Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perioperative mortality and morbidity prediction using POSSUM, P-POSSUM and APACHE II in Chinese gastric cancer patients: surgical method is a key independent factor affecting prognosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Gastric cancer is the fourth most common cancer worldwide. Predicting morbidity and mortality is important in deciding timing of surgery and type of surgery offered. APACHE II, POSSUM, and P-POSSUM are the most reliable scoring methods in use today. This is the first paper to evaluate the utility of all three scoring systems in China.

Methods

We collected data on 851 patients (583 male and 268 female) who underwent surgery between 1991 and 2011. Physiological and pathological data was entered in spreadsheet format and analyzed using STATA version 11.0 to generate ROC curves for each scoring system.

Results

In predicting mortality, P-POSSUM and POSSUM were most effective and APACHE II was ineffective. POSSUM predicted a higher morbidity risk than was actually encountered. Age and type of operation were found to be independent risk factors for mortality.

Discussion

The utility of the APACHE II score in gastric cancer patients is limited. APACHE II is suitable for considering group versus individual effect. The POSSUM score is useful in general surgery, but needs improvement. We found the P-POSSUM score to be superior for morbidity and mortality prediction. P-POSSUM is useful for both the general population and for a specific cohort. The type of surgery is a key decision point for surgeons, and independently affects prognosis. Based upon these findings and clinical scoring systems, clinicians can develop individualized treatment algorithms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F et al (2010) GLOBOCAN 2008 v2.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10 [Internet]. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon. http://globocan.iarc.fr Accessed 4 Dec 2012

  2. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP et al (1985) APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13:818–829

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M (1991) POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 78:355–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Whiteley MS, Prytherch DR, Higgins B et al (1996) An evaluation of the POSSUM surgical scoring system. Br J Surg 83:812–815

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bennett-Guerrero E, Hyam JA, Shaefi S et al (2003) Comparison of P-POSSUM risk-adjusted mortality rates after surgery between patients in the USA and the UK. Br J Surg 90:1593–1598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bosscha K, Reijnders K, Hulstaert PF et al (1997) Prognostic scoring systems to predict outcome in peritonitis and intra-abdominal sepsis. Br J Surg 84:1532–1534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Le L, Fakhry S, Walton LA et al (1995) Use of the APACHE II scoring system to determine mortality of gynecologic oncology patients in the intensive care unit. Obstet Gynecol 85:53–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ridley S (1998) Severity of illness scoring systems and performance appraisal. Anaesthesia 53:1185–1194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ip SP, Leung YF, Ip CY et al (1999) Outcomes of critically ill elderly patients: is high-dependency care for geriatric patients worthwhile? Crit Care Med 27:2351–2357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamb P, Sivashanmugam T, White M et al (2008) Gastric cancer surgery–a balance of risk and radicality. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90:235–242

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartley MN, Sagar PM (1994) The surgeon’s ‘gut feeling’ as a predictor of post-operative outcome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 76:277–278

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sah BK, Zhu ZG, Chen MM et al (2009) Effect of surgical work volume on postoperative complication: superiority of specialized center in gastric cancer treatment. Langenbecks Arch Surg 394:41–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mosquera D, Chiang N, Gibberd R (2008) Evaluation of surgical performance using V-POSSUM risk-adjusted mortality rates. ANZ J Surg 78:535–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tambyraja AL, Kumar S, Nixon SJ (2005) POSSUM scoring for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly. ANZ J Surg 75:550–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bennett-Guerrero E, Feierman DE, Barclay GR et al (2001) Preoperative and intraoperative predictors of postoperative morbidity, poor graft function, and early rejection in 190 patients undergoing liver transplantation. Arch Surg 136:1177–1183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Das N, Talaat AS, Naik R et al (2006) Risk adjusted surgical audit in gynaecological oncology: P-POSSUM does not predict outcome. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:1135–1138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Prytherch DR, Sutton GL, Boyle JR (2001) Portsmouth POSSUM models for abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Br J Surg 88:958–963

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones DR, Copeland GP, de Cossart L (1992) Comparison of POSSUM with APACHE II for prediction of outcome from a surgical high-dependency unit. Br J Surg 79:1293–1296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. de Cassia Braga Ribeiro K, Kowalski LP (2003) APACHE II, POSSUM, and ASA scores and the risk of perioperative complications in patients with oral or oropharyngeal cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129:739–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Huashan Hospital affiliated to FuDan University, No. 12 Wulumuqizhong Rd, Shanghai, 200040, People’s Republic of China

    Yantian Fang, Chunhsien Wu, Xiaodong Gu, Zhengyang Li, Jianbin Xiang & Zongyou Chen

Authors
  1. Yantian Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chunhsien Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaodong Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhengyang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jianbin Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zongyou Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jianbin Xiang or Zongyou Chen.

Additional information

Y. Fang and C. Wu contributed equally.

About this article

Cite this article

Fang, Y., Wu, C., Gu, X. et al. Perioperative mortality and morbidity prediction using POSSUM, P-POSSUM and APACHE II in Chinese gastric cancer patients: surgical method is a key independent factor affecting prognosis. Int J Clin Oncol 19, 74–80 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-013-0525-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-013-0525-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation