Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27, 2026; 18(6): 115706
Published online Jun 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.115706
Published online Jun 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.115706
Table 1 Baseline characteristics in no clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula groups following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, mean ± SD/median (interquartile range)
| Parameter | No CR-POPF (n = 36) | CR-POPF (n = 31) | P value |
| Gender | 0.142 | ||
| Male | 19 | 22 | |
| Female | 17 | 9 | |
| Age (years) | 66 (58, 70.75) | 64 (56, 74) | 0.988 |
| Body mass index (kg/cm2) | 19.78 ± 3.25 | 18.65 ± 3.04 | 0.165 |
| Pathological type | 0.333 | ||
| Pancreatic cancer | 15 | 6 | |
| Bile duct cancer | 9 | 11 | |
| Ampullary cancer | 6 | 5 | |
| Duodenal malignancy | 4 | 5 | |
| Other | 2 | 4 | |
| Operation time (minutes) | 360 (322.5, 415) | 348 (300, 460) | 0.933 |
| Intraoperative bleeding (mL) | 145 (100, 500) | 170 (145, 280) | 0.42 |
| Intraoperative transfusion | 0.089 | ||
| Yes | 12 | 17 | |
| No | 24 | 14 | |
| Hospital stays (days) | 24 (20, 30.25) | 35 (27, 42) | 0.001 |
| Drain fluid amylase concentration (U/L) | |||
| POD1 | 2304 (1195, 3496) | 7177 (4386, 11581) | < 0.001 |
| POD3 | 415.5 (222.3, 3311) | 1860 (1370, 2888) | 0.037 |
| Serum amylase concentration (U/L) | |||
| POD1 | 81.83 (23.4, 199.9) | 156 (89.65, 307.8) | 0.049 |
| POD3 | 39.05 (25.29, 360.4) | 53.21 (17.42, 86.53) | 0.522 |
| Drain-to-serum amylase concentration ratio | |||
| POD1 | 22.05 (10.4, 48.65) | 37 (23, 48) | 0.022 |
| POD3 | 9.55 (5.625, 13.18) | 42 (25, 80) | < 0.001 |
Table 2 Diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative day 1
| ROC curve analysis | Drain fluid amylase concentration (U/L) | Serum amylase concentration (U/L) | Drain-to-serum amylase concentration ratio | C-reactive protein (pg/mL) | IL-8 (pg/mL) | IL-6 (pg/mL) |
| Areas under the ROC curve | 0.866 | 0.641 | 0.662 | 0.658 | 0.708 | 0.812 |
| 95%CI | 0.760-0.937 | 0.514-0.754 | 0.536-0.773 | 0.532-0.769 | 0.584-0.813 | 0.698-0.897 |
| P value | < 0.001 | 0.041 | 0.017 | 0.019 | 0.003 | < 0.001 |
| Youden index J | 0.672 | 0.302 | 0.3486 | 0.308 | 0.543 | 0.534 |
| Associated criterion | > 3767 | > 82.68 | > 24.9 | > 135.1 | > 88.09 | > 244.91 |
| Sensitivity | 83.87 | 77.42 | 70.97 | 41.94 | 70.97 | 64.52 |
| Specificity | 83.33 | 52.78 | 63.89 | 88.89 | 83.33 | 88.89 |
Table 3 Diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative day 3
| ROC curve analysis | Serum amylase concentration (U/L) | Drain fluid amylase concentration (U/L) | Drain-to-serum amylase concentration ratio | C-reactive protein (pg/mL) | IL-8 (pg/mL) | IL-6 (pg/mL) |
| Areas under the ROC curve | 0.648 | 0.546 | 0.865 | 0.790 | 0.875 | 0.893 |
| 95%CI | 0.522-0.761 | 0.420-0.668 | 0.760-0.936 | 0.674-0.880 | 0.772-0.943 | 0.794-0.956 |
| P value | 0.043 | 0.525 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Youden index J | 0.5466 | 0.2688 | 0.8011 | 0.515 | 0.635 | 0.668 |
| Associated criterion | > 734 | ≤ 168.36 | > 14 | > 336.19 | > 78.23 | > 177.9 |
| Sensitivity | 93.55 | 93.55 | 96.77 | 70.97 | 77.42 | 80.65 |
| Specificity | 61.11 | 33.33 | 83.33 | 80.56 | 86.11 | 86.11 |
Table 4 Pairwise receiver operating characteristic curve comparison of biomarkers for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula detection
| Pairwise comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves | POD1 | POD3 | |
| CRP vs DAC | Difference between areas | 0.208 | 0.142 |
| P value | 0.017 | 0.118 | |
| CRP vs DSACR | Difference between areas | 0.004 | 0.075 |
| P value | 0.961 | 0.342 | |
| CRP vs IL-6 | Difference between areas | 0.154 | 0.103 |
| P value | 0.086 | 0.100 | |
| CRP vs IL-8 | Difference between areas | 0.050 | 0.085 |
| P value | 0.627 | 0.173 | |
| CRP vs SAC | Difference between areas | 0.017 | 0.244 |
| P value | 0.864 | 0.008 | |
| DAC vs DSACR | Difference between areas | 0.203 | 0.217 |
| P value | 0.007 | 0.009 | |
| DAC vs IL-6 | Difference between areas | 0.054 | 0.245 |
| P value | 0.441 | 0.005 | |
| DAC vs IL-8 | Difference between areas | 0.158 | 0.227 |
| P value | 0.079 | 0.006 | |
| DAC vs SAC | Difference between areas | 0.225 | 0.102 |
| P value | 0.001 | 0.443 | |
| DSACR vs IL-6 | Difference between areas | 0.150 | 0.028 |
| P value | 0.123 | 0.671 | |
| DSACR vs IL-8 | Difference between areas | 0.046 | 0.010 |
| P value | 0.662 | 0.881 | |
| DSACR vs SAC | Difference between areas | 0.022 | 0.319 |
| P value | 0.8625 | < 0.001 | |
| IL-6 vs IL-8 | Difference between areas | 0.104 | 0.018 |
| P value | 0.239 | 0.744 | |
| IL-6 vs SAC | Difference between areas | 0.171 | 0.347 |
| P value | 0.025 | < 0.001 | |
| IL-8 vs SAC | Difference between areas | 0.067 | 0.329 |
| P value | 0.477 | < 0.001 | |
- Citation: Yang JK, Gu YQ, He ZG, Liu FB. Combined inflammatory markers and amylase levels for early detection of postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(6): 115706
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v18/i6/115706.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.115706