Long-term performance of risk scores for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients.
Biomarkers
Neoplasms
Predictive value of tests
Venous thromboembolism
Venous thrombosis
Journal
Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis
ISSN: 1573-742X
Titre abrégé: J Thromb Thrombolysis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9502018
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
29
3
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
29
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The long-term performance of prediction scores for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients has been poorly investigated. We evaluated the discriminatory performance of the Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores for the first 3-6 months and for 12 months, and re-assessed scores after 3-6 months to determine the influence of variations in patients' risk classification on performance. Retrospective cohort of ambulatory patients with active cancer who were scheduled to receive first or new line of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was symptomatic or incidental VTE. A total of 776 patients were included of whom 540 (70%) had distant metastases. The time-dependent c-statistics of Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores at 6 months were 0.61 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.66), 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.66), 0.60 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.66), and 0.59 (0.52 to 0.66), respectively, with a tendency to decrease during follow-up. None of the scores discriminated between high and low risk patients at the conventional 3-point positivity threshold. The use of a 2-point positivity threshold improved performance of all scores and captured a higher proportion of VTE. The accuracy of risk scores re-assessed at 3-6 months was modest. The Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores are not sufficiently accurate when used at a conventional threshold of 3 points. Performance improves at positivity threshold of 2 points, as evaluated in recent randomized studies on VTE prophylaxis. Score accuracy tends to decrease over time suggesting the need of periodic re-evaluation to estimate possible variation of risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30919253
doi: 10.1007/s11239-019-01845-6
pii: 10.1007/s11239-019-01845-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
125-133Références
J Thromb Haemost. 2005 Apr;3(4):692-4
pubmed: 15842354
Cancer. 2005 Dec 15;104(12):2822-9
pubmed: 16284987
Blood. 2008 May 15;111(10):4902-7
pubmed: 18216292
Blood. 2010 Dec 9;116(24):5377-82
pubmed: 20829374
Intern Emerg Med. 2012 Jun;7(3):291-2
pubmed: 22547369
J Thromb Haemost. 2012 Dec;10(12):2602-4
pubmed: 23362525
Blood. 2013 Sep 5;122(10):1712-23
pubmed: 23908465
Blood. 2013 Sep 19;122(12):2011-8
pubmed: 23908470
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun 20;33(18):2028-34
pubmed: 25987694
J Thromb Haemost. 2015 Nov;13(11):2119-26
pubmed: 26764429
Lancet. 2017 Dec 17;388(10063):3060-3073
pubmed: 27375038
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 01;12:CD008500
pubmed: 27906452
Oncologist. 2017 May;22(5):601-608
pubmed: 28424324
Oncologist. 2017 Oct;22(10):1222-1231
pubmed: 28550032
Haematologica. 2017 Sep;102(9):1494-1501
pubmed: 28550192
Thromb Res. 2018 Apr;164 Suppl 1:S70-S76
pubmed: 29395243
Lancet Haematol. 2018 Jul;5(7):e289-e298
pubmed: 29885940
N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 21;380(8):711-719
pubmed: 30511879
N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 21;380(8):720-728
pubmed: 30786186