Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Informatics tools to implement late cardiovascular risk prediction modeling for population management of high-risk childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Clinical informatics tools to integrate data from multiple sources have the potential to catalyze population health management of childhood cancer survivors at high risk for late heart failure through the implementation of previously validated risk calculators.

METHODS: The Oklahoma cohort (n = 365) harnessed data elements from Passport for Care (PFC), and the Duke cohort (n = 274) employed informatics methods to automatically extract chemotherapy exposures from electronic health record (EHR) data for survivors 18 years old and younger at diagnosis. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) late cardiovascular risk calculator was implemented, and risk groups for heart failure were compared to the Children's Oncology Group (COG) and the International Guidelines Harmonization Group (IGHG) recommendations. Analysis within the Oklahoma cohort assessed disparities in guideline-adherent care.

RESULTS: The Oklahoma and Duke cohorts both observed good overall concordance between the CCSS and COG risk groups for late heart failure, with weighted kappa statistics of .70 and .75, respectively. Low-risk groups showed excellent concordance (kappa > .9). Moderate and high-risk groups showed moderate concordance (kappa .44-.60). In the Oklahoma cohort, adolescents at diagnosis were significantly less likely to receive guideline-adherent echocardiogram surveillance compared with survivors younger than 13 years old at diagnosis (odds ratio [OD] 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.49).

CONCLUSIONS: Clinical informatics tools represent a feasible approach to leverage discrete treatment-related data elements from PFC or the EHR to successfully implement previously validated late cardiovascular risk prediction models on a population health level. Concordance of CCSS, COG, and IGHG risk groups using real-world data informs current guidelines and identifies inequities in guideline-adherent care.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app