Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37216627›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2023

Predicting Acute Care Events Among Patients Initiating Chemotherapy: A Practice-Based Validation and Adaptation of the PROACCT Model.

Jacob N Stein, Lisette Dunham, William A Wood, Emily Ray, Hanna Sanoff, Jennifer Elston-Lafata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Predicting the Future by Studying the Past for Patients With Cancer Diagnosed in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jacob N SteinUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-2082-2760
Lisette DunhamNorth Carolina Cancer Hospital, Chapel Hill, NC.
William A WoodUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0001-7439-2543
Emily RayUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0001-6807-7491
Hanna SanoffUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0001-8679-4486
Jennifer Elston-LafataUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-8550-6195

Funding

Cancer Health Disparities Training ProgramT32CA128582 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SMITH, JENNIFER SUSAN, TATE, DEBORAH F. · 2009 to 2023
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA128582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAcute care events (ACEs), comprising emergency department visits and hospitalizations, are a priority area for reduction in oncology. Prognostic models are a compelling strategy to identify high-risk patients and target preventive services, but have yet to be broadly implemented, partly because of challenges with electronic health record (EHR) integration. To facilitate EHR integration, we adapted and validated the previously published PRediction Of Acute Care use during Cancer Treatment (PROACCT) model to identify patients at highest risk for ACEs after systemic anticancer treatment.

methodsA retrospective cohort of adults with a cancer diagnosis starting systemic therapy at a single center between July and November 2021 was divided into development (70%) and validation (30%) sets. Clinical and demographic variables were extracted, limited to those in structured format in the EHR, including cancer diagnosis, age, drug category, and ACE in prior year. Three logistic regression models of increasing complexity were developed to predict risk of ACEs.

resultsFive thousand one hundred fifty-three patients were evaluated (3,603 development and 1,550 validation). Several factors were predictive of ACEs: age (in decades), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy or immunotherapy, thoracic, GI or hematologic malignancy, and ACE in the prior year. We defined high-risk as the top 10% of risk scores; this population had 33.6% ACE rate compared with 8.3% for the remaining 90% in the low-risk group. The simplest Adapted PROACCT model had a C-statistic of 0.79, sensitivity of 0.28, and specificity of 0.93.

conclusionWe present three models designed for EHR integration that effectively identify oncology patients at highest risk for ACE after initiation of systemic anticancer treatment. By limiting predictors to structured data fields and including all cancer types, these models offer broad applicability for cancer care organizations and may offer a safety net to identify and target resources to this high risk.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAdultHumansLogistic ModelsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID37216627
PMCPMC12278849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.