C. Stabilini
University of Genoa
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by C. Stabilini.
PLOS ONE | 2014
M. G. Huisman; Barbara L. van Leeuwen; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; J. Spiliotis; C. Stabilini; Nicola de'Liguori Carino; Eriberto Farinella; Geertruida H. de Bock; Riccardo A. Audisio
Objective To determine the predictive value of the “Timed Up & Go” (TUG), a validated assessment tool, on a prospective cohort study and to compare these findings to the ASA classification, an instrument commonly used for quantifying patients’ physical status and anesthetic risk. Background In the onco-geriatric surgical population it is important to identify patients at increased risk of adverse post-operative outcome to minimize the risk of over- and under-treatment and improve outcome in this population. Methods 263 patients ≥70 years undergoing elective surgery for solid tumors were prospectively recruited. Primary endpoint was 30-day morbidity. Pre-operatively TUG was administered and ASA-classification was registered. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%-CI). Absolute risks and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC’s) were calculated. Results 164 (62.4%) patients (median age: 76) underwent major surgery. 50 (19.5%) patients experienced major complications. 50.0% of patients with high TUG and 24.8% of patients with ASA≥3 experienced major complications (absolute risks). TUG and ASA were independent predictors of the occurrence of major complications (TUG:OR 3.43; 95%-CI = 1.13–10.36. ASA1 vs. 2:OR 5.67; 95%-CI = 0.86–37.32. ASA1 vs. 3&4:OR 11.75; 95%-CI = 1.62–85.11). AUCTUG was 0.66 (95%-CI = 0.57–0.75, p<0.001) and AUCASA was 0.58 (95%-CI = 0.49–0.67, p = 0.09). Conclusions Twice as many onco-geriatric patients at risk of post-operative complications, who might benefit from pre-operative interventions, are identified using TUG than when using ASA.
Ejso | 2015
M. G. Huisman; Riccardo A. Audisio; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; A. Vigano; J. Spiliotis; C. Stabilini; N. de Liguori Carino; Eriberto Farinella; Goran Stanojevic; B. T. Veering; Malcolm Reed; P. Somasundar; de Truuske Bock; van Barbara Leeuwen
AIMSnThe aim of this study was to investigate the predictive ability of screening tools regarding the occurrence of major postoperative complications in onco-geriatric surgical patients and to propose a scoring system.nnnMETHODSn328 patients ≥ 70 years undergoing surgery for solid tumors were prospectively recruited. Preoperatively, twelve screening tools were administered. Primary endpoint was the incidence of major complications within 30 days. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using logistic regression. A scoring system was derived from multivariate logistic regression analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was applied to evaluate model performance.nnnRESULTSnAt a median age of 76 years, 61 patients (18.6%) experienced major complications. In multivariate analysis, Timed Up and Go (TUG), ASA-classification and Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) were predictors of major complications (TUG>20 OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-8.6; ASA ≥ 3 OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.2-6.3; NRS impaired OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.6-6.8). The scoring system, including TUG, ASA, NRS, gender and type of surgery, showed good accuracy (AUC: 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.86). The negative predictive value with a cut-off point >8 was 93.8% and the positive predictive value was 40.3%.nnnCONCLUSIONSnA substantial number of patients experience major postoperative complications. TUG, ASA and NRS are screening tools predictive of the occurrence of major postoperative complications and, together with gender and type of surgery, compose a good scoring system.
Ejso | 2016
M. Huisman; G. Veronese; Riccardo A. Audisio; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; G. H. de Bock; B.L. Van Leeuwen; A. Vigano; L. Gilbert; J. Spiliotis; C. Stabilini; N. de Liguori Carino; Eriberto Farinella; Goran Stanojevic; B.T. Veering; Malcolm Reed; Ponnandai Somasundar
BACKGROUNDnNutritional status (NS), though frequently affected in onco-geriatric patients, is no standard part of a geriatric assessment. The aim of this study was to analyse the association between a preoperatively impaired NS and geriatric domain impairments and adverse postoperative outcomes in onco-geriatric surgical patients.nnnMETHODSn309 patients ≥70 years undergoing surgery for solid tumours were prospectively recruited. Nine screening tools were preoperatively administered as part of a geriatric assessment. NS was based on BMI, weight loss and food intake. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using logistic regression analysis. The occurrence of 30-day adverse postoperative outcomes was recorded.nnnRESULTSnAt a median age of 76 years, 107 patients (34.6%) had an impaired NS. Decreased performance status and depression were associated with an impaired NS, when adjusted for tumour characteristics and comorbidities (ORPS>1 3.46; 95% CI 1.56-7.67. ORGDS>5 2.11; 95% CI 1.05-4.26). An impaired NS was an independent predictor for major complications (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.6-6.8). Ten out of 11 patients who deceased had an impaired NS.nnnCONCLUSIONnAn impaired NS is prevalent in onco-geriatric patients considered to be fit for surgery. It is associated with decreased performance status and depression. An impaired NS is a predictor for adverse postoperative outcomes. NS should be incorporated in a geriatric assessment.
European Journal of Cancer | 2013
M. G. Huisman; B. L. van Leeuwen; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; C. Stabilini; Antonio Vigano; J. Spiliotis; N. De'Liguori Carino; G. H. De Boce; Riccardo A. Audisio
PLOS ONE | 2016
M. G. Huisman; Barbara L. van Leeuwen; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; J. Spiliotis; C. Stabilini; Nicola de'Liguori Carino; Eriberto Farinella; Geertruida H. de Bock; Riccardo A. Audisio
Journal of Geriatric Oncology | 2013
M. G. Huisman; Riccardo A. Audisio; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; C. Stabilini; Antonio Vigano; J. Spiliotis; N. de’Liguori Carino; G. H. de Bock; B.L. van Leeuwen
Journal of Geriatric Oncology | 2013
M. G. Huisman; Riccardo A. Audisio; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; C. Stabilini; Antonio Vigano; J. Spiliotis; N. de’Liguori Carino; G. H. de Bock; B.L. van Leeuwen
Critical Reviews in Oncology Hematology | 2009
Liesbeth Hempenius; B. L. van Leeuwen; J. Spiliotis; B.T. Veering; C. Stabilini; Reinhard Stauder; Eriberto Farinella; Giampaolo Ugolini; A. Sanabria; R. Gennari; G. Diana; Riccardo A. Audisio
Ejso | 2014
M. G. Huisman; B.L. van Leeuwen; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; C. Stabilini; Antonio Vigano; J. Spiliotis; N. de’Liguori Carino; G. H. de Bock; Riccardo A. Audisio
Journal of Geriatric Oncology | 2013
M. G. Huisman; Riccardo A. Audisio; Giampaolo Ugolini; Isacco Montroni; C. Stabilini; Antonio Vigano; J. Spiliotis; N. de’Liguori Carino; G. H. de Bock; B.L. van Leeuwen