{"title":"根治性膀胱切除术围手术期质量评估新指标三分法的临床应用。","authors":"Mahito Atsuta, Fumihiko Urabe, Kosuke Iwatani, Masataka Kubo, Naoki Uchida, Hirokazu Kagawa, Naoya Tomomasa, Shun Saito, Takayuki Sano, Wataru Fukuokaya, Kazuhiro Takahashi, Takafumi Yanagisawa, Shunsuke Tsuzuki, Takahiro Kimura, Jun Miki","doi":"10.1007/s10147-025-02791-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessing the quality of surgical procedures is crucial for improving outcomes in radical cystectomy (RC). While the Pentafecta metric has been used, its reliance on the absence of local recurrence within 1 year delays postoperative assessment. For timely clinical decision-making, a new metric that facilitates earlier evaluation is needed. We propose such a metric, named \"Trifecta\". We evaluated its impact on prognosis and identified predictors for achieving it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The \"Trifecta\" metric was defined as meeting three criteria: adequate lymphadenectomy (≥ 10 nodes), negative surgical margins, and absence of Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5 complications within 30 days after surgery. This retrospective study analyzed data from patients who underwent RC and lymphadenectomy between April 2014 and June 2024. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess oncological outcomes, while logistic regression was used to identify predictors for failing to achieve \"Trifecta\" .</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 196 patients included, 121 (61.7%) achieved \"Trifecta\" and this was significantly associated with improved intrapelvic RFS (HR 0.42; P = 0.014), CSS (HR 0.56; P = 0.032), and OS (HR 0.57; P = 0.020) but not MFS (HR 0.85; P = 0.620). Low serum levels of albumin were significantly associated with \"Trifecta\" failure (OR 2.06; P = 0.021), but not with survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Achieving \"Trifecta\" was associated with improved survival outcomes, and low serum levels of albumin predicted a higher likelihood of failure to achieve it. The \"Trifecta\" metric enables early and clinically relevant evaluation of surgical quality, offering a practical alternative to traditional metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":13869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1832-1840"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical utility of a novel perioperative quality assessment metric, trifecta, for radical cystectomy.\",\"authors\":\"Mahito Atsuta, Fumihiko Urabe, Kosuke Iwatani, Masataka Kubo, Naoki Uchida, Hirokazu Kagawa, Naoya Tomomasa, Shun Saito, Takayuki Sano, Wataru Fukuokaya, Kazuhiro Takahashi, Takafumi Yanagisawa, Shunsuke Tsuzuki, Takahiro Kimura, Jun Miki\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10147-025-02791-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessing the quality of surgical procedures is crucial for improving outcomes in radical cystectomy (RC). While the Pentafecta metric has been used, its reliance on the absence of local recurrence within 1 year delays postoperative assessment. For timely clinical decision-making, a new metric that facilitates earlier evaluation is needed. We propose such a metric, named \\\"Trifecta\\\". We evaluated its impact on prognosis and identified predictors for achieving it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The \\\"Trifecta\\\" metric was defined as meeting three criteria: adequate lymphadenectomy (≥ 10 nodes), negative surgical margins, and absence of Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5 complications within 30 days after surgery. This retrospective study analyzed data from patients who underwent RC and lymphadenectomy between April 2014 and June 2024. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess oncological outcomes, while logistic regression was used to identify predictors for failing to achieve \\\"Trifecta\\\" .</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 196 patients included, 121 (61.7%) achieved \\\"Trifecta\\\" and this was significantly associated with improved intrapelvic RFS (HR 0.42; P = 0.014), CSS (HR 0.56; P = 0.032), and OS (HR 0.57; P = 0.020) but not MFS (HR 0.85; P = 0.620). Low serum levels of albumin were significantly associated with \\\"Trifecta\\\" failure (OR 2.06; P = 0.021), but not with survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Achieving \\\"Trifecta\\\" was associated with improved survival outcomes, and low serum levels of albumin predicted a higher likelihood of failure to achieve it. The \\\"Trifecta\\\" metric enables early and clinically relevant evaluation of surgical quality, offering a practical alternative to traditional metrics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1832-1840\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-025-02791-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-025-02791-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical utility of a novel perioperative quality assessment metric, trifecta, for radical cystectomy.
Background: Assessing the quality of surgical procedures is crucial for improving outcomes in radical cystectomy (RC). While the Pentafecta metric has been used, its reliance on the absence of local recurrence within 1 year delays postoperative assessment. For timely clinical decision-making, a new metric that facilitates earlier evaluation is needed. We propose such a metric, named "Trifecta". We evaluated its impact on prognosis and identified predictors for achieving it.
Methods: The "Trifecta" metric was defined as meeting three criteria: adequate lymphadenectomy (≥ 10 nodes), negative surgical margins, and absence of Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5 complications within 30 days after surgery. This retrospective study analyzed data from patients who underwent RC and lymphadenectomy between April 2014 and June 2024. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess oncological outcomes, while logistic regression was used to identify predictors for failing to achieve "Trifecta" .
Results: Of the 196 patients included, 121 (61.7%) achieved "Trifecta" and this was significantly associated with improved intrapelvic RFS (HR 0.42; P = 0.014), CSS (HR 0.56; P = 0.032), and OS (HR 0.57; P = 0.020) but not MFS (HR 0.85; P = 0.620). Low serum levels of albumin were significantly associated with "Trifecta" failure (OR 2.06; P = 0.021), but not with survival outcomes.
Conclusion: Achieving "Trifecta" was associated with improved survival outcomes, and low serum levels of albumin predicted a higher likelihood of failure to achieve it. The "Trifecta" metric enables early and clinically relevant evaluation of surgical quality, offering a practical alternative to traditional metrics.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Clinical Oncology (IJCO) welcomes original research papers on all aspects of clinical oncology that report the results of novel and timely investigations. Reports on clinical trials are encouraged. Experimental studies will also be accepted if they have obvious relevance to clinical oncology. Membership in the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology is not a prerequisite for submission to the journal. Papers are received on the understanding that: their contents have not been published in whole or in part elsewhere; that they are subject to peer review by at least two referees and the Editors, and to editorial revision of the language and contents; and that the Editors are responsible for their acceptance, rejection, and order of publication.