Pamala A Pawloski1,2,3, Avis J Thomas1, Sheryl Kane1, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez1, Gary R Shapiro3,4, Gary H Lyman5,6,7. 1. HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 2. Health Care Systems Research Network/National Cancer Institute Cancer Research Network, USA. 3. Regions Hospital Cancer Care Center, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 4. Cancer Center of Western Wisconsin, New Richmond, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Seattle, Washington, USA. 6. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. 7. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical guidelines recommending the use of myeloid growth factors are largely based on the prescribed chemotherapy regimen. The guidelines suggest that oncologists consider patient-specific characteristics when prescribing granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis; however, a mechanism to quantify individual patient risk is lacking. Readily available electronic health record (EHR) data can provide patient-specific information needed for individualized neutropenia risk estimation. An evidence-based, individualized neutropenia risk estimation algorithm has been developed. This study evaluated the automated extraction of EHR chemotherapy treatment data and externally validated the neutropenia risk prediction model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of adult patients with newly diagnosed breast, colorectal, lung, lymphoid, or ovarian cancer who received the first cycle of a cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen from 2008 to 2013 were recruited from a single cancer clinic. Electronically extracted EHR chemotherapy treatment data were validated by chart review. Neutropenia risk stratification was conducted and risk model performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Chemotherapy treatment data electronically extracted from the EHR were verified by chart review. The neutropenia risk prediction tool classified 126 patients (57%) as being low risk for febrile neutropenia, 44 (20%) as intermediate risk, and 51 (23%) as high risk. The model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test = 0.24). Discrimination was adequate and slightly less than in the original internal validation (c-statistic 0.75 vs 0.81). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy treatment data were electronically extracted from the EHR successfully. The individualized neutropenia risk prediction model performed well in our retrospective external cohort.
OBJECTIVES: Clinical guidelines recommending the use of myeloid growth factors are largely based on the prescribed chemotherapy regimen. The guidelines suggest that oncologists consider patient-specific characteristics when prescribing granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis; however, a mechanism to quantify individual patient risk is lacking. Readily available electronic health record (EHR) data can provide patient-specific information needed for individualized neutropenia risk estimation. An evidence-based, individualized neutropenia risk estimation algorithm has been developed. This study evaluated the automated extraction of EHR chemotherapy treatment data and externally validated the neutropenia risk prediction model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of adult patients with newly diagnosed breast, colorectal, lung, lymphoid, or ovarian cancer who received the first cycle of a cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen from 2008 to 2013 were recruited from a single cancer clinic. Electronically extracted EHR chemotherapy treatment data were validated by chart review. Neutropenia risk stratification was conducted and risk model performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Chemotherapy treatment data electronically extracted from the EHR were verified by chart review. The neutropenia risk prediction tool classified 126 patients (57%) as being low risk for febrile neutropenia, 44 (20%) as intermediate risk, and 51 (23%) as high risk. The model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test = 0.24). Discrimination was adequate and slightly less than in the original internal validation (c-statistic 0.75 vs 0.81). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy treatment data were electronically extracted from the EHR successfully. The individualized neutropenia risk prediction model performed well in our retrospective external cohort.
Authors: Charles L Vogel; Marek Z Wojtukiewicz; Robert R Carroll; Sergei A Tjulandin; Luis Javier Barajas-Figueroa; Brian L Wiens; Theresa A Neumann; Lee S Schwartzberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P L Zinzani; E Pavone; S Storti; L Moretti; P P Fattori; L Guardigni; B Falini; M Gobbi; P Gentilini; V M Lauta; M Bendandi; F Gherlinzoni; M Magagnoli; S Venturi; E Aitini; M Tabanelli; G Leone; V Liso; S Tura Journal: Blood Date: 1997-06-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Arnold L Potosky; Jennifer L Malin; Benjamin Kim; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Solomon B Makgoeng; Nadia Howlader; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-06-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gary H Lyman; David C Dale; Debra A Wolff; Eva Culakova; Marek S Poniewierski; Nicole M Kuderer; Jeffrey Crawford Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sibylle Loibl; Tomas Skacel; Valentina Nekljudova; Hans Joachim Lück; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Thomas Brodowicz; Christoph Zielinski; Gunter von Minckwitz Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Gary H Lyman; David C Dale; Jason C Legg; Esteban Abella; Phuong Khanh Morrow; Sadie Whittaker; Jeffrey Crawford Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Yanli Li; Leila Family; Lie H Chen; John H Page; Zandra Klippel; Lanfang Xu; Chun R Chao Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Honghan Wu; Giulia Toti; Katherine I Morley; Zina M Ibrahim; Amos Folarin; Richard Jackson; Ismail Kartoglu; Asha Agrawal; Clive Stringer; Darren Gale; Genevieve Gorrell; Angus Roberts; Matthew Broadbent; Robert Stewart; Richard J B Dobson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497