Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32557654›Full record

ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2020

Retroperitoneal sarcoma perioperative risk stratification: A United States Sarcoma Collaborative evaluation of the ACS-NSQIP risk calculator.

Patrick B Schwartz, Christopher C Stahl, Cecilia Ethun, Nicholas Marka, George A Poultsides, Kevin K Roggin, Ryan C Fields, John H Howard, Callisia N Clarke, Konstantinos I Votanopoulos and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick B SchwartzDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2933-7139
Christopher C StahlDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Cecilia EthunDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Nicholas MarkaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
George A PoultsidesDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Kevin K RogginDepartment of Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Ryan C FieldsDepartment of Surgery, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
John H HowardDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Callisia N ClarkeDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5229-961X
Konstantinos I VotanopoulosDepartment of Surgery, Wake Forest, Salem, North Carolina.
Kenneth CardonaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8200-3269
Daniel E AbbottDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-0734
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USEmory University · USMedical College of Wisconsin · USOhio State University Hospital · USPalo Alto University · USUniversity of Chicago · USWake Forest University · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Molecular & Environmental Toxicology Pre-& Postdoctoral Training ProgramT32ES007015 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CHRISTOPHER A BRADFIELD · 1985 to 2026
$11.5M
UW Surgical Oncology Research Training Program (UW-SORT)T32CA090217 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Muhammed Murtaza, Heather B Neuman · 2001 to 2026
$8.3M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA090217NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ACS-NSQIP risk calculator predicts perioperative risk. This study tested the calculator's ability to predict risk for outcomes following retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) resection.

methodsThe United States Sarcoma Collaborative database was queried for adults who underwent RPS resection. Estimated risk for outcomes was calculated twice in the risk calculator, once using sarcoma-specific CPT codes and once using codes indicative of most comorbid organ resection (eg nephrectomy). ROC curves were generated, with area under the curve (AUC) and Brier scores reported to assess discrimination and calibration. An AUC < 0.6 was considered ineffective discrimination. A negative ▲ Brier indicated improved performance relative to baseline outcome rates.

resultsIn total, 482 patients were identified with a 42.3% 90-day complication rate. Discrimination was poor for all outcomes except "all complications" and "renal failure." Baseline outcome rates were better predictors than calculator estimates except for "discharge to nursing or rehab facility" and "renal failure." Replacing sarcoma-specific CPT codes with resection-specific codes did not improve performance.

conclusionThe ACS-NSQIP risk calculator poorly predicted outcomes following RPS resection. Changing sarcoma-specific CPT to resection-specific codes did not improve performance. Comorbidities in the calculator may not effectively capture perioperative risk. Future work should evaluate a sarcoma-specific calculator.

Indexed as

briercalibrationdiscriminationoutcomesperioperative

Identifiers

PMID32557654
PMCPMC7744355
OpenAlexW3036645475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.