P et al. Management of the pancreatic transection plane after left (distal) pancreatectomy: expert consensus guidelines by the international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2020;168:72–84
    1. McMillan MT, Christein JD, Callery MP, Behrman SW, Drebin JA, Hollis RH et al. Comparing the burden of pancreatic fistulas after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 2016;159:1013–1022.
    1. Demir E, Abdelhai K, Demir IE, Jäger C, Scheufele F, Schorn S et al. Association of bacteria in pancreatic fistula fluid with complications after pancreatic surgery. BJS Open 2020;4:432–437
    1. Tarvainen T, Sirén J, Kokkola A, Sallinen V. Effect of hydrocortisone vs pasireotide on pancreatic surgery complications in patients with high risk of pancreatic fistula: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2020;155:291–298
    1. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Chaikof EL, Vollmer CM. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2013;216:1–14
    1. Ecker BL, McMillan MT, Allegrini V, Bassi C, Beane JD, Beckman RM 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.
    1. Chong E, Ratnayake B, Lee S, French JJ, Wilson C, Roberts KJ et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy in the era of 2016 International Study Group pancreatic fistula definition. HPB (Oxford) 2021;23:1139–1151
    1. Bag YM, Topel C, Ozdemir E, Saglam K, Sumer F, Kayaalp C. A novel radiological predictor for postoperative pancreatic fistula after stapled distal pancreatectomy. Am Surg 2021;87:725–731
    1. Fukuda Y, Yamada D, Eguchi H, Iwagami Y, Noda T, Asaoka T et al. A novel preoperative predictor of pancreatic fistula using computed tomography after distal pancreatectomy with staple closure. Surg Today 2017;47:1180–1187
    1. Kawai M, Tani M, Okada KI, Hirono S, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A et al. Stump closure of a thick pancreas using stapler closure increases pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. Am J Surg 2013;206:352–359
    1. Eguchi H, Nagano H, Tanemura M, Takeda Y, Marubashi S, Kobayashi S et al. A thick pancreas is a risk factor for pancreatic fistula after a distal pancreatectomy: selection of the closure technique according to the thickness. Dig Surg 2011;28:50–56
    1. Mendoza AS, Han HS, Ahn S, Yoon YS, Cho JY, Choi YR. Predictive factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a 10-year single-institution experience. Surg Endosc 2016;30:649–656
    1. Sugimoto M, Kendrick ML, Farnell MB, Nomura S, Takahashi N, Kobayashi T et al. Relationship between pancreatic thickness and staple height is relevant to the occurrence of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. HPB(Oxford) 2020;22:398–404
    1. Sugimoto M, Gotohda N, Kato Y, Takahashi S, Kinoshita T, Shibasaki H et al. Risk factor analysis and prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy with stapler use. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2013;20:538–544
    1. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Br J Surg 2015;102:148–158
    1. van Buuren S. Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 2007;16:219–242
    1. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M 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
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–383
    1. Kusafuka T, Kato H, Iizawa Y, Noguchi D, Gyoten K, Hayasaki A et al. Pancreas–visceral fat CT value ratio and serrated pancreatic contour are strong predictors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticojejunostomy. BMC Surg 2020;20:129.
    1. Favre G, Grangeon-Chapon C, Raffaelli C, François-Chalmin F, Iannelli A, Esnault V. Perirenal fat thickness measured with computed tomography is a reliable estimate of perirenal fat mass. PLoS One 2017;12:e0175561.
    1. Mathur A, Hernandez J, Shaheen F, Shroff M, Dahal S, Morton C et al. Preoperative computed tomography measurements of pancreatic steatosis and visceral fat: prognostic markers for dissemination and lethality of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford) 2011;13:404–410
    1. Gu DH, Kim MY, Seo YS, Kim SG, Lee HA, Kim TH et al. Clinical usefulness of psoas muscle thickness for the diagnosis of sarcopenia in patients with liver cirrhosis. Clin Mol Hepatol 2018;24:319–330
    1. Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, Harrell FE, Martin GP, Reitsma JB et al. Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ 2020;368:m441.
    1. 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
    1. Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models. Statistics for Biology and Health (2nd edn). New York, NY: Springer, 2019.
    1. Van Calster B, van Smeden M, Steyerberg EW. On the Variability of Regression Shrinkage Methods for Clinical Prediction Models: Simulation Study on Predictive Performance. 2019. (accessed 3 March 2022).
    1. Janssen KJM, Moons KGM, Kalkman CJ, Grobbee DE, Vergouwe Y. Updating methods improved the performance of a clinical prediction model in new patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:76–86
    1. Mungroop TH, Van Rijssen LB, Van Klaveren D, Smits FJ, van Woerden V, Linnemann RJ et al. Alternative fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): design and international external validation. Ann Surg 2019;269:937–943
    1. Mungroop TH, Klompmaker S, Wellner UF, Steyerberg EW, Coratti A, D’Hondt M et al. Updated alternative fistula risk score (ua-FRS) to include minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: pan-European validation. Ann Surg 2021;273:334–340
    1. PARANOIA Study Group, Writing committee; Pande R, Halle-Smith JM, Phelan L, Thorne T, Panikkar M, Hodson J et al. External validation of postoperative pancreatic fistula prediction scores in pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2021;24:287–298
    1. McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, Butturini G, Salvia R, Roses RE et al. Drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: reappraisal of a prospective randomized trial using risk stratification. J Am Coll Surg 2015;221:798–809
    1. McMillan MT, Christein JD, Callery MP, Behrman SW, Drebin JA, Kent TS et al. Prophylactic octreotide for pancreatoduodenectomy: more harm than good? HPB (Oxford) 2014;16:954–962
    1. Ban D, Shimada K, Konishi M, Saiura A, Hashimoto M, Uesaka K. Stapler and nonstapler closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy: multicenter retrospective analysis of 388 patients. World J Surg 2012;36:1866–1873
    1. Pannegeon V, Pessaux P, Sauvanet A, Vullierme MP, Kianmanesh R, Belghiti J. Pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: predictive risk factors and value of conservative treatment. Arch Surg 2006;141:1071–1076; discussion 1076
    1. Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1925–1931
    1. Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JPA, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:W1–W73
    1. Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, Van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW; Topic Group ‘Evaluating diagnostic tests and prediction models’ of the STRATOS initiative . Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med 2019;17:230.
    1. Han K, Song K, Choi BW. How to develop, validate, and compare clinical prediction models involving radiological parameters: study design and statistical methods. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:339–350
    1. Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med 2006;25:127–141
    1. Collins GS, Ogundimu EO, Altman DG. Sample size considerations for the external validation of a multivariable prognostic model: a resampling study. Stat Med 2016;35:214–226

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren