Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Prognostic limitations of the Eurotransplant-donor risk index in liver transplantation

  • Benedikt Reichert1, 2,
  • Alexander Kaltenborn1, 3Email author,
  • Alon Goldis4 and
  • Harald Schrem1
Contributed equally
Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine201312:18

https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5751-12-18

Received: 12 June 2013

Accepted: 22 December 2013

Published: 24 December 2013

Abstract

Background

Liver transplantation is the only life-saving therapeutic option for end-stage liver disease. Progressive donor organ shortage and declining donor organ quality justify the evaluation of the leverage of the Donor-Risk-Index, which was recently adjusted to the Eurotransplant community’s requirements (ET-DRI). We analysed the prognostic value of the ET-DRI for the prediction of outcome after liver transplantation in our center within the Eurotransplant community.

Results

291 consecutive adult liver transplants were analysed in a single centre study with ongoing data collection. Determination of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was performed to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and overall correctness of the Eurotransplant-Donor-Risk-Index (ET-DRI) for the prediction of 3-month and 1-year mortality, as well as 3-month and 1-year graft survival. Cut-off values were determined with the best Youden-index. The ET-DRI is unable to predict 3-month mortality (AUROC: 0.477) and 3-month graft survival (AUROC: 0.524) with acceptable sensitivity, specificity and overall correctness (54% and 56.3%, respectively). Logistic regression confirmed this finding (p = 0.573 and p = 0.163, respectively). Determined cut-off values of the ET-DRI for these predictions had no significant influence on long-term patient and graft survival (p = 0.230 and p = 0.083, respectively; Kaplan-Meier analysis with Log-Rank test).

Conclusions

The ET-DRI should not be used for donor organ allocation policies without further evaluation, e.g. in combination with relevant recipient variables. Robust and objective prognostic scores for donor organ allocation purposes are desperately needed to balance equity and utility in donor organ allocation.

Keywords

Prognostic model Accuracy Goodness-of-fit Score Prediction Validation

Background

Expansion of the organ donor pool by using grafts with reduced quality has become reality in transplant centers around the world due to increasing donor organ shortage and raising numbers of patients on the waiting lists. This has led to an increased awareness of the associated risks for patient and graft survival [116]. Thus, a series of attempts to develop objective scores for the assessment of donor liver quality with significant influence on patient and/or graft survival have been made [1, 2, 49]. In the transplant literature there is a current debate on the criteria for statistical validation of prognostic scores in liver transplantation that may be relevant for fair and just allocation rules that balance equity and utility [10, 12, 13, 17, 18]. Astonishingly, there is still a high heterogeneity of statistical approaches to the validation of prognostic scores even though Jacob et al. published as early as 2005 uniform quality criteria for the design, validation and reporting of prognostic scores in liver transplantation more than eight years ago [18]. Last year we have reported from our centre that the Donor-Risk-Index is not applicable to our patients for the prediction of three month mortality, three month patient survival, three month graft survival as well as the necessity of acute retransplantation within thirty days [13]. In contrast Blok et al. claimed in the same year that they were able to validate the value of the DRI for the prediction of three month, one year and three years graft survival in the Eurotransplant region [3]. In this study as well as in earlier studies the authors could not demonstrate areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) greater than 0.700 for these predictions [3, 4, 7, 13]. This raises the fundamental question: What are the criteria for a robustly validated prognostic model?

A relevant body of scientific literature in the bio-statistical world agrees on the outstanding value of the receiver operating curve analysis for the determination of the value of clinical prognostic scores [1822]. Therefore, we present in this paper a validation study on the recently published Eurotransplant-Donor-Risk-Index (ET-DRI) and evaluate its value for prognostic decision making in the cohort of our center.

This study is a timely contribution to the urgently needed debate on prognostic models in liver transplantation with potential impact on donor organ allocation policies. The recent liver transplant scandals in Germany revolve around waiting list manipulations that affected donor organ allocation directly and undermined public trust in current donor organ policies [23].

