Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Background: The Khorana score is a validated tool to identify cancer patients at higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: We compared its predictive performance to that of the clinical PROTECHT and the polygenic 5-SNP scores in patients who participated in the Dutch CPCT-02 study. Patients/methods: Data on VTE and its risk factors were retrospectively collected for 2729 patients with advanced stage solid tumors planned for systemic cancer treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months. Overall discriminatory performance of the scores was evaluated by time-dependent c-indices. The scores were additionally evaluated dichotomously in competing risk models. Results: A total of 160 (5.9%) patients developed VTE during follow-up. Time-dependent c-indices at 6 months for the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55–0.60), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.57–0.62), and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.51–0.57), respectively. The dichotomous scores classified 9.6%, 16.8%, and 9.5% as high-risk, respectively. VTE risk was about 2-fold higher among high-risk patients than low-risk patients for the Khorana (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3–3.0), PROTECHT (SHR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5–3.0), and 5-SNP scores (SHR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.03–2.8). The sensitivity at 6 months was 16.6% (95% CI: 10.5–22.7), 28.9% (95% CI: 21.5–36.3), and 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.2), respectively. Conclusions: Performance of the PROTECHT or 5-SNP score was not superior to that of the Khorana score. The majority of cancer patients who developed VTE during 6-month follow-up were not identified by these scores. Future directions for studies on cancer-associated VTE prediction may include combined clinical-genetic scores.

Cancer patients have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism and arterial thrombosis, along with an increased risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding with primary and secondary prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. Decisions on initiation, dosing, and duration of anticoagulant therapy for prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis are challenging, as clinicians have to balance patients' individual risk of (recurrent) thrombosis against the risk of bleeding complications. For this purpose, several dedicated risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients have been suggested. However, most of these scores perform poorly and have received limited to no validation. For bleeding and arterial thrombosis, no risk scores have been developed specifically for cancer patients, and treatment decisions remain based on clinical gestalt and rough and unstructured estimation of the risks. The aims of this review are to summarize the characteristics and performance of risk assessment scores for (recurrent) venous thromboembolism and discuss available data on risk assessment for bleeding and arterial thrombosis in the cancer population. This summary can help clinicians in daily practice to make a balanced decision when considering the use of risk assessment models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Future research attempts should aim at improving risk assessment for arterial thrombosis and anticoagulant-related bleeding in cancer patients.

Contains fulltext : 245712.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal disease, but data on the incidence of fatal PE in cancer patients are scant. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the proportion of cancer patients with PE at autopsy. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, all autopsy reports of cancer patients were retrieved from PALGA: Dutch Pathology Registry and used for data extraction. The primary outcome was PE at time of autopsy, defined as any clot obstructing a pulmonary artery. The secondary outcome was venous thromboembolism, defined as the composite of thrombotic PE, deep vein thrombosis, splanchnic vein thrombosis, or internal jugular vein thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 9571 cancer patients were included. In 1191 (12.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-13.1) patients, one or more PE events were observed at autopsy, of whom 1074 (90.2%) had a thrombotic embolism, 168 (14.1%) a tumor embolism, 9 (0.8%) a septic embolism, 7 (0.6%) a fat tissue embolism, and 3 (0.3%) a bone marrow embolism. Among patients with PE for whom the cause of death was specified in the autopsy report, death was considered PE-related in 642 patients (66.7%), which was 6.7% of the total study population. Venous thromboembolism was observed in 1223 (12.8%; 95% CI, 12.1-13.5) patients. CONCLUSION: The proportion of PE in cancer patients at autopsy is substantial. Although the study population is not representative for the total cancer population, it suggests that PE is an important disease complication in cancer patients.