Predictive accuracy of boosted regression model in estimating risk of venous thromboembolism following minimally invasive radical surgery in pharmacological prophylaxis-naïve men with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially life-threatening but preventable complication after urological surgery. Physicians are faced with the challenges of weighing the risks and benefits of thromboprophylaxis given scanty evidence for or against and practice variation worldwide.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to explore the possibility of a risk-stratified approach for thromboembolism prophylaxis following radical prostatectomy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective database was accessed to cross-link venous thromboembolism events in 522 men who underwent minimally invasive prostatectomy between February 2010 and October 2021. A deterministic data linkage method was used to record events through electronic systems. Community Health Index (CHI) numbers were used to identify patients via electronic health records. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics such as age, comorbidities, Gleason staging, and readmission details accrued.

OUTCOMES: VTE within 90 days and development of a risk-stratified scoring system. All statistical analysis was performed using R-Statistical Software and the risk of VTE within 90 days of surgery was estimated via gradient-boosting decision trees (BRT) model.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: 1.1% (6/522) of patients developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism within 3 months post-minimally invasive prostatectomy. Statistical analysis demonstrated a significant difference in the body mass index (p = 0.016), duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001), and number of readmissions (p = 0.036) between patients who developed VTE versus patients who did not develop VTE. BRT analysis found 8 variables that demonstrated relative importance in predicting VTE. The receiver operating curves (ROC) were constructed to assess the discrimination power of a new model. The model showed an AUC of 0.97 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.945,0.999). For predicting VTE, a single-center study is a limitation.

CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of VTE post-minimally invasive prostatectomy in men who did not receive prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin is low (1.1%). The proposed risk-scoring system may aid in the identification of higher-risk patients for thromboprophylaxis. In this report, we looked at the outcomes of venous thromboembolism following minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in consecutive men. We developed a new scoring system using advanced statistical analysis. We conclude that the VTE risk is very low and our model, if applied, can risk stratify men for the development of VTE following radical surgery for prostate cancer.