Results

ET-DRI score

The variables’ frequencies, range and percentages used in the ET-DRI of our study population are summarized in Table 1. The mean ET-DRI in this cohort was 1.79 (median 1.70, range: 1.14 - 3.79).
Table 1

Shown are the donor characteristics of our study population’s variables which are part of the ET-DRI model

Variables

  
 

n (%)

 

COD anoxia

24 (8.2%)

 

COD cerebrovascular accident

181 (62.1%)

 

COD other

86 (29.6%)

 

DCD

nil

 

Split LTX (yes/no)

20 (6.9%)

 

regional share (yes/no)

253 (86.9%)

 

national share (yes/no)

38 (13.1%)

 

rescue offer (yes/no)

53 (18.2%)

 

age group <40 years

71 (24.4%)

 

40 ≤ age < 50 (in years)

69 (23.7%)

 

50 ≤ age < 60 (in years)

105 (36.1%)

 

60 ≤ age < 70 (in years)

52 (17.9%)

 

70 ≤ age (in years)

12 (4.1%)

 
 

mean (median)

range

CIT in h

9.75 (9.6)

2.4 – 27.3

latest labGGT (U/L)

70.66 (43.0)

5 – 775

Age in years

48.4 (51.0)

12 – 74

(COD = cause of death, DCD = donation after cardiac death, LTX = liver transplantation, CIT = cold ischemic time).

Major results of the analyses of the ET-DRI’s predictive capabilities for the study endpoints are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

Shown are the results of the analyses of the study endpoints

Endpoint

ET-DRI cut off values

 

AUROC

95%-CI

Logistic regression p-value

 

Sensitivity

Specificity

Overall correctness

3-month mortality

0.477

0.390-0.564

p = 0.692

2.06

26.7%

81.4%

54%

1-year mortality

0.492

0.405-0.579

p = 0.573

2.06

26.7%

81.4%

54%

3-month graft survival

0.524

0.477-0.601

p = 0.475

1.95

38%

74.5%

56.3%

1-year graft survival

0.540

0.473-0.607

p = 0.475

1.84

47.4%

63.6%

55.5%

AUROC = area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; 95%-CI = 95%-Confidence Interval

Prediction of 3-month mortality

With an AUROC of 0.477 (95%-CI: 0.390-0.564) the ET-DRI failed to predict 3-month mortality after liver transplantation in our study population (see Figure 1). This result could be confirmed by binary logistic regression (p = 0.692). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test did show that the model fit of the logistic regression model was adequate (p = 0.542). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis above versus below the calculated cut-off level of the ET-DRI for the prediction of 3-month mortality (2.06) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.172, Log Rank; see Figure 2).
Figure 1

Shown is the ROC-Curve for the prediction of 3-month mortality after liver transplantation with the ET-DRI (AUROC = 0.477; 95%CI: 0.390-0.564).

Figure 2

Kaplan Meier survival analysis above and below the ET-DRI cut-off values for the prediction of 3-month mortality (2.06) shows that this cut-off value has no significant influence on long-term survival (p = 0.172; Log Rank). The curve clearly demonstrates that the ET-DRI has no influence on long-term survival and limited influence on survival within the first 90 days.

Prediction of 1-year mortality

Further, the ET-DRI did not reach a relevant AUROC for the prediction of 1-year mortality (AUROC 0.492) (see Table 2). A well fitted binary logistic regression model (p = 0.262, Hosmer-Lemeshow test) revealed no statistically significant influence of the ET-DRI values on 1-year mortality (p = 0.573). The calculated cut-off level for this prediction is identical to the cut off for the prediction of 3-month mortality. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis above versus below this cut-off level did also not reach statistical significance (p = 0.230, Log Rank; see Figure 2).

Prediction of 3-month graft survival

With an AUROC of 0.524 (95%CI: 0.447-0.601) the ET-DRI failed to predict 3-month graft survival after liver transplantation in our study population (see Figure 3). Further, investigation of the ET-DRI as a risk factor for 3-month graft loss with a well fitted binary logistic regression model (p = 0.491, Hosmer-Lemeshow test) remained insignificant (p = 0.475). Kaplan-Meier analysis of graft survival above versus below the determined cut-off level for the prediction of 3-month graft survival did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.655, Log Rank; see Figure 4).
Figure 3

Shown is the ROC-Curve for the prediction of 3-month graft survival after liver transplantation with the ET-DRI (AUROC of 0.524 (95%CI: 0.447-0.601, SD 0.039).

Figure 4

Kaplan Meier survival analysis above and below the ET-DRI cut-off values for the prediction of 3-month graft survival (1.95) shows that this cut-off value has no significant influence on long-term graft survival (p = 0.655; Log Rank). The curve clearly demonstrates that the ET-DRI has no influence on long-term graft survival.

Prediction of 1-year graft survival

Applied to our data the ET-DRI is not able to predict 1-year graft survival as shown by ROC-curve analysis results (AUROC = 0.540; 95%CI: 0.473-0.607). In binary logistic regression, which was performed with adequate model goodness of fit (p = 0.631, Hosmer-Lemeshow test), the ET-DRI was no statistically significant risk factor for graft loss within one year after transplantation (p = 0.163). Kaplan-Meier analysis of graft survival above versus below the determined cut-off level (1.84) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.083, Log Rank).

Power calculation and sample size

Since the focus of this paper is prognostic estimation rather than hypothesis testing, strictly speaking power calculations are not directly relevant. The rationale for a sufficient sample size in the presented study is the fact that all 95%-CIs of the AUROCs are sufficiently narrow to exclude 0.700, the nominal criterion value for utility [20].

Discussion

The ET-DRI was originally developed with thousands of patients transplanted in the Eurotransplant region including many transplant centers and the authors claimed that the ET-DRI is of prognostic relevance for graft survival after liver transplantation [5]. We believe that the fundamental discrepancy to our results and interpretation can be related to the fact that the ET-DRI as shown by Braat et al. cannot reach a c-index above 0.700 for the prediction of graft survival in thousands of liver transplant recipients [5]. This finding could be confirmed in our study with AUROCs <0.700.

Braat et al. [5] used the previously published DRI [7] which was developed in the United States and they attempted to tailor and adapt the DRI to the donor population in the Eurotransplant region. The goal of our study was to test the ET-DRI as a prognostic model in our centre with current MELD-based liver allocation rules. Braat et al. used a dataset of recipients who were transplanted in the vast majority of cases outside MELD-based organ allocation between 2003 and 2007. MELD-based liver allocation was introduced in Germany in December 2006 [5]. Braat et al. claimed in their paper which was published in 2012 that the ET-DRI should be used for liver allocation in the future [5]. We therefore believe that our analysis of the ET-DRI with a current cohort is fully justified in order to assess the potential merit of the ET-DRI for the future. Braat and colleagues clearly stated quite righteously that Eurotransplant is divided into different regions; i.e. for Austria, Belgium/Luxembourg, Croatia, the Netherlands and Slovenia each country is considered as one region, whereas Germany is divided into seven regions. Therefore the term allocation is divided into local (transplant center is in the procurement area), regional (transplantation and procurement area within the same country, or region in Germany), and national or extra-regional (anywhere in Eurotransplant, but outside the region) [5]. Interestingly, the ET-DRI calculation formula as shown by Braat et al. does not contain a criterion for local share. Our analysis of the influence of local versus regional versus national share on transplant outcome did not show a significant impact of local share on outcomes in our cohort (p < 0.05; Chi2).

Currently, Avolio et al. have claimed that ROC-curve analysis is not the adequate measure to assess the value of prognostic models for graft or patient survival, especially if they include donor organ variables. Additionally, they postulated that it would be preferable to use time-dependent ROC-curve analysis [17]. This notion is an expansion of the current thinking as expressed in the majority of recent bio-statistical publications [1821]. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC-curve are often used to measure the ability of survival models to predict future risk [1821]. Estimation of these parameters is complicated by the fact that these parameters are time-dependent. Furthermore, censoring affects their estimation just as it affects estimation of survival curves or coefficients of survival regression models [22]. In the presented study only relatively short time windows have been investigated. Therefore, application of time-dependent ROC-curve analysis is in our view not justified.

There is currently no objective score for the assessment of donor organ quality available that would be able to predict short-term patient and graft survival with acceptable overall correctness ((sensitivity + specificity)/2). It appears safe to assume that extended donor criteria organs with extreme properties would affect graft survival negatively in the short-term and lead to initial graft non-function which is known to be associated with increased patient mortality [1, 2, 49, 14, 15]. Current prognostic scores for donor organ quality are unable to demonstrate significant statistical influences on short-term graft survival as robust prognostic tools [1, 2, 410, 1215]. We believe that these currently available scores may have missed potentially critical parameters and/or combinations of donor organ variables and/or their interaction that may be critical for a robust prognostic score to predict short-term graft survival with acceptable overall correctness. The design of many prognostic scores in the medical literature, including the ET-DRI has failed so far to assess multivariable co-linearity of the influences of variables on the target output variable (e.g. graft survival) [5, 18, 26].

Hanley and McNeil have shown that c is identical to a widely used measure of diagnostic discrimination, the AUROC in ROC-curve analysis [20, 21]. A value of c of 0.5 indicates random prediction and a value of 1 indicates perfect prediction. A model having c greater than roughly 0.7 has some utility in predicting the responses of individual subjects [21]. The c-index 0.624 which was published before for the prediction of graft survival with the ET-DRI in a large Eurotransplant cohort [5] appears therefore as a measure of limited utility of this score.

This study is limited by the relatively small number of enrolled patients (n = 291). However, none of the 95%CIs included a relevant AUROC >0.700. Moreover, organ procurement from donors after cardiac death is a relevant factor of the original population, in which the ET-DRI was created [5]. Unfortunately we were not able to include this specific donor group, because liver donation after cardiac death is not applied in Germany. Thus, the results of this analysis may be confounded by the absence of these cases.

Taken together we believe that the ET-DRI or any other donor risk score should not be used for donor organ allocation rules without adequate criticism of its methodological limitations. The transplant community desperately needs a debate on the power and limitations of prognostic scores in liver transplantation which should lead to a consensus. In our opinion Jacob et al. have made a reasonable proposal for the quality assessment of prognostic models for liver transplantation [18].

The application of a previously developed score to a new dataset premises that the characteristics of both reference and study populations should result in overlapping or at least should present similar patterns [17]. This expectation is met with our study population which is a subset of the Eurotransplant population which was used by Braat and colleagues [5].

We believe that the reasons for our findings which somehow contrast the previously published findings [5] are maybe due to a strong center bias. This notion is likely because our population constitutes a subpopulation of the one that was investigated by Braat et al. [5]. Further, the fact that at least two transplant centers within the Eurotransplant region are known to believe that rescue allocated organs do not affect outcome after of liver transplantation [27, 28] and the fact that the percentage of accepted rescue allocated livers for transplantation differs widely within the Eurotransplant region may contribute to this center bias. In our center the percentage of rescue allocated livers was comparatively low (18.2%) while approximately 30% of livers in the Eurotransplant region are transplanted after rescue allocation [27].

Another critical aspect in donor organ assessment is the histological diagnostics. Not all donor livers are biopsied. Moreover, the frequency of biopsies is completely dependent on the indication to perform a histological examination. This subjective and irregular indication is the responsibility of the explant surgeon or the accepting transplant center. Recently, two studies described the importance of steatosis as a donor risk factor [29, 30]. Spitzer et al. [30] concluded that steatosis should be added to the DRI, when dealing with a high-risk donor. However, objective evaluation of the range of steatosis, either as macro- or microvesicular steatosis, is not standardized so far subjective to some degree [29]. We believe that routine donor biopsy evaluation may enable the design of more powerful and robust donor risk scores.

We believe that the prognostic power of the DRI and ET-DRI is further significantly undermined by the fact that graft acceptance decisions on offered organs for transplantation are not documented and evaluated in these scores. There is an urgent need to evaluate and address this shortcoming immediately, especially on the background of the current liver transplant scandals in Germany [23, 31]. We believe that this aspect is a relevant issue in liver transplantation today. Transplant centers regard their graft acceptance policy as their potential advantage in a highly competitive area for a very scarce resource in times of ubiquitous organ shortage. It can be assumed that these aspects of potentially unwanted transparency by the proponents of transplantation stood in the way of previous attempts to generate robust prognostic scores that include donor organ quality. This may represent a deeper reason for the notorious difficulty to assess donor organ quality and its impact on prognosis after transplantation objectively.

The balance of equity and utility in donor organ allocation is a serious ethical dilemma. Several risk prediction models are available and their head to head comparisons would benefit from standardized reporting and formal, consistent statistical evaluation [18, 26]. It was claimed previously and in a different context that outcome selection and optimism biases may affect literature on prognostic scores in medicine [26].

We would like to propose joint efforts to develop a robust and objective donor risk score in an international collaboration that should include the available large data-sets from multiple institutions. We believe that the time has come for a consensus on the reporting of the reasons for declined organ offers and on quality standards for prognostic scores and their statistical analysis and validation. Jacob et al. [18] proposed a reasonable scientific approach to the latter. High quality scientific journals should make uniform requirements mandatory for the reporting of prognostic scores.

Conclusion

The results of this current study clearly show that the ET-DRI is not applicable in the population from our center within the Eurotransplant community for the prediction of patient or graft survival. On the background of a paucity of proper prognostic models, justified organ allocation which weighs urgency against prediction of success of liver transplantation must be the aim of future research in this field.

Patients and methods

Ethics statement

As an observational retrospective study, according to the Professional Code of the German Medical Association (article B.III. § 15.1), neither informed consent nor approval of the ethics committee was needed for this study.

Patients

291 consecutive liver transplants were included to analyze the model’s accuracy and applicability for this dataset of a major transplant centre in the Eurotransplant community. Included were 20 (6.9%) split liver transplants, 30 (10.3%) acute re-transplants (retransplantation within 30 days after the previous transplant) and 25 (8.6%) chronic retransplants (primary transplantation n = 235, secondary transplantation n = 48, tertiary transplantation n = 6, quaternary transplantation n = 1) in a total of 257 patients (median age: 49.6 years, range: 18–69 years; males n = 177 (64.4%), females n = 114 (35.6%), ratio males/females: 1.8). All transplants were performed in our centre between the 01/01/2007 and the 12/31/2010. The post-transplant observational period ended on the 12/31/2011. Indications leading to liver transplantation as well as the most probable leading causes of death in our cohort are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3

Shown are the indications for liver transplantation in the study population

Indications for liver transplantation:

%

acute liver failure

10.3

alcoholic cirrhosis

8.6

alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency

1.4

autoimmune hepatitis

1.0

biliary atresia

0.7

Budd Chiari syndrome

2.1

cryptogenic cirrhosis

5.5

familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy

1.0

HBV HCV related cirrhosis

0.3

HBV related cirrhosis

4.5

HCC

19.6

HCV related cirrhosis

5.5

intrahepatic CCC

0.7

M. Osler/hemangioma

0.3

neuroendocrine metastases

1.0

Other

0.7

Oxalosis

0.3

PBC

2.7

polycystic disease

3.4

PSC

8.2

re-TX: biliary complications

3.4

re-TX: chronic graft failure

5.5

re-TX: chronic rejection

1.0

re-TX: primary graft non-function

6.2

re-TX: recurrent viral hepatitis

0.3

re-TX: vascular complications

2.4

secondary biliary cirrhosis

1.7

Wilson disease

1.4

Total:

100.0

(HBV = hepatitis b; HCV = hepatitis c; CCC = cholangiocellular carcinoma, PBC = primary biliary cirrhosis, PSC = primary sclerosing cholangitis, re-Tx = retransplantation).

Table 4

Shown are the most probable causes of death in our study population

 Most probable causes of death:

%

cardiovascular event

12.2

cerebral: bleeding

2.1

cerebral: ischemia

4.7

data not available

10.5

de novo malignancy

3.2

gastrointestinal: ischemia

3.2

gastrointestinal: perforation

2.1

Infection: fungal

5.8

Infection: sepsis

21.1

intraabdominal bleeding

4.7

liver graft: biliary tract complications

12.2

liver graft: initial graft non-function

2.1

lung: ARDS

8.5

lung: pneumonia

3.2

polytrauma

0.6

social: suicide

0.6

tumor recurrence

3.2

Total deaths:

100.0

(HBV = hepatitis B; HCV = hepatitis C; ARDS = Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome).

Study end-points

Primary study endpoints were 3-month and 1-year patient mortality and 3-month and 1-year graft survival. (Graft survival and failure free survival (FFS) are synonyms that describe the time period from date of transplantation until the date of retransplantation or recipient death).

Statistical analysis

For the primary study endpoints ROC-curve analysis was performed to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and overall model correctness of the ET-DRI as a predictive model. AUROCS larger than 0.7 indicate a clinically useful prognostic model [1822]. The respective cut-off values of the potential prognostic models were determined with the best Youden index (Youden index = sensitivity + specificity – 1) [24]. If possible, the Hosmer-Lemeshow Chi2-statistic goodness-of-fit test was applied to assess model calibration of the binary logistic regression models. These statistics suggest good fit when the associated p-values are greater than 0.05 [21, 25]. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. The statistical influence of the determined cut-off values on patient and graft survival was analyzed with the Log Rank test. Binary logistic regression was performed as additional test to determine the influence of the ET-DRI on study end-points. For all statistical tests a p-value <0.05 was defined as significant. The SPSS statistics software version 20.0 (IBM, Somers, NY, USA) was used to perform statistical analysis.

Calculation of the ET-DRI

The ET-DRI was calculated as described before with this formula [5]:

ET-DRI = exp[0.960((0.154 if 40 ≤ age < 50) + (0.274If 50 ≤ age < 60) + (0.424 if 60 ≤ age < 70) + (0.501 if 70 ≤ age) + (0.079 if COD = anoxia) + (0.145 if COD = cerebrovascular accident) + (0.184 if COD = other) + (0.411 if DCD) + (0.422 if partial/split) + (0.105 if regional share) + (0.244 if national share)) + (0.010 × (cold ischemia time − 8 h)) +0.06((latest lab GGT (U/L)- 50)/100) + (0.180 if rescue offer)].

Regional share was defined by Braat et al. as allocation within Germany and national share as allocation within Eurotransplant land [5].

Data collection

This is a single centre analysis complemented by ongoing data collection.

Setting

The setting of the study is a university hospital in Germany within the Eurotransplant community.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Included were all consecutive liver transplants performed in adult recipients (minimum age 18 years). Excluded were all combined transplants (e.g. combined liver and kidney transplantation) and living-related organ donor transplants.

Notes

Abbreviations

DRI: 

Donor risk index

ET-DRI: 

Eurotransplant-donor risk index

AUROC: 

Area under the receiver operating characteristic

MELD: 

Model of end-stage liver disease

ECD: 

Extended donor criteria.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Hannover Medical School
(2)
General and Thoracic Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig Holstein
(3)
Federal Armed Forces Medical Center Hannover
(4)
Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, LM Advisors

