ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Evaluation of methods to identify chemotherapy-related hematologic toxicities in real-world settings.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hematologic toxicities are common in those receiving chemotherapy and can affect subsequent treatment delivery and patient outcomes. Laboratory results and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes are often used to define toxicities in real-world settings; optimal use of this information for research remains unclear. In 854 women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I-IIIA breast cancer with abstracted medical record data at Kaiser Permanente Washington, we defined three chemotherapy-related hematologic toxicities (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) using laboratory data, ICD codes, and a combination of both during and up to 1 month after chemotherapy. Cutpoints for laboratory values corresponding to grades 1-3 were derived from Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. We examined sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV), comparing laboratory and ICD definitions to chart review. Chart review identified 180 women with anemia, 168 with neutropenia, and 21 with thrombocytopenia. Grade-1+ showed the highest sensitivity for all toxicities (range: 0.84-0.95) but lowest specificity (range: 0.45-0.86) and PPV (range: 0.14-0.47). Grade-3+ showed the lowest sensitivity for all toxicities (range: 0.13-0.59) and highest specificity (range: 0.85-1.00) and PPV (range: 0.63-0.82). ICD and grade-2+ each showed balanced performance across toxicities, with ICD having slightly higher sensitivity (range: 0.62-0.76) than grade-2+ (range: 0.48-0.77). Combining grade-2+ and ICD improved sensitivity (range: 0.76-0.93) for all toxicities without much loss of specificity (range: 0.64-0.98), and no change to PPV. In conclusion, ICD and grade-2+ showed moderate-to-good performance for defining hematologic toxicities; the combination of laboratory data (especially grade-2+) and ICD showed better performance than either source alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.