Value of E-PASS models for predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality in resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma

Transcription

1 HPB ORIGINAL ARTICLE Value of E-PASS models for predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality in resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma Yoshio Haga 1,2, Atsushi Miyamoto 3, Yasuo Wada 4, Yuko Takami 5 & Hitoshi Takeuchi 6 1 Institute for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Kumamoto Medical Center, 1-5 Ninomaru, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto , 2 Department of International Medical Cooperation, Graduate School of Medical Sciences Kumamoto University, Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto , 3 Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Hoenzaka, Chuo-ku, Osaka , 4 Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Himeji Medical Center, 68 Honmachi, Himeji, Hyogo , 5 Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Kyushu Medical Center, Jigyohama Chuo-ku, Fukuoka , and 6 Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Iwakuni Clinical Center, Atagomachi, Iwakuni, Yamaguchi , Japan Abstract Background: It has previously been reported that a general risk model, Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS), and its modified version, me-pass, had a high predictive power for postoperative mortality and morbidity in a variety of gastrointestinal surgeries. This study evaluated their utilities in proximal biliary carcinoma resection. Methods: E-PASS variables were collected in patients undergoing resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma in Japanese referral hospitals. Results: Analysis of 125 patients with gallbladder cancer and 97 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (n = 222). Fifty-six patients (25%) underwent liver resection with either hemihepatectomy or extended hemihepatectomy. The E-PASS models showed a high discrimination power to predict inhospital mortality; areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% confidence intervals) were 0.85 ( ) for E-PASS and 0.82 ( ) for me-pass. The predicted mortality rates correlated with the severity of postoperative complications (Spearman s rank correlation coefficient: r = 0.51, P < for E-PASS; r = 0.47, P < for me-pass). Conclusions: The E-PASS models examined herein may accurately predict postoperative morbidity and mortality in proximal biliary carcinoma resection. These models will be useful for surgical decisionmaking, informed consent, and risk adjustments in surgical audits. Received 17 September 2015; accepted 22 September 2015 Correspondence Yoshio Haga, Institute for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Kumamoto Medical Center, 1-5 Ninomaru, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto , Japan. Tel: Fax: yoshio@kumamed.jp Introduction Hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy is a challenging area for surgeons due its high morbidity and mortality rates. Postoperative mortality in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is still an important issue as mortality rates ranged between 0% and 15%. 1 3 According to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data base, postoperative morbidity rates for cholangiocarcinoma surgery were This study was presented at the 50th Golden Anniversary Congress of the European Society for Surgical Research on 11th of June in Liverpool, UK. 29.4% for hepatectomy, 43.5% for biliary-enteric anastomosis (BEA) and 47.8% for hepatectomy and biliary-enteric anastomosis day mortality rates were 5.2% for hepatectomy and 12.0% for hepatectomy and BEA. 3 Regarding gallbladder carcinoma resection, Nishino et al. 4 reported that postoperative mortality rate were 2.8% when the hepatectomy was less than right hemihepatectomy, while the rate increased up to 12.5% when the hepatectomy was right hemihepatectomy or more. Therefore, predicting the postoperative risk is important for both clinicians and patients in this field. Overwhelming surgical stress that exceeds a patient s physiological ability may result in the disruption of homeostasis in vital

2 272 HPB organs, leading to postoperative complications in many organs. Based on this hypothesis, we previously constructed a prediction model for postoperative morbidity and mortality in elective gastrointestinal surgeries, which was designated as Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS). 5 Several cohort studies demonstrated reproducible outcomes for predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality. 6 9 We further modified this model to preoperatively predict mortality rates using a reduced number of variables, and designated this modified version as me-pass. 9 Our prospective cohort study, which targeted a wide variety of gastrointestinal surgeries, demonstrated that me-pass had a higher discriminative power than the well-known prediction models, Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) 10 and its modified version, Portsmouth-POSSUM (P-POSSUM). 11 Moreover, the E-PASS models were shown to be useful in many specialty surgical fields, including surgeries for colorectal carcinoma, 12 gastric carcinoma, 13 liver carcinoma, 14 and choledochocystolithiasis. 15 Regarding proximal biliary carcinoma resection, Wang et al. demonstrated that E-PASS accurately predicted postoperative mortality in the surgical treatment of hilar carcinoma. 16 No further study has been performed in this field. Preoperative risk tools are needed for liver and biliary surgery in proximal bile duct tumors as these procedures are associated with high risks of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, this study was undertaken to determine whether the E-PASS models were capable of predicting postoperative outcomes in resection of proximal biliary carcinoma. Patients and methods Study design and patient selection This study was performed according to the ethical guidelines on epidemiological research developed by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan. This study analyzed two subsets of patients (Cohort 1, ; Cohort 2, ). Cohort 1 was composed of patients in previously conducted multicenter cohort studies in 16 referral hospitals in Japan. 5 9 Cohort 2 was then set to obtain a sufficient sample size composed of patients in 5 referral hospitals in Japan. Most participating hospitals in both cohorts are medium-volume surgical centers and typically manage approximately liver resections annually. In both cohorts, the patients were those who underwent elective resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder carcinoma. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is defined as an apparent malignant biliary stricture originating in the common hepatic duct or in the hepatic duct confluence (Bismuth types 1 to 4), or in the left or right hepatic duct. 17 Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma was classified according to Bismuth classification. 18 Patients who underwent palliative bypass or exploratory laparotomy were excluded from this study. Patients, who underwent cholecystectomy for stone disease and were postoperatively diagnosed with gallbladder carcinoma, were also excluded from this study. Surgical procedure The standard operative procedure for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is bile duct resection with regional lymph node dissection plus hepatectomy, as recommended in Japanese guidelines. 19 Extrahepatic bile duct resection alone is also selected in patients with Bismuth type I carcinoma for whom it is judged that curative resection can be achieved after a strict diagnosis of the local extension of the cancer. 19 The standard operative procedure for gallbladder carcinoma is open cholecystectomy with regional lymph node dissection plus partial hepatectomy. Extrahepatic bile duct resection is simultaneously carried out when a tumor is thought to be very close to or invaded the extrahepatic bile duct on preoperative assessment or intraoperative inspection. Concomitant hemihepatectomy or extended hemihepatectomy is indicated for invasive tumors. Type of liver resection was classified according to the Brisbane classification. 20 E-PASS models We investigated E-PASS variables and evaluated postoperative courses. E-PASS development has previously been described in detail. 5 Shortly, the original E-PASS consists of the preoperative risk score (PRS), the surgical stress score (SSS), and the comprehensive risk score (CRS) in which PRS and SSS is combined. Using the CRS, we generated equations for predicted inhospital mortality rates. 8 (1) PRS Preoperative risk score PRS = X X X X X X 6, where X 1 is age; X 2, the presence (1) or absence (0) of severe heart disease; X 3, the presence (1) or absence (0) of severe pulmonary disease; X 4, the presence (1) or absence (0) of diabetes mellitus; X 5, the performance status index (range, 0 4); and X 6, the ASA physiological status classification (range, 1 5). Severe heart disease is defined as heart failure meeting the criteria of New York Heart Association Class III or IV, or severe arrhythmia requiring mechanical support. Severe pulmonary disease is defined as any condition with a percent vital capacity of less than 60% and/or a percent forced expiratory volume in 1 s of less than 50%. Diabetes mellitus is defined according to the World Health Organization criteria. (2) SSS Surgical stress score SSS = X X X 3 Where X 1 is blood loss (in grams) divided by body weight (in kilograms); X 2, the operation time (in hours); and X 3,

3 HPB 273 the extent of the skin incision (0 indicates a minor incision for laparoscopic or thoracoscopic surgery including laparoscopic- or thoracoscopic-assisted surgery; 1, laparotomy or thoracotomy alone; and 2, laparotomy and thoracotomy). (3) CRS Comprehensive risk score CRS = (0.936 PRS) + (0.976 SSS) (4) Equations for predicted in-hospital mortality rates (%) CRS<0:159 Yj0 0:159 CRS<2:98 Y ¼ 0:465+1:192ðCRSÞ+10:91ðCRSÞ 2 CRS 2:98 Y ¼ 100 We subsequently modified this model, designated this system as modified E-PASS (me-pass). 9 In me-pass, PRS is the same as the original E-PASS. As an indicator of surgical severity, we used the median value of SSS in each surgical procedure as shown in Table 1. This score is called the Surgical Stressed Score fixed (SSSf). When making SSSf, surgical procedures were classified according to the Japanese National Health Care reimbursement system, 2004 edition. 9 Using PRS and SSSf, we constructed a new Comprehensive Risk Score fixed (CRSf) and an equation for postoperative mortality rate as shown below. (1) CRSf Comprehensive risk score fixed (CRSf) = (PRS) (SSSf) (2) Equations for predicted in-hospital mortality rates CRSf <0:326 Yj0 CRSf 0:326 Y ¼ 0:0541ðCRSf Þ+0:197ðCRSf Þ 2 0:00328 Table 1 Values of Surgical Stress Score fixed (SSSf) in me-pass Surgical procedure SSSf Cholecystectomy with nodal dissection, with or without partial hepatectomy Choledochal resection with nodal dissection, with or without partial hepatectomy Liver segmentectomy Hemihepatectomy Extended hemihepatectomy Surgical procedures were classified according to the Japanese National Health Care reimbursement system, 2004 edition. 9 The values for SSSf were determined as the median values of Surgical Stress Score (SSS) of E-PASS scoring system in individual procedures. 9 Endpoints Endpoints of study were in-hospital mortality and 30-day morbidity. Postoperative complications were defined as described previously. 21 Anastomotic leak is defined as conditions that require documentation by re-operation or by contrast study of leak from suture line in a viscus into a body cavity or to the skin. 21 Liver failure was defined as 1) a serum bilirubin level of >10 mg/dl together with an NH 3 level of 100 mg/dl or a prothrombin time of <40%, or 2) a requirement for continuous hemodiafiltration or plasma exchange, as described previously. 22 Bile leak is defined as Grade B (requiring a change in clinical management) or C (a repeat laparotomy is necessary) of the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) criteria. 23 The severity of postoperative complications was classified using the Clavien grading system, as described previously. 24 Statistical analysis All statistical analyses were performed using the software, Stata version 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas). A two-tailed P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. The Mann Whitney U test was used to test for differences in nonparametric continuous variables. Categorical variables between groups were compared using the chi-square test with Yates correction for continuity or, where appropriate. The relationship between ordinal and continuous variables was analyzed by Spearman s rank correlation (r), the significance of which was determined by Spearman s rank sum test. The discriminative power of a model to discriminate patients who died during hospitalization from those who did not was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). AUC > 0.8 was considered as good discriminative power. The significance of AUCs between the models was determined by the chi-square test. To analyze the relationship of postoperative morbidity and the E-PASS models, we created a stacked bar chart showing proportions with each Clavien s grade. 25 Patients were divided into 4 risk bands according to the order of the predicted mortality rates in each model. Each risk band contained the same number of patients (n =55orn = 56). The proportions of each grade (0 5) were calculated in each risk band. In the analysis of CRS value on postoperative mortality rates, we determined the cut-off value of CRS by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. To analyze the independence of the predictors for postoperative complications, logistic regression analysis was performed. We included major liver resection, BEA, biliary drainage, cholangitis, and the CRS as covariables. Results Demographic data Table 2 shows the demographic data of the patients examined. The median age was 71.5 years old with a range between 38 and

4 274 HPB 89 years old. 58% of the patients were male. The preoperative liver function data were obtained in 174 patients from the retrospective investigation. Elevated serum bilirubin levels greater than 1.5 mg/dl were observed in 7% (7/102) of the patients with gallbladder carcinoma and 51% (37/72) of those with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Preoperative drainage was performed in 6% (6/102) of the patients with gallbladder carcinoma and 49% (35/72) of those with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Preoperative cholangitis was observed in 10% (7/72) of patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. On the other hand, no patient with gallbladder carcinoma showed preoperative cholangitis. Hepatectomy was performed in 81% of these patients (180/222). Regarding segmentectomy, we had 10 Table 2 Demographic data of subjects Diagnoses, No. 222 Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma 97 Bismuth type I 30 Bismuth type II 19 Bismuth type IIIa 7 Bismuth type IIIb 26 Bismuth type IV 15 Gallbladder carcinoma 125 Preoperative liver function, No. a 174 Elevated serum bilirubin levels 44 greater than 1.5 mg/dl Preoperative biliary drainage 41 Preoperative cholangitis 7 Surgical procedures, No. 222 Cholecystectomy with nodal dissection, 85 with partial hepatectomy Cholecystectomy with nodal dissection, 6 without partial hepatectomy Choledochal resection with nodal dissection, 6 with partial hepatectomy Choledochal resection with nodal dissection, 38 without partial hepatectomy Liver resection with choledochal resection with nodal dissection Segmentectomy 4 1 Segmentectomy 2,3 1 Segmentectomy 4,5 29 Left hemihepatectomy segmentectomy 1 5 Left hemihepatectomy + segmentectomy 1 20 Extended left hemihepatectomy + segmentectomy 1 5 Right hemihepatectomy segmentectomy 1 4 Right hemihepatectomy + segmentectomy 1 3 Extended right hemihepatectomy segmentectomy 1 9 Extended right hemihepatectomy + segmentectomy 1 10 a Preoperative liver function was obtained in 174 patients from the retrospective investigation. patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma undergoing central segmentectomy. Treatment outcomes Seventy-eight patients (35%) developed postoperative complications of Clavien grading III or greater, as shown in Table 3. The overall 30-day, 90-day, and in-hospital mortality rates were 5% (11/222), 9% (20/222), and 9% (21/222), respectively. The inhospital mortality rate for major liver resection, hemihepatectomy or extended hemihepatectomy, with BEA was 23% (13/56), whereas that of BEA without major liver resection was 4% (3/71). The in-hospital mortality rates in major liver resection were listed in Table 4. Regarding the causes of in-hospital mortality, 9 out of 21 deceased patients had liver failure. Liver failure-unassociated mortality included death from hemoperitoneum (n = 4), anastomotic leakage (n = 2), disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (n = 2), abdominal abscess (n = 1), liver abscess (n = 1), pneumonia (n = 1), and an embolus in the portal vein (n = 1). Accuracy of E-PASS models Fig. 1 shows the discriminative powers of the E-PASS models to detect in-hospital mortality. AUCs (95% CIs) were 0.85 ( ) for E-PASS and 0.82 ( ) for me-pass; there was no significant difference (P = 0.45). When E-PASS scores were evaluated according to the cause of death, the scores Table 3 Postoperative complications Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (n [ 97) Gallbladder carcinoma (n [ 125) Total (n [ 222) Bile leak 15 (15%) 5 (4%) 20 (9%) Anastomotic leak 12 (12%) 6 (5%) 18 (8%) Abdominal 12 (12%) 6 (5%) 18 (8%) abscess Liver failure 9 (9%) 1 (1%) 10 (5%) Hemoperitoneum 3 (3%) 6 (5%) 9 (4%) Wound infection 4 (4%) 1 (1%) 5 (2%) Respiratory failure 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 4 (2%) DIC a 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 4 (2%) Sepsis 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (1%) Pneumonia 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (1%) Heart failure 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (1%) SBO b 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (1%) Liver abscess 1 (1%) 3 (2%) 4 (2%) Others 8 (8%) 6 (5%) 14 (6%) Any complication 51 (53%) 27 (22%) 78 (35%) Data are shown as number of patients (%). Postoperative complications were defined as conditions of Clavien s grade III or greater. a Disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. b Small bowel obstruction.

5 HPB 275 Table 4 Postoperative in-hospital mortality rates in major liver resection Surgical procedures Mortality rates Left hemihepatectomy segmentectomy 1 0/5 Left hemihepatectomy + segmentectomy 1 5/20 Extended left hemihepatectomy + segmentectomy 1 2/5 Right hemihepatectomy segmentectomy 1 2/4 Right hemihepatectomy + segmentectomy 1 0/3 Extended right hemihepatectomy segmentectomy 1 2/9 Extended right hemihepatectomy + segmentectomy 1 2/10 Overall 23% (13/56) were similarly high in patients with and without liver failure (Table 5). AUCs (95% CIs) of E-PASS for liver failure-associated death was 0.90 ( ), whereas that for liver failureunassociated death was 0.75 ( ). Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between the predicted inhospital mortality rates of the E-PASS models and the severity of postoperative complications. More severe complications were frequently observed in both E-PASS and me-pass as the risk band increased. Clavien s grading correlated with the predicted mortality rates in E-PASS (r = 0.51, P < 0.001) as well as those in me-pass (r = 0.47, P < 0.001). Fig. 3 displays the relationship between the CRS values and morbidity with or without major liver resections. In both groups, patients with CRS 0.8 had a significantly higher postoperative Table 5 Characteristics of deceased patients With liver failure Without liver failure p value n 9 12 Age, median (range) 73 (60 82) 72 (53 89) %Male PRS, median (range) 0.62 ( ) 0.52 ( ) 0.55 SSS, median (range) 0.83 ( ) 0.76 ( ) 0.52 CRS, median (range) 1.07 ( ) 0.95 ( ) 0.39 P values for continuous variables were determined by the Mann Whitney U test. mortality rates than those with CRS < 0.8. There was a trend of higher postoperative complication rate at the CRS of 0.8 or greater in major liver resection, while the rate was significantly higher in procedures without major liver resection. We were able to obtain the data of ICG retention test or 99mTc-galactosyl human serum albumin test in 36 patients undergoing hepatectomy. All the patients showed normal or slightly abnormal Figure 1 Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of E-PASS models used to predict postoperative in-hospital mortality. E-PASS, Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress; me-pass, modified E-PASS Figure 2 Relationship between E-PASS models and postoperative morbidity. Four risk bands were set according to the order of the predicted in-hospital mortality rates of Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) or its modified form, me-pass. The risk band 1 indicates the group of patients who are least likely to die, and the risk band 4 indicates the group of patients who are most likely to die. The Clavien grading (CG) system was used to classify postoperative morbidity

6 276 HPB values. There were 7 patients who died of postoperative complications. Four patients were associated with liver failure and 3 patients were not. Six out of 7 deceased patients showed the CRS of 0.8 or greater. We further analyzed the relationship between the CRS and postoperative morbidity according to the type of carcinoma (Fig. 4). In both gallbladder carcinoma and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, higher morbidity and mortality rates were observed at higher CRS risk bands. To analyze if the CRS was an independent predictor of postoperative morbidity, we performed a logistic regression analysis (Table 6). We found that CRS was the only independent predictor for postoperative complications of Clavien s grade III or higher. Discussion In the present study, we analyzed the predictive powers of the E- PASS models in the specialty field of proximal biliary carcinoma resection. The ability of the E-PASS models was high to predict Figure 3 Relationship between Comprehensive Risk Scores and postoperative morbidity according to surgical procedures. Comprehensive Risk Scores (CRS) of the E-PASS were analyzed with or without major liver resection. Major resection indicated hemihepatectomy or extended hemihepatectomy. White box indicates postoperative complications of Clavien s grade III or greater. Black box indicates in-hospital mortality Figure 4 Relationship between Comprehensive Risk Scores and postoperative morbidity according to type of carcinoma. White box indicates postoperative complications of Clavien s grade III or greater. Black box indicates in-hospital mortality

7 HPB 277 Table 6 Logistic regression analysis of the predictors for postoperative complications OR 95% CI p value Biliary enteric anastomosis Major liver resection Preoperative biliary drainage Preoperative cholangitis CRS Postoperative complications were defined as conditions of Clavien s grade III or higher. Major liver resection indicates hemihepatectomy or more. OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; CRS, Comprehensive risk score of the E-PASS scoring system. postoperative morbidity and mortality. Similar findings were obtained from the People s Republic of China. Wang et al. demonstrated that E-PASS accurately predicted postoperative mortality in the surgical treatment of hilar carcinoma; the AUCs to detect in-hospital mortality was for E-PASS. 16 These findings support the E-PASS models having a high predictive power in this field. The present study revealed that the E-PASS models predicted both liver failure-associated and -unassociated death. Similar findings were previously obtained for liver carcinoma surgery. 14 A preoperative assessment of future remnant liver is routinely performed in Japan using quantitative liver function tests, such as the indocyanine green test or Tc scintigraphy. 1 When the extent of liver resection is properly selected using this assessment, postoperative liver failure may depend on the balance between a patient s general reserve capacity and the degree of surgical stress that they are subjected to. Overwhelming surgical stress that exceeds a patient s physiological ability to cope will disrupt homeostasis, primarily in the most damaged organ. Hepatectomy involving excessive blood loss and an extended surgical duration will damage the remnant liver, leading to liver failure, even if it preserves the functional capacity of the liver. Therefore, the E-PASS models will be of clinical value for surgical decision-making, in addition to quantitative liver function tests. The results of the present study may lead to the clinical use of the E-PASS models in surgical decision-making and informed consent. In the preoperative conference, we can calculate the predicted mortality rates. Therefore, surgeons can discuss the presumable procedure according to the anatomical location and extension of carcinoma with its risk. Furthermore, surgeons may explain the risk of surgery to patients and families before operation. Moreover, we previously constructed an integer-based score of E-PASS, termed Total Risk Point (TRP). 8 TRP can be calculated by just adding the points of E- PASS variables and significantly correlated with the CRS (r = >0.99). 8 This simple score would enhance the clinical use of this model. me-pass will also be useful for adjusting the risk to the population when assessing the quality of care between centers. If a crude postoperative mortality rate is used as a metric of surgical quality, a hospital that avoids high-risk patients will get a higher ranking, while a hospital welcoming high-risk patients will get a lower ranking. Therefore, case-mix adjustments of the patient population are essential for comparative surgical audits. 10 me- PASS will be useful for this purpose because it can predict postoperative mortality using physiological variables. 9 We can use the observed-to-estimated mortality rates ratio (OE ratio) using me- PASS in a hospital. If the OE ratio is less than 1, that means the observed mortality rate is smaller than the estimated mortality rates, suggesting the better surgical quality. In contrast, if the OE ratio is greater than 1, that means the poorer surgical quality. In this fashion, we could objectively estimate quality of care. A limitation of this study is that the participating hospitals were mainly medium-volume hospitals. The in-hospital mortality rate of 9% in this study may have been higher than those of previous studies. Liver failure occurred in 9% of the patients undergoing perihilar cholangiocarcinoma resection. Hirano et al. 1 reported that in-hospital mortality was 3.4% after radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Carroll et al. 2 reported that the observed in-hospital mortality rate for all patients undergoing resection for biliary tract cancers in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was 5.6%. Our results need to be validated in high-volume centers. Another limitation is that this study was only performed in Japan. Although the high predictive power of E-PASS for hilar carcinoma was previously demonstrated in China, 16 validation studies are desirable in western countries. In summary, we analyzed the predictive powers of the E-PASS models in biliary carcinoma resection. Our results suggest that the predictive values were promising. The E-PASS models will be useful for surgical decision-making, informed consent, and assessing the quality of care in this field. These efforts would improve quality of surgical performance. Source of funding Alliance Family Foundation. Conflict of interest None declared. References 1. Hirano S, Kondo S, Tanaka E, Shichinohe T, Tsuchikawa T, Kato K et al. (2010) Outcome of surgical treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a special reference to postoperative morbidity and mortality. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17: Carroll, JE, Jr., Hurwitz ZM, Simons JP, McPhee JT, Ng SC, Shah SA et al. (2010) In-hospital mortality after resection of biliary tract cancer in the United States. HPB 12: Loehrer AP, House MG, Nakeeb A, Kilbane EM, Pitt HA. (2013) Cholangiocarcinoma: are North American surgical outcomes optimal? JAm Coll Surg 216(2):

8 278 HPB 4. Nishio H, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, Igami T, Sugawara G, Nagino M. (2011) Gallbladder cancer involving the extrahepatic bile duct is worthy of resection. Ann Surg 253: Haga Y, Ikei S, Ogawa M. (1999) Estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) as a new prediction scoring system for postoperative morbidity and mortality following GI surgery. Surg Today 29: Haga Y, Ikei S, Wada Y, Takeuchi H, Sameshima H, Kimura O et al. (2001) Evaluation of an estimation of a physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) scoring system to predict postoperative risk: a multicenter prospective study. Surg Today 31: Haga Y, Wada Y, Takeuchi H, Sameshima H, Kimura O, Furuya T. (2002) Estimation of surgical costs using a prediction scoring system estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress. Arch Surg 137: Haga Y, Wada Y, Takeuchi H, Kimura O, Furuya T, Sameshima H et al. (2004) Estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) for a surgical audit in elective digestive surgery. Surgery 135: Haga Y, Ikejiri K, Wada Y, Takahashi T, Ikenaga M, Akiyama N et al. (2011) A multicenter prospective study of surgical audit systems. Ann Surg 253: Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. (1991) POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 78: Prytherch DR, Whiteley MS, Higgins B, Weaver PC, Prout WG, Powell SJ. (1998) POSSUM and Portsmouth POSSUM for predicting mortality. Physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity. Br J Surg 85: Haga Y, Wada Y, Ikenaga M, Takeuchi H, Ikejiri K. (2011) Evaluation of modified estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (me-pss) in colorectal carcinoma surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54: Haga Y, Wada Y, Takeuchi H, Ikejiri K, Ikenaga M, Kimura O. (2012) Evaluation of modified estimation of physiologic abilityand surgical stress (me- PASS) in gastric carcinoma surgery. Gastric Cancer 15: Haga Y, Ikejiri K, Takeuchi H, Ikenaga M, Wada Y. (2012) Value of general surgical risk models for predicting postoperative liver failure and mortality following liver surgery. J Surg Oncol 106: Haga Y, Wada Y, Takeuchi H, Furuya T. (2014) Evaluation of modified estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress in patients undergoing surgery for choledochocystolithiasis. World J Surg 38: Wang H, Wang H, Chen T, Liang X, Song Y, Wang J. (2014) Evaluation of the POSSUM, P-POSSUM and E-PASS scores in the surgical treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg Oncol 12: Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Sohn TA, Coleman J, Abrams RA, Piantadosi S et al. (1996) Cholangiocarcinoma. A spectrum of intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal tumors. Ann Surg 224: Bismuth H, Corlette MB. (1975) Intrahepatic cholangioenteric anastomosis in carcinoma of the hilus of the liver. Surg Gynaecol Obstet 140: Kondo S, Takada T, Miyazaki M, Miyakawa S, Tsukada K, Nagino M et al. (2008) Guidelines for the management of biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas: surgical treatment. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 15: Strasberg SM, Belghiti J, Clavien PA, Gadzijev E, Garden JO, Lau WY et al. (2000) The Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB Surg 2: Doglietto GB, Gallitelli L, Pacelli F, Bellantone R, Malerba M, Sgadari A et al. (1996) Protein-sparing therapy after major abdominal surgery: lack of clinical effects. Ann Surg 223: Haga Y, Beppu T, Doi K, Nozawa F, Mugita N, Ikei S et al. (1997) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and organ dysfunction following gastrointestinal surgery. Crit Care Med 25: Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Rahbari NN, Adam R, Capussotti L et al. (2011) Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 149: Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al. (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250: Tang T, Walsh SR, Fanshawe TR, Gillard JH, Sadat U, Varty K et al. (2007) Estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) as a predictor of immediate outcome after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Am J Surg 194: