Alternative Fistula Risk Score for Pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): Design and International External Validation
- PMID: 29240007
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002620
Alternative Fistula Risk Score for Pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): Design and International External Validation
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to develop an alternative fistula risk score (a-FRS) for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy, without blood loss as a predictor.
Background: Blood loss, one of the predictors of the original-FRS, was not a significant factor during 2 recent external validations.
Methods: The a-FRS was developed in 2 databases: the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centers) and the University Hospital Southampton NHS. Primary outcome was grade B/C POPF according to the 2005 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. The score was externally validated in 2 independent databases (University Hospital of Verona and University Hospital of Pennsylvania), using both 2005 and 2016 ISGPS definitions. The a-FRS was also compared with the original-FRS.
Results: For model design, 1924 patients were included of whom 12% developed POPF. Three predictors were strongly associated with POPF: soft pancreatic texture [odds ratio (OR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.80-3.69], small pancreatic duct diameter (per mm increase, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61-0.76), and high body mass index (BMI) (per kg/m increase, OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). Discrimination was adequate with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78) after internal validation, and 0.78 (0.74-0.82) after external validation. The predictive capacity of a-FRS was comparable with the original-FRS, both for the 2005 definition (AUC 0.78 vs 0.75, P = 0.03), and 2016 definition (AUC 0.72 vs 0.70, P = 0.05).
Conclusion: The a-FRS predicts POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy based on 3 easily available variables (pancreatic texture, duct diameter, BMI) without blood loss and pathology, and was successfully validated for both the 2005 and 2016 POPF definition. The online calculator is available at www.pancreascalculator.com.
Comment in
-
Comments on "Alternative Fistula Risk Score for Pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS) Design and International External Validation".Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269(1):e2. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002822. Ann Surg. 2019. PMID: 29771725 No abstract available.
-
Added Value of Body Fat Distribution in Predicting Clinically Significant Pancreatic Fistula in the a-FRS Following Pancreatoduodenectomy Currently Unclear.Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269(1):e2-e3. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002831. Ann Surg. 2019. PMID: 29794851 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Updated Alternative Fistula Risk Score (ua-FRS) to Include Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Pan-European Validation.Ann Surg. 2021 Feb 1;273(2):334-340. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003234. Ann Surg. 2021. PMID: 30829699
-
Preoperative adiposity at bioimpedance vector analysis improves the ability of Fistula Risk Score (FRS) in predicting pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.Pancreatology. 2020 Apr;20(3):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.01.008. Epub 2020 Jan 16. Pancreatology. 2020. PMID: 31980350
-
Predicting pancreatic fistula after central pancreatectomy using current fistula risk scores for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.Pancreatology. 2023 Nov;23(7):843-851. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2023.09.079. Epub 2023 Sep 11. Pancreatology. 2023. PMID: 37739874
-
Systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative pancreatic fistula rates using the updated 2016 International Study Group Pancreatic Fistula definition in patients undergoing pancreatic resection with soft and hard pancreatic texture.HPB (Oxford). 2018 Nov;20(11):992-1003. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.04.003. Epub 2018 May 26. HPB (Oxford). 2018. PMID: 29807807
-
Nationwide validation of the ISGPS risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: "Less is more".Surgery. 2023 May;173(5):1248-1253. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.01.004. Epub 2023 Feb 28. Surgery. 2023. PMID: 36858874 Review.
Cited by
-
Application of Clavien-Dindo classfication-grade in evaluating overall efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Front Surg. 2023 Mar 3;10:1043329. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1043329. eCollection 2023. Front Surg. 2023. PMID: 36936657 Free PMC article.
-
Association of the rate of bilirubin decrease with major morbidity in patients undergoing preoperative biliary drainage before pancreaticoduodenectomy.SAGE Open Med. 2021 Aug 16;9:20503121211039667. doi: 10.1177/20503121211039667. eCollection 2021. SAGE Open Med. 2021. PMID: 34422273 Free PMC article.
-
Machine learning model-based prediction of postpancreatectomy acute pancreatitis following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective cohort study.World J Gastroenterol. 2025 Feb 28;31(8):102071. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i8.102071. World J Gastroenterol. 2025. PMID: 40062328 Free PMC article.
-
Biodegradable internal stent versus no stent for patients at increased risk of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-center propensity score matching analysis.Updates Surg. 2025 May 26. doi: 10.1007/s13304-025-02252-8. Online ahead of print. Updates Surg. 2025. PMID: 40418425
-
A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Clinical Trial Comparing Cattell-Warren and Blumgart Anastomoses Following Partial Pancreatoduodenectomy: PANasta Trial.Ann Surg Open. 2022 Sep 15;3(3):e198. doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000198. eCollection 2022 Sep. Ann Surg Open. 2022. PMID: 36199490 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical