External validation of models predicting heart failure in haematological malignancies

Clicks: 3
ID: 323417
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #255 of 282 articles by views in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 282 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background/Introduction Patients with haematological malignancies are at increased risk of heart failure and other cardiovascular events.1 Although several cardiovascular risk prediction models have been developed, patients with haematological malignancies are underrepresented in model development and existing models lack robust external validation.2 Purpose To externally validate cardiovascular risk prediction models developed in cancer populations across eleven haematological malignancies. Methods Patients diagnosed with one of the eleven most common haematological malignancies between 2014 and 2023 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients who received cancer treatment and had complete treatment information were included and linked to nationwide hospital, claims, ambulatory medication, and mortality databases. Previously identified2 cardiovascular risk prediction models designed to predict cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction, either as a primary outcome or as part of a composite cardiovascular outcome, were considered. Model performance was assessed in terms of discrimination using Uno’s C-index at 1-, 3-, and 5 years after diagnosis, and by group-level calibration assessment where feasible. Predictor importance was estimated using permutation importance. Results Seven out of 63 models were retained and externally validated in 77,908 patients (largest group: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=12,822); smallest: chronic myeloid leukemia (n=1,937)). For the model with the highest overall discrimination (Abdel-Qadir 2019), 3-year C-indices ranged from 0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.73) in acute myeloid leukemia to 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) in Hodgkin lymphoma. This model, originally developed in breast cancer patients, underestimated risk on calibration assessment. Formal calibration assessment of other models was limited by incomplete reporting of regression equations. Across models, discrimination was consistently lower in malignancies with poorer prognosis compared with those with more favourable prognosis. Age was the most important predictor across malignancies, followed by prior heart failure and hypertension. Conclusion(s) Marked heterogeneity in model performance suggests that malignancy-specific recalibration or model updating, or development of malignancy-specific prediction models, may be required to obtain reliable risk estimates. Group-level calibration could only be assessed for one model due to poor reporting in the development studies.
Reference Key
openalex_W7172268981 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors C Gomes, K Dziopa, J Geels, A F Schmidt, F W Asselbergs, M Linschoten
Journal European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suag097.101
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.