Predictive factors for cancer-associated thrombosis in a large retrospective single-center study
The relationship between cancer and thrombosis has been studied for years, but reliable guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in that situation are still unclear.
We retrospectively reviewed the files of 3159 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed solid tumors at Jules Bordet Institute from January 2008 to December 2011. Among them, 99 developed a symptomatic thromboembolic episode and were matched with 2 controls (nested case control). The aim was to identify risk factors of thromboembolic events and to validate in our setting the Khorana score.
In the cohort study, nodal status ≥ 2, presence of metastases, and primary tumor site were found to be the most significant predictive factors of a thromboembolic event (n = 99; 3.1%) in the multivariate analysis. In the nested study (n = 265), hemoglobin < 13 g/dL or treatment with a red cell growth factor, CRP ≥ 31.6 mg/L, creatinine level > 0.96 mg/dL, chronic inflammatory disease, and personal or familial history of thromboembolic events were found to be the most significant predictive factors of a thromboembolic event in the multivariate analysis. In our population, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Khorana score were respectively 29%, 93%, 15%, and 96%.
We confirm the value of the risk factors identified in the literature with the additional presence of nodal involvement, elevated CRP, and creatinine levels, which may be helpful for patient risk stratification and should be considered in future clinical trials. Our results also suggest that the Khorana score might help to identify patients who can safely be spared of thromboprophylaxis.
KeywordsVenous thromboembolic events Thromboprophylaxis Cancer Cohort study Risk factors
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Ornella Martini for English-language editing of this manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was approved by Jules Bordet Institute Ethics Committee.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 5.Connors JM (2014) Prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 370(26):2515-9Google Scholar
- 7.Farge D, Bounameaux H, Brenner B, Cajfinger F, Debourdeau P, Khorana AA et al (2016) International clinical practice guidelines including guidance for direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 17(10):e452–e466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lyman GH, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Lee AY, Arcelus JI, Balaban EP et al (2013) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 31(17):2189–2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS, Cushman M, Dentali F, Akl EA et al (2012) Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 141(2 Suppl):e195S–e226SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Blom JW, Doggen CJM, Osanto S, Rosendaal FR (2005) 419 Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous 420 thrombosis. JAMA. 293(6):715–722Google Scholar
- 21.Lu H-Y, Liao K-M (2018) Increased risk of deep vein thrombosis in end-stage renal disease patients. BMC Nephrol [Internet].Google Scholar
- 25.Kuderer NM, Culakova E, Lyman GH, Francis C, Falanga A, 383 Khorana AA (2016) Avalidated risk score for venous thromboem- 384 bolism is predictive of cancer progression and mortality. The 385 Oncologist. 21(7):861–867Google Scholar