Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Chronologic Age, Independent of Frailty, is the Strongest Predictor of Failure-to-Rescue After Surgery for Gastrointestinal Malignancies

  • Gastrointestinal Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Prior studies of older cancer patients undergoing large operations have reported similar rates of complications to the general population but higher rates of mortality, suggesting higher rates of failure-to-rescue (FTR) with advanced age. Whether age is a marker for frailty, or an independent predictor of FTR, is not clear.

Methods

The ACS-NSQIP database was queried from 2015-19 for patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy. Patients were divided into age-stratified cohorts: C1 (18–55), C2 (56–65), C3 (66–75), C4 (76–89). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were computed to assess the relationship of the FTR rate and age, while controlling for potential confounders. A second analysis was specified with all covariates converted to Z-scores, which generated scaled adjusted odds ratios (saOR) to determine the strongest predictor of FTR.

Results

Multivariable analysis suggests that age is an independent predictor of FTR: C2:C1 aOR = 1.87 (p < 0.001); C3:C1 aOR = 3.33 (p < 0.001); C4:C1 aOR = 5.71 (p < 0.001). The scaled analysis demonstrated that age is the strongest predictor of FTR (saOR = 1.92, p < 0.001); a one standard deviation increase in age was associated with a 92% increased odds of FTR. The saOR for frailty (1.18, p < 0.001) and for number of comorbidities (1.10, p = 0.005) also were statistically significant.

Conclusions

Chronologic age was independently associated with increased FTR after surgery for GI malignancy and was the strongest predictor of FTR. These results suggest that chronologic age must be carefully considered when evaluating the fitness of a patient for GI cancer surgery.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. He W. An aging world. In: Bureau USC, ed2016.

  2. Huerta S. The definition of elderly patients in surgical practice is old. Hernia. 2022.

  3. SM K, MH S, NK C. Safe and feasible outcomes of cholecystectomy in extremely elderly patients (octogenarians vs. nonagenarians). J Minim Invasive Surg. 2021;24(3):139-44.

  4. J G, S B, I J, J G, B M, YM R. Is Eighty the New Sixty? Outcomes and Complications after Lumbar Decompression Surgery in Elderly Patients over 80 Years of Age. World Neurosurg. 2018;112:e555-60.

  5. Elsisy MF, Schaff HV, Crestanello JA, Alkhouli MA, Stulak JM, Stephens EH. Outcomes of cardiac surgery in nonagenarians. J Card Surg. 2022;37(6):1664–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. S G, M A-O, A W, et al. Association Between Chronologic Age and Geriatric Assessment-Identified Impairments: Findings From the CARE Registry. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2021;19(8):922-7.

  7. Wg Z, Mj L, Zx Z, Jj H, Zj W. Outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery in nonagenarian patients: a multicenter retrospective study. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021;12(4):1568–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rs M, Da K, Jm S, et al. Does major pancreatic surgery have utility in nonagenarians with pancreas cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(4):2265–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cj Y, Ab B, Jz D, et al. The oldest old: a national analysis of outcomes for patients 90 years or older with lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109(2):350–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Np T, Ad P, Gm V, et al. Relative contributions of complications and failure to rescue on mortality in older patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;263(2):385–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aa S, Sn Z, Lm K, et al. Never giving up: outcomes and presentation of emergency general surgery in geriatric octogenarian and nonagenarian patients. Am J Surg. 2016;212(2):211-20.e213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. S H, H L, S T, T P, S S. The Veteran Affair Surgical Quality Improvement Program Calculator is a Poor Predictor of Morbidity and Mortality in Octogenarian and Nonagenarian Veterans Undergoing Major Lower Extremity Amputations. Ann Vasc Surg. 2022.

  13. M K, K C, JM L, et al. Life after 90: Predictors of mortality and performance of the ACS-NSQIP risk calculator in 4,724 nonagenarian patients undergoing emergency general surgery. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;86(5):853-7.

  14. KU P, I R, A H, Z H. Prolonged Length of Stay after Esophageal Resection: Identifying Drivers of Increased Length of Stay Using the NSQIP Database. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223(2):286-90.

  15. CD S, H R, K C-H, et al. Association of Patient Frailty With Increased Morbidity After Common Ambulatory General Surgery Operations. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(2):160-8.

  16. C M, JM B, JL E, K S, DC M, TL F. Frailty Predicts Failure to Rescue after Thoracoabdominal Operation. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226(6):978-86.

  17. R S, K A, S A, et al. Association of Frailty With Failure to Rescue After Low-Risk and High-Risk Inpatient Surgery. JAMA surgery. 2018;153(5):e180214.

  18. A G, S M, L C, N K, A G. Comorbid Profile Rather than Age Determines Hip Fracture Mortality in a Nonagenarian Population. HSS J. 2015;11(3):223-5.

  19. Jr SM, S A, A Y, et al. Association of Preoperative Patient Frailty and Operative Stress With Postoperative Mortality. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(1):e194620.

  20. Raval MV, Pawlik TM. Practical guide to surgical data sets: national surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP) and pediatric NSQIP. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(8):764–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ACS-NSQIP. Participant Use Data Files Web site. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/data-and-registries/acs-nsqip/participant-use-data-file/. Published 2022. Accessed August 2022.

  22. Arya S, Varley P, Youk A, et al. Recalibration and external validation of the risk analysis index: a surgical frailty assessment tool. Ann Surg. 2020;272(6):996–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. DZ L, D S-G, J M, V B, RF A, HJ S. Predictors of Failure to Rescue After Esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(3):871-8.

  24. PR V, DA G, A T. Factors influencing failure to rescue after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Perspective. J Surg Res. 2017;214:131-9.

  25. Shaw JF, Budiansky D, Sharif F, McIsaac DI. The association of frailty with outcomes after cancer surgery: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(8):4690–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. K F, S L, M D, et al. The impact of frailty on postoperative outcomes in individuals aged 65 and over undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer: A systematic review. J Geriatr Oncol. 2016;7(6):479-91.

  27. Aa G, Jd B, Jb D. Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery. Med Care. 2011;49(12):1076–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Aa G, Nh O, Jd B, Jb D. Hospital characteristics associated with failure to rescue from complications after pancreatectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(3):325–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reames BN, Birkmeyer NJ, Dimick JB, Ghaferi AA. Socioeconomic disparities in mortality after cancer surgery: failure to rescue. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(5):475–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have no financial relationships to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Matthew A. Beier MFE, Maria G. Fencer MD & David A. August MD

  2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Catherine H. Davis MD, Miral S. Grandhi MD, Henry A. Pitt MD & David A. August MD

Authors
  1. Matthew A. Beier MFE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine H. Davis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria G. Fencer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Miral S. Grandhi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Henry A. Pitt MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David A. August MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew A. Beier MFE.

Ethics declarations

American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP are the source of the data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 28 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beier, M.A., Davis, C.H., Fencer, M.G. et al. Chronologic Age, Independent of Frailty, is the Strongest Predictor of Failure-to-Rescue After Surgery for Gastrointestinal Malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol 30, 1145–1152 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-12869-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-12869-3

Search

Navigation