Back to all available

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for postoperative frailty in breast cancer patients

epidemiology
global-health
nursing
oncology
healthcare-services

Abstract

Background. Patients who have undergone breast cancer (BC) surgery are a high-risk population for frailty. This study aims to analyze risk factors for frailty in these patients, develop a risk prediction model, and validate its predictive performance, thereby providing a reference for frailty prevention in postoperative breast cancer patients.

Methods. A total of 286 BC patients who underwent surgical treatment at the Department of Breast Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), between October 2024 and March 2025, participated in a cross-sectional study and were surveyed using a general information questionnaire, the Chinese version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). We used logistic regression to analyze factors influencing postoperative frailty in BC patients and constructed a risk prediction nomogram. We evaluated the model's predictive performance using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and decision curve analysis (DCA), with internal validation conducted via 10-fold cross-validation.

Results. The incidence of postoperative frailty among BC patients was 29.37%. Logistic regression analysis identified the following factors as significant influences on frailty in this population (P < 0.05): a history of diabetes, poor sleep quality, having children as the primary caregivers, urban employee basic medical insurance, higher cholesterol levels, higher body mass index (BMI), and higher exercise frequency. The results of the Hosmer–Lemeshow test showed that χ² = 5.990, P = 0.645. The model showed an area under the ROC curve was 0.812 after internal validation.

Conclusion. The created prediction model provided a precise, individualized evaluation of postoperative frailty risk in BC patients. It can be used to identify individuals at high risk of postoperative frailty in BC patients and to guide healthcare professionals in promptly implementing targeted interventions.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].