External validation of a model to predict the survival of patients presenting with a spinal epidural metastasis

The surgical treatment of spinal metastases is evolving. The major problem is the selection of patients who may benefit from surgical treatment. One of the criteria is an expected survival of at least 3 months. A prediction model has been previously developed. The present study has been performed in order to validate externally the model and to demonstrate that this model can be generalized to other institutions and other countries than the Netherlands. Data of 356 patients from five centers in Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands who were treated for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression were collected. Hazard ratios in the test population corresponded with those of the developmental population. However, the observed and the expected survival were different. Analysis revealed that the baseline hazard function was significantly different. This tempted us to combine the data and develop a new prediction model. Estimating iteratively, a baseline hazard was composed. An adapted prediction model is presented. External validation of a prediction model revealed a difference in expected survival, although the relative contribution of the specific hazard ratios was the same as in the developmental population. This study emphasized the need to check the baseline hazard function in external validation. A new model has been developed using an estimated baseline hazar

External validation of a model to predict the survival of patients presenting with a spinal epidural metastasis

The surgical treatment of spinal metastases is evolving. The major problem is the selection of patients who may benefit from surgical treatment. One of the criteria is an expected survival of at least 3 months. A prediction model has been previously developed. The present study has been performed in order to validate externally the model and to demonstrate that this model can be generalized to other institutions and other countries than the Netherlands. Data of 356 patients from five centers in Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands who were treated for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression were collected. Hazard ratios in the test population corresponded with those of the developmental population. However, the observed and the expected survival were different. Analysis revealed that the baseline hazard function was significantly different. This tempted us to combine the data and develop a new prediction model. Estimating iteratively, a baseline hazard was composed. An adapted prediction model is presented. External validation of a prediction model revealed a difference in expected survival, although the relative contribution of the specific hazard ratios was the same as in the developmental population. This study emphasized the need to check the baseline hazard function in external validation. A new model has been developed using an estimated baseline hazar

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding