Key result
Risk prediction scores (Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, CONKO) performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients, with c-statistics ranging from 0.50 to 0.57.
Why the study?
Do risk prediction scores (Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, CONKO) accurately predict venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with advanced cancer?
Population
876 ambulatory patients with advanced solid cancer due to undergo chemotherapy or had started chemotherapy…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
Risk scores should not yet guide VTE prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients; leaves open need for improved stratification tools.
Cohort (n=876)
Yes
Do risk prediction scores (Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, CONKO) accurately predict venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with advanced cancer?
Effect estimate: c-statistics 0.50 to 0.57
Current VTE risk prediction scores perform poorly in ambulatory cancer patients, highlighting the need for improved risk stratification tools before clinical implementation.
Es et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in advanced cancer (n=876). Risk prediction scores (Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, CONKO) was evaluated on objectively confirmed symptomatic or incidental deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (c-statistics 0.50 to 0.57). Risk prediction scores (Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, CONKO) performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients, with c-statistics ranging from 0.50 to 0.57.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: