P1.064. Limitations of Preoperative Prediction Models for Complications After Esophagectomy: A Multi-Center Analysis

Clicks: 17
ID: 326172
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #349 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer Background Preoperative risk stratification for esophagectomy complications relies on clinical prediction models; however, their discriminative performance in multi-institutional settings remains poorly defined. We hypothesized that standard preoperative variables would demonstrate limited predictive validity across heterogeneous surgical cohorts. Methods We analyzed 2,490 patients undergoing esophagectomy across four institutions in Asia (total n=2,490; individual center n range 75–1,012). Four outcomes were studied: recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP), anastomotic leak (AL), pulmonary complications (PC), and vocal cord palsy (VCP). Logistic regression models with bootstrap-validated odds ratios (1,000 iterations) were evaluated by 5-fold cross-validated AUC. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) via Gradient Boosting Machines quantified variable importance. Decision curve analysis (DCA) assessed net clinical benefit across threshold probabilities 2–70%. Association between tumor location and each complication was assessed using chi-squared tests. Results All prediction models demonstrated poor-to-fair discrimination: RLNP AUC 0.533, AL AUC 0.586, PC AUC 0.676, and VCP AUC 0.556. Tumor location was the only statistically significant categorical predictor of RLNP—upper/cervical location was associated with higher RLNP incidence compared to middle thoracic tumors (39.1% vs. 28.0%; OR 1.22, 95%CI 1.05–1.42; p=0.009). No significant association was observed between tumor location and AL, PC, or VCP. DCA demonstrated negligible clinical net benefit for RLNP and AL models; only the PC model provided modest benefit (max net benefit gain +0.057) at threshold probabilities of 5–20%. SHAP analysis identified FEV1%, PNI score, and BMI as the highest-importance variables for RLNP prediction, with tumor location ranking sixth—indicating that location contributes a statistically real but clinically modest signal. Conclusion Standard preoperative variables are insufficient for individualized risk stratification of RLNP, anastomotic leak, or vocal cord palsy after esophagectomy. Statistical significance (p=0.009 for location–RLNP association) does not translate to clinically meaningful predictive power (AUC 0.533). Tumor location should be incorporated into RLNP preoperative counseling. Improved prediction will require prospective integration of real-time intraoperative data. Pulmonary complication risk approaches clinically actionable prediction (AUC 0.676) and may guide respiratory prehabilitation targeting.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203977236 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Simiao Lu, Yi Zhu, Yongtao Han, Qiuling Shi, Xuefeng Leng
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.212
URL
https://academic.oup.com/dote/article-pdf/39/Supplement_1/doag077.212/70761048/doag077.212.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.