Validation of a Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder Risk Prediction Score and Derivation of a New Prediction Score Using a National Bone Marrow Transplant Registry Database.

BACKGROUND: We externally validated Fujimoto's post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) scoring system for risk prediction by using the Taiwan Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry Database (TBMTRD) and aimed to create a superior scoring system using machine learning methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients registered in the TBMTRD from 2009 to 2018 were included in this study. The Fujimoto PTLD score was calculated for each patient. The machine learning algorithm, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), was used to construct a new score system, which was validated using the fivefold cross-validation method. RESULTS: We identified 2,148 allogeneic HCT recipients, of which 57 (2.65%) developed PTLD in the TBMTRD. In this population, the probabilities for PTLD development by Fujimoto score at 5 years for patients in the low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk groups were 1.15%, 3.06%, 4.09%, and 8.97%, respectively. The score model had acceptable discrimination with a C-statistic of 0.65 and a near-perfect moderate calibration curve (HL test p = .81). Using LASSO regression analysis, a four-risk group model was constructed, and the new model showed better discrimination in the validation cohort when compared with The Fujimoto PTLD score (C-statistic: 0.75 vs. 0.65). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated a more comprehensive model when compared with Fujimoto's PTLD scoring system, which included additional predictors identified through machine learning that may have enhanced discrimination. The widespread use of this promising tool for risk stratification of patients receiving HCT allows identification of high-risk patients that may benefit from preemptive treatment for PTLD. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study validated the Fujimoto score for the prediction of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) development following hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) in an external, independent, and nationally representative population. This study also developed a more comprehensive model with enhanced discrimination for better risk stratification of patients receiving HCT, potentially changing clinical managements in certain risk groups. Previously unreported risk factors associated with the development of PTLD after HCT were identified using the machine learning algorithm, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, including pre-HCT medical history of mechanical ventilation and the chemotherapy agents used in conditioning regimen.

Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database.

BACKGROUND: There are limited studies that compare the cost and outcome of robotic-assisted surgery to open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer treatment. We aimed to compare the three surgical modalities for colon cancer treatment. METHODS: We performed a cohort study using the population-based Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for enrollment. We compared in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost for patients undergoing one of these three procedures using a multivariate adjusted logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of the 531,536 patients undergoing surgical treatment for colon cancer during the study period, 348,645 (65.6%) patients underwent open surgeries, 174,748 (32.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, and 8143 (1.5%) underwent robotic surgeries. In-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, wound complications, general medical complications, general surgical complications, and costs of the three surgical treatment modalities. Compared to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery, patients undergoing open surgery had a higher mortality rate (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.61-3.40), more general medical complications (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.67-1.87), a longer length of hospital stay (6.60 vs. 4.36 days), and higher total cost ($18,541 vs. $14,487) in the propensity score matched cohort. Mortality rate and general medical complications were equivalent in the laparoscopic and robotic surgery groups, but the median cost was lower in the laparoscopic group ($14641 vs. $16,628 USD). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery was associated with a favourable short-term outcome and lower cost compared with open surgery. Robot-assisted surgery had comparable outcomes but higher cost as compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of outcome and cost among open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer: A propensity score matched analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies evaluating outcomes of different approaches for rectal cancer are scarce. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2012. We compared the outcomes and costs among rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries using propensity scores for adjusted and matched analysis. RESULTS: We identified 194 957 rectal cancer patients. Over the 5-year period, the annual admission number decreased by 13.9%, the in-hospital mortality rate decreased by 32.2%, while the total hospitalization cost increased by 13.6%. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery had significantly lower length of stay (LOS) (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.84), comparable wound complications (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.70-1.65) and higher cost (OR 1.42, 95%CI 1.13-1.79), while open surgery had significantly longer LOS (OR 1.38, 95%CI 1.19-1.59), more wound complications (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.08-1.79), and comparable cost (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.79-1.07). There were no difference in in-hospital mortality among three approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery was associated with better outcomes than open surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with higher cost, but no advantage over laparoscopic surgery in terms of mortality and complications. Studies on cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery may be warranted.

Trends and Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer between 2004 and 2012- an Analysis using National Inpatient Database.

Limited data are available for the epidemiology and outcome of colorectal cancer in relation to the three main surgical treatment modalities (open, laparoscopic and robotic). Using the US National Inpatient Sample database from 2004 to 2012, we identified 1,265,684 hospitalized colorectal cancer patients. Over the 9 year period, there was a 13.5% decrease in the number of hospital admissions and a 43.5% decrease in in-hospital mortality. Comparing the trend of surgical modalities, there was a 35.4% decrease in open surgeries, a 3.5 fold increase in laparoscopic surgeries, and a 41.3 fold increase in robotic surgeries. Nonetheless, in 2012, open surgery still remained the preferred surgical treatment modality (65.4%), followed by laparoscopic (31.2%) and robotic surgeries (3.4%). Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries were associated with lower in-hospital mortality, fewer complications, and shorter length of stays, which might be explained by the elective nature of surgery and earlier tumor grades. After excluding patients with advanced tumor grades, laparoscopic surgery was still associated with better outcomes and lower costs than open surgery. On the contrary, robotic surgery was associated with the highest costs, without substantial outcome benefits over laparoscopic surgery. More studies are required to clarify the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery.