Eunice G Lee, Marcos V Perini, Enes Makalic, Gabriel C Oniscu, Michael A Fink
{"title":"英国移植益处评分在澳大利亚和新西兰的外部验证。","authors":"Eunice G Lee, Marcos V Perini, Enes Makalic, Gabriel C Oniscu, Michael A Fink","doi":"10.1177/15269248221145047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> In Australia and New Zealand, liver allocation is needs based (based on model for end-stage liver disease score). An alternative allocation system is a transplant benefit-based model. Transplant benefit is quantified by complex waitlist and transplant survival prediction models. <b>Research Questions:</b> To validate the UK transplant benefit score in an Australia and New Zealand population. <b>Design:</b> This study analyzed data on listings and transplants for chronic liver disease between 2009 and 2018, using the Australia and New Zealand Liver and Intestinal Transplant Registry. Excluded were variant syndromes, hepatocellular cancer, urgent listings, pediatric, living donor, and multi-organ listings and transplants. UK transplant benefit waitlist and transplant benefit score were calculated for listings and transplants, respectively. Outcomes were time to waitlist death and time to transplant failure. Calibration and discrimination were assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and C-statistics. <b>Results:</b> There were differences in the UK and Australia and New Zealand listing, transplant, and donor populations including older recipient age, higher recipient and donor body mass index, and higher incidence of hepatitis C in the Australia and New Zealand population. Waitlist scores were calculated for 2241 patients and transplant scores were calculated for 1755 patients. The waitlist model C-statistic at 5 years was 0.70 and the transplant model C-statistic was 0.56, with poor calibration of both models. <b>Conclusion:</b> The UK transplant benefit score model performed poorly, suggesting that UK benefit-based allocation would not improve overall outcomes in Australia and New Zealand. Generalizability of survival prediction models was limited by differences in transplant populations and practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":20671,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Transplantation","volume":"33 1","pages":"25-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External Validation of the United Kingdom Transplant Benefit Score in Australia and New Zealand.\",\"authors\":\"Eunice G Lee, Marcos V Perini, Enes Makalic, Gabriel C Oniscu, Michael A Fink\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15269248221145047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> In Australia and New Zealand, liver allocation is needs based (based on model for end-stage liver disease score). An alternative allocation system is a transplant benefit-based model. Transplant benefit is quantified by complex waitlist and transplant survival prediction models. <b>Research Questions:</b> To validate the UK transplant benefit score in an Australia and New Zealand population. <b>Design:</b> This study analyzed data on listings and transplants for chronic liver disease between 2009 and 2018, using the Australia and New Zealand Liver and Intestinal Transplant Registry. Excluded were variant syndromes, hepatocellular cancer, urgent listings, pediatric, living donor, and multi-organ listings and transplants. UK transplant benefit waitlist and transplant benefit score were calculated for listings and transplants, respectively. Outcomes were time to waitlist death and time to transplant failure. Calibration and discrimination were assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and C-statistics. <b>Results:</b> There were differences in the UK and Australia and New Zealand listing, transplant, and donor populations including older recipient age, higher recipient and donor body mass index, and higher incidence of hepatitis C in the Australia and New Zealand population. Waitlist scores were calculated for 2241 patients and transplant scores were calculated for 1755 patients. The waitlist model C-statistic at 5 years was 0.70 and the transplant model C-statistic was 0.56, with poor calibration of both models. <b>Conclusion:</b> The UK transplant benefit score model performed poorly, suggesting that UK benefit-based allocation would not improve overall outcomes in Australia and New Zealand. Generalizability of survival prediction models was limited by differences in transplant populations and practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Transplantation\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"25-33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15269248221145047\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15269248221145047","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
External Validation of the United Kingdom Transplant Benefit Score in Australia and New Zealand.
Introduction: In Australia and New Zealand, liver allocation is needs based (based on model for end-stage liver disease score). An alternative allocation system is a transplant benefit-based model. Transplant benefit is quantified by complex waitlist and transplant survival prediction models. Research Questions: To validate the UK transplant benefit score in an Australia and New Zealand population. Design: This study analyzed data on listings and transplants for chronic liver disease between 2009 and 2018, using the Australia and New Zealand Liver and Intestinal Transplant Registry. Excluded were variant syndromes, hepatocellular cancer, urgent listings, pediatric, living donor, and multi-organ listings and transplants. UK transplant benefit waitlist and transplant benefit score were calculated for listings and transplants, respectively. Outcomes were time to waitlist death and time to transplant failure. Calibration and discrimination were assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and C-statistics. Results: There were differences in the UK and Australia and New Zealand listing, transplant, and donor populations including older recipient age, higher recipient and donor body mass index, and higher incidence of hepatitis C in the Australia and New Zealand population. Waitlist scores were calculated for 2241 patients and transplant scores were calculated for 1755 patients. The waitlist model C-statistic at 5 years was 0.70 and the transplant model C-statistic was 0.56, with poor calibration of both models. Conclusion: The UK transplant benefit score model performed poorly, suggesting that UK benefit-based allocation would not improve overall outcomes in Australia and New Zealand. Generalizability of survival prediction models was limited by differences in transplant populations and practices.
期刊介绍:
Progress in Transplantation (PIT) is the official journal of NATCO, The Organization for Transplant Professionals. Journal Partners include: Australasian Transplant Coordinators Association and Society for Transplant Social Workers. PIT reflects the multi-disciplinary team approach to procurement and clinical aspects of organ and tissue transplantation by providing a professional forum for exchange of the continually changing body of knowledge in transplantation.