Utility of a generic risk prediction score in predicting outcomes after orofacial surgery for cancer

The Tumor Risk Score (TRS) - next level risk prediction in head and neck tumor surgery

PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer surgery often requires postoperative monitoring in an intensive care unit (ICU) or intermediate care unit (IMC). With a variety of different risk scores, it is incumbent upon the investigator to plan a risk-adapted allocation of resources. Tumor surgery in the head and neck region itself offers a wide range of procedures in terms of resection extent and reconstruction methods, which can be stratified only vaguely by a cross-disciplinary score. Facing a variety of different risk scores we aimed to develop a new Tumor Risk Score (TRS) enabling anterograde preoperative risk evaluation, resource allocation and optimization of cost and outcome measurements in tumor surgery of the head and neck.

METHODS

A collective of 547 patients (2010-2021) with intraoral tumors was studied to develop the TRS by grading the preoperative tumor size and location as well as the invasiveness of the planned surgery by means of statistical modeling. Two postoperative complications were defined: (1) prolonged postoperative stay in IMC/ICU and (2) prolonged total length of stay (LOS). Each parameter was analyzed using TRS and all preoperative patient parameters (age, sex, preoperative hemoglobin, body-mass-index, preexisting medical conditions) using predictive modeling design. Established risk scores (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification (ASA), Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI)) and Patient Clinical Complexity Level (PCCL) were used as benchmarks for model performance of the TRS.

RESULTS

The TRS is significantly correlated with surgery duration (p < 0.001) and LOS (p = 0.001). With every increase in TRS, LOS rises by 9.3% (95%CI 4.7-13.9; p < 0.001) or 1.9 days (95%CI 1.0-2.8; p < 0.001), respectively. For each increase in TRS, the LOS in IMC/ICU wards increases by 0.33 days (95%CI 0.12-0.54; p = 0.002), and the probability of an overall prolonged IMC/ICU stay increased by 32.3% per TRS class (p < 0.001). Exceeding the planned IMC/ICU LOS, overall LOS increased by 7.7 days (95%CI 5.35-10.08; p < 0.001) and increases the likelihood of also exceeding the upper limit LOS by 70.1% (95%CI 1.02-2.85; p = 0.041). In terms of predictive power of a prolonged IMC/ICU stay, the TRS performs better than previously established risk scores such as ASA or CCI (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

The lack of a standardized needs assessment can lead to both under- and overutilization of the IMC/ICU and therefore increased costs and losses in total revenue. Our index helps to stratify the risk of a prolonged IMC/ICU stay preoperatively and to adjust resource allocation in major head and neck tumor surgery.

Evaluation and validation of Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity and Portsmouth-POSSUM scores in predicting morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgeries

BACKGROUND

Identification of risk factors for perioperative complications helps in the prognostication. We wanted to determine whether Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) and Portsmouth-POSSUM (P-POSSUM) can be used in patients undergoing head and neck oncosurgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1265 patients after they had major head and neck oncosurgeries. Demographic, surgical and outcome data was collected. We separately analyzed data for patients who had undergone cancer surgery for oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx. We calculated the POSSUM and P-POSSUM scores.

RESULTS

POSSUM scoring system had moderate discrimination (AUC = 0.61) and good calibration (P = .36) for the entire study cohort and in the subgroup. Since there were no deaths in the entire cohort, we were not able to check predictive ability of the scores, for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that POSSUM had moderate discrimination and good calibration for morbidity prediction in head and neck cancer surgeries, as well as for the selected subgroup.

Optimizing classical risk scores to predict complications in head and neck surgery: a new approach

Purpose

To validate tools to identify patients at risk for perioperative complications to implement prehabilitation programmes in head and neck surgery (H&N).

Methods

Retrospective cohort including 128 patients submitted to H&N, with postoperative Intermediate Care Unit admittance. The accuracy of the risk calculators ASA, P-POSSUM, ACS-NSQIP and ARISCAT to predict postoperative complications and mortality was assessed. A multivariable analysis was subsequently performed to create a new risk prediction model for serious postoperative complications in our institution.

Results

Our 30-day morbidity and mortality were 45.3% and 0.8%, respectively. The ACS-NSQIP failed to predict complications and had an acceptable discrimination ability for predicting death. The discrimination ability of ARISCAT for predicting respiratory complications was acceptable. ASA and P-POSSUM were poor predictors for mortality and morbidity. Our new prediction model included ACS-NSQIP and ARISCAT (area under the curve 0.750, 95% confidence intervals: 0.63–0.87).

Conclusion

Despite the insufficient value of these risk calculators when analysed individually, we designed a risk tool combining them which better predicts the risk of serious complications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00405-020-06133-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is benchmarking possible in audit of early outcomes after operations for head and neck cancer?

There is a need for a validated means of adjusting for case mix in morbidity audits of patients with cancer of the head and neck. To address this, we did a multicentre audit of 3 U.K. NHS cancer networks that treat patients with head and neck cancer, to compare the incidence of early adverse postoperative outcomes and to develop a means of adjusting for case mix. We did a retrospective and prospective audit of the case notes of 901 consecutive patients who had 1034 operations for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck under general anaesthesia at 3 NHS hospitals. Analysis of raw data showed postoperative 30-day mortality (n=17) to be consistent between sites (1.7%-1.9%) but 30-day complication rates varied more (34%-49%). Logistic regression models predicting morbidity discriminated well (area under the curve 0.74-0.76). Adjusted morbidity rates for the 3 units were compared on a funnel plot with 95% and 99% confidence intervals to account for random variation. It is possible to benchmark surgical performance by focusing on early postoperative outcomes in head and neck surgery. Morbidity is common and usually has a considerable impact on recovery, bed occupancy, cost, and the patient's perception of the quality of care.

Full length articles published in BJOMS during 2010-11--an analysis by sub-specialty and study type

Full length articles such as prospective and retrospective studies, case series, laboratory-based research and reviews form the majority of papers published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS). We were interested to evaluate the breakdown of these types of articles both by sub-specialty and the type of study as well as the proportion that are written by UK colleagues compared to overseas authors over a 2 year period (2010-11). A total of 191 full length articles across all sub-specialties of our discipline were published, with 107 papers (56%) coming from UK authors. There were proportionately more oncology papers arising from the UK than overseas (60 and 30% of total respectively) while the opposite was found for cleft/deformity studies (10% and 22%). There was only one laboratory-based study published from the UK compared with 27 papers from overseas. The number of quality papers being submitted to the Journal continues to increase, and the type of article being published between UK and overseas probably reflects different practices and case-loads amongst colleagues. The relatively few UK laboratory based studies published in BJOMS compared to overseas authors are most likely due to authors seeking the most prestigious journals possible for their work.