Long-term performance of risk scores for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients
- 71 Downloads
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.
KeywordsNeoplasms Venous thrombosis Venous thromboembolism Predictive value of tests Biomarkers
Concept and design: MDN, EP. Interpretation of data, critical writing or revising the intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published: MDN, NvE, LR, NA, LF, MDT, CN, NT, IC, EV, MC, AWSR, EP.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have potential conflicts of interest to declare in relation to the current work.
- 7.van Es N, Di Nisio M, Cesarman G, Kleinjan A, Otten HM, Mahé I, Wilts IT, Twint DC, Porreca E, Arrieta O, Stépanian A, Smit K, De Tursi M, Bleker SM, Bossuyt PM, Nieuwland R, Kamphuisen PW, Büller HR (2017) Comparison of risk prediction scores for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a prospective cohort study. Haematologica 102:1494–1501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Carrier M, Abou-Nassar K, Mallick R, Tagalakis V, Shivakumar S, Schattner A, Kuruvilla P, Hill D, Spadafora S, Marquis K, Trinkaus M, Tomiak A, Lee AYY, Gross PL, Lazo-Langner A, El-Maraghi R, Goss G, Le Gal G, Stewart D, Ramsay T, Rodger M, Witham D, Wells PS, AVERT Investigators (2019) Apixaban to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med 380:711–719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Khorana AA, Soff GA, Kakkar AK, Vadhan-Raj S, Riess H, Wun T, Streiff MB, Garcia DA, Liebman HA, Belani C, O’Reilly EM, Patel JN, Yimer HA, Wildgoose P, Burton P, Vijapurkar U, Kaul S, Eikelboom J, McBane RD, Bauer KA, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH, CASSINI Investigators (2019) Rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis in high-risk ambulatory cancer patients receiving systemic therapy: results of a randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med 380:720–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Pelzer U, Opitz B, Deutschinoff G, Stauch M, Reitzig PC, Hahnfeld S, Müller L, Grunewald M, Stieler JM, Sinn M, Denecke T, Bischoff S, Oettle H, Dörken B, Riess H (2015) Efficacy of Prophylactic low-molecular weight heparin for ambulatory patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: outcomes from the CONKO-004 Trial. J Clin Oncol 33:2028–2034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Cella CA, Di Minno G, Carlomagno C, Arcopinto M, Cerbone AM, Matano E, Tufano A, Lordick F, De Simone B, Muehlberg KS, Bruzzese D, Attademo L, Arturo C, Sodano M, Moretto R, La Fata E, De Placido S (2017) Preventing venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients: the ONKOTEV study. Oncologist 22:601–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Schulman S, Kearon C, Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (2005) Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 3:692–694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Kaatz S, Ahmad D, Spyropoulos AC, Schulman S, Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation (2015) Definition of clinically relevant non-major bleeding in studies of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease in non-surgical patients: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 13:2119–2126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Gerotziafas GT, Taher A, Abdel-Razeq H, AboElnazar E, Spyropoulos AC, El Shemmari S, Larsen AK, Elalamy I, COMPASS–CAT Working Group (2017) A predictive score for thrombosis associated with breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer: the prospective COMPASS-cancer-associated thrombosis study. Oncologist 22:1222–1231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Pabinger I, van Es N, Heinze G, Posch F, Riedl J, Reitter EM, Di Nisio M, Cesarman-Maus G, Kraaijpoel N, Zielinski CC, Büller HR, Ay C (2018) A clinical prediction model for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a development and validation study in two independent prospective cohorts. Lancet Haematol 5:e289–e298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar