Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 10, 2026

Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
Published on: September 27, 2024
Development of a simplified multivariable model to predict neutropenic complications in cancer patients undergoing
Abolfazl Razzaghdoust1, Bahram Mofid2,3,4, Maryam Moghadam5
1Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Student Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Purpose:
Neutropenic complications remain the major dose-limiting toxicities of cancer chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to develop and internally validate a comprehensive and easily measurable scoring system for prediction of severe or febrile neutropenia in the first chemotherapy cycle of patients with solid tumors or lymphoma.
Methods:
This prospective cohort study included consecutive patients at a tertiary referral hospital. Many clinical and laboratory-independent variables were measured at baseline. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied after unadjusted analysis, and the multivariable model was transformed into a simplified risk score based on 6 bootstrapped regression coefficients. The simplified scoring system was internally validated using cross-validation. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results:
A total of 305 patients were enrolled and followed during 1732 chemotherapy cycles. Of these, 259 were eligible for analysis. The multivariable model revealed 6 predictive factors for severe or febrile neutropenia (scores in parentheses): high-risk regimen without colony-stimulating factor (4 points), intermediate-risk regimen without colony-stimulating factor (3 points), age > 65 years and elevated ferritin (3 points), body mass index < 23 kg/m2 and body surface area < 2 m2 (2 points), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (2 points), and elevated C-reactive protein (1 point). The receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.832 (95% confidence interval [Cl], 0.767-0.897) for the simplified model and 0.816 (95% Cl, 0.771-0.860) for the cross-validation.
Conclusions:
We developed and internally validated a user-friendly prediction model to guide personalized decision-making using available clinical data and few cost-effective laboratory tests. External validation in other centers with different patients is required.
More Related Videos
09:29Development and Maintenance of a Preclinical Patient Derived Tumor Xenograft Model for the Investigation of Novel Anti-Cancer Therapies
Published on: September 30, 2016
08:42Establishment of Gastric Cancer Patient-derived Xenograft Models and Primary Cell Lines
Published on: July 19, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Simplified Synchronous Machine Model
In this model, each generator is connected to a...
Predicting Molecular Geometry
Hemodialysis II: Procedure and Complications
Pneumonia III: Complications and Assessment
Diabetes: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Complications
Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.