Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36821108›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2023

Risk Prediction Models for Cardiotoxicity of Chemotherapy Among Patients With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Elisé G Kaboré, Conor Macdonald, Ahmed Kaboré, Romain Didier, Patrick Arveux, Nicolas Meda, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, Charles Guenancia

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Elisé G KaboréHealth across Generations Team, Inserm U1018, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Villejuif, France.
Conor MacdonaldHealth across Generations Team, Inserm U1018, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Villejuif, France.
Ahmed KaboréUniversité Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Romain DidierDepartment of Cardiology, CHU Dijon-Bourgogne, Dijon, France.
Patrick ArveuxCenter for Primary Care and Public Health, Unisanté, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas MedaUniversité Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Marie-Christine Boutron-RuaultHealth across Generations Team, Inserm U1018, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Villejuif, France.
Charles GuenanciaDepartment of Cardiology, CHU Dijon-Bourgogne, Dijon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cardiotoxicity is a serious adverse effect that can occur in women undergoing treatment for breast cancer. Identifying patients who will develop cardiotoxicity remains challenging. Objective: To identify, describe, and evaluate all prognostic models developed to predict cardiotoxicity following treatment in women with breast cancer. Evidence Review: This systematic review searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to September 22, 2021, to include studies developing or validating a prediction model for cardiotoxicity in women with breast cancer. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess both the risk of bias and the applicability of the prediction modeling studies. Transparency reporting was assessed with the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) tool. Findings: After screening 590 publications, we identified 7 prognostic model studies for this review. Six were model development studies and 1 was an external validation study. Outcomes included occurrence of cardiac dysfunction (echocardiographic parameters), heart failure, and composite clinical outcomes. Model discrimination, measured by the area under receiver operating curves or C statistic, ranged from 0.70 (95% IC, 0.62-0.77) to 0.87 (95% IC, 0.77-0.96). The most common predictors identified in final prediction models included age, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, hypertension, and diabetes. Four of the developed models were deemed to be at high risk of bias due to analysis concerns, particularly for sample size, handling of missing data, and not presenting appropriate performance statistics. None of the included studies examined the clinical utility of the developed model. All studies met more than 80% of the items in TRIPOD checklist. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of the 6 predictive models identified, only 1 had undergone external validation. Most of the studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias. Application of the reporting guidelines may help future research and improve the reproducibility and applicability of prediction models for cardiotoxicity following breast cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCardiotoxicityFemaleHumansReproducibility of ResultsStroke VolumeVentricular Function, Left

Identifiers

PMID36821108
PMCPMC9951037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.