References

  1. Avolio AW, Agnes S, Cillo U, Lirosi MC, Romagnoli R: The Italian survival calculator to optimize donor to recipient matching and to identify the unsustainable matches in liver transplantation. Transpl Int. 2012, 25: 294-301. 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2011.01423.x.http://www.D-MELD.com,View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Avolio AW, Cillo U, Salizzoni M, De Carlis L, Colledan M: Donor-to-Recipient Italian Liver Transplant (D2R-ILTx) Study Group. Balancing donor and recipient risk factors in liver transplantation: the value of D-MELD with particular reference to HCV recipients. Am J Transplant. 2011, 11: 2724-2736. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03732.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blok JJ, Braat AE, Adam R, Burroughs AK, Putter H, Kooreman NG: Validation of the donor risk index in orthotopic liver transplantation within the Eurotransplant region. Liver Transpl. 2012, 18: 112-119. 10.1002/lt.22447.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonney GK, Aldersley MA, Asthana S, Toogood GJ, Pollard SG, Lodge JP: Donor risk index and MELD interactions in predicting long-term graft survival: a single-centre experience. Transplantation. 2009, 27 (87): 1858-1863.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Braat AE, Blok JJ, Putter H, Adam R, Burroughs AK, Rahmel AO: The Eurotransplant donor risk index in liver transplantation: ET-DRI. Am J Transplant. 2012, 12: 2789-2796. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04195.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron AM, Ghobrial RM, Yersiz H, Farmer DG, Lipshutz GS, Gordon SA: Optimal utilization of donor grafts with extended criteria: a single-center experience in over 1000 liver transplants. Ann Surg. 2006, 243: 748-753. 10.1097/01.sla.0000219669.84192.b3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Feng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg-Gresham JL, Dykstra DM, Punch JD, DebRoy MA: Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant. 2006, 6: 783-790. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01242.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Halldorson JB, Bakthavatsalam R, Fix O, Reyes JD, Perkins JD: D-MELD, a simple predictor of post liver transplant mortality for optimization of donor/recipient matching. Am J Transplant. 2009, 9: 318-326. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02491.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Rana A, Hardy MA, Halazun KJ, Woodland DC, Ratner LE, Samstein B: Survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT) score: a novel method to predict patient survival following liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2008, 8: 2537-2546. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02400.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Reichert B, Becker T, Weismüller TJ, Kleine M, Zachau L: Value of the preoperative SOFT-score, P-SOFT-score, SALT-score and labMELD-score for the prediction of short-term patient and graft survival of high-risk liver transplant recipients with a pre-transplant labMELD-score ≥30. Ann Transplant. 2012, 17: 11-17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Schlitt HJ, Loss M, Scherer MN, Becker T, Jauch KW, Nashan B: Current developments in liver transplantation in Germany: MELD-based organ allocation and incentives for transplant centres. Z Gastroenterol. 2011, 49: 30-38. 10.1055/s-0029-1245946.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Schrem H, Reichert B, Frühauf N, Kleine M, Zachau L: [Extended donor criteria defined by the German Medical Association : study on their usefulness as prognostic model for early outcome after liver transplantation]. Chirurg. 2012, 83: 980-988. 10.1007/s00104-012-2325-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Schrem H, Reichert B, Frühauf N, Becker T, Lehner F, Kleine M: The Donor-Risk-Index, ECD-Score and D-MELD-Score all fail to predict short-term outcome after liver transplantation with acceptable sensitivity and specificity. Ann Transplant. 2012, 17: 5-13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Volk ML, Lok AS, Pelletier SJ, Ubel PA, Hayward RA: Impact of the model for end-stage liver disease allocation policy on the use of high-risk organs for liver transplantation. Gastroenterology. 2008, 135: 1568-1574. 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Volk ML, Reichert HA, Lok AS, Hayward RA: Variation in organ quality between liver transplant centers. Am J Transplant. 2011, 11: 958-964. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03487.x.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Weismüller TJ, Negm A, Becker T, Barg-Hock H, Klempnauer J, Manns MP: The introduction of MELD-based organ allocation impacts 3-month survival after liver transplantation by influencing pretransplant patient characteristics. Transpl Int. 2009, 22: 970-978. 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2009.00915.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Avolio A, Halldorson J, Lirosi M, Lupo L, Nicolotti N: D-MELD, a strong and accurate tool to guide Donor-2-Recipient Matching. Ann Transplant. 2013, 18: 161-162.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacob M, Lewsey JD, Sharpin C, Gimson A, Rela M: Systematic review and validation of prognostic models in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2005, 11: 814-825. 10.1002/lt.20456.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cholongitas E, Marelli L, Shusang V, Senzolo M, Rolles K: A systematic review of the performance of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) in the setting of liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2006, 12: 1049-1061. 10.1002/lt.20824.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982, 143: 29-36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrell FE: Regression Modelling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression and Survival Analysis. 1986, New York: Springer PublishingGoogle Scholar
  22. Chambless LE, Diao G: Estimation of time-dependent area under the ROC curve for long-term risk prediction. Stat Med. 2006, 30: 3474-3486.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Metz C, Hoppe N: Organ transplantation in Germany: regulation scandals and scandalous regulation. Eur J Health Law. 2013, 20: 1-4. 10.1163/15718093-12341249.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Youden WJ: Index for rating diagnosis tests. Cancer. 1950, 3: 32-35. 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S: Applied Logistic Regression. 2000, New York: WileyView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Siontis GC, Tzoulaki I, Siontis KC, Ioannidis JP: Comparisons of established risk prediction models for cardiovascular disease: systematic review. BMJ. 2012, 344: e3318-10.1136/bmj.e3318.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Doenecke A, Scherer MN, Tsui TY, Schnitzbauer AA, Schlitt HJ, Obed A: “Rescue allocation offers” in liver transplantation: is there any reason to reject “unwanted” organs?. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010, 45: 1516-1517. 10.3109/00365521.2010.510577.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sotiropoulos GC, Paul A, Gerling T, Molmenti EP, Nadalin S, Napieralski BP: Liver transplantation with “rescue organ offers” within the eurotransplant area: a 2-year report from the University Hospital Essen. Transplantation. 2006, 82: 304-309.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Doyle MB, Vachharajani N, Wellen JR, Anderson CD, Lowell JA, Shenoy S: Short- and long-term outcomes after steatotic liver transplantation. Arch Surg. 2010, 145: 653-660. 10.1001/archsurg.2010.119.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Spitzer AL, Lao OB, Dick AA, Bakthavatsalam R, Halldorson JB, Yeh MM: The biopsied donor liver: incorporating macrosteatosis into high-risk donor assessment. Liver Transpl. 2010, 16: 874-884. 10.1002/lt.22085.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Schrem H, Kaltenborn A: Avoid more organ transplant scandals. Nature. 2013, 498: 37-View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Reichert et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.