Key result
Six validated venous thromboembolism risk assessment models showed poor to modest discriminatory performance in patients with cancer receiving contemporary systemic therapies, with the CAT Score performing best (c-statistic 0.65).
Why the study?
Evolution of anticancer treatments, including targeted and immunotherapeutