ArticleCommunications medicine2025
In-hospital mortality prognostication for cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping supportive-care evidence for febrile neutropenia prevention in breast cancer chemotherapy: a bibliometric analysis of long-acting G-CSF prophylaxis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Frontline Febrile Neutropenia Antibiotic Treatment Across Institution Types: A Multicenter Survey Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Development and clinical validation of a nursing risk prediction model for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFebrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy can result in life-threatening outcomes. Hence, an evaluation of associated risk factors can enable clinical surveillance as well as inform prophylactic measures. In this retrospective cohort study, we report a mortality prognostication model for chemotherapy-treated cancer patients upon a neutropenic episode.
methodsClinical and diagnostic data of 137 febrile neutropenia patients (>18 years) was collected from a cancer hospital, with the primary endpoint of post-hospital admission mortality within 30 days. The data was integratively analyzed and machine learning techniques were applied to develop the predictive model which was then internally cross validated. Towards enabling personalized risk assessment, a nomogram was constructed and validated.
resultsChemotherapy-treated cancer patients undergoing a neutropenic episode exhibit an overall mortality rate of 17.36%. Multivariate logistic analysis elucidates that shock, pneumonia, carboplatin, doxorubicin, antifungal and anti-viral prophylaxis, and hemoglobin correctly classify cases with an overall accuracy of 92% and discriminate mortality with a specificity of 76%. Antiviral (odds ratio (OR): 0.669, p = 0.689) and antifungal prophylaxis (OR: 0.619, p = 0.5) demonstrate a protective effect. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the nomogram exhibits an area under the curve of 0.878 (95% CI 0.778 - 0.977), Hosmer-Lemeshow test p-value = 0.635, and a high net benefit in the clinical decision curve.
conclusionsThe proposed model offers insights into the role of clinical predictors as well as treatment characteristics that can ameliorate mortality risk in cancer patients with FN. The study highlights bacteremia-related surveillance, along with thrombocytopenia, linked to carboplatin, for reducing individualized mortality risk along with improved monitoring and informed treatment strategies.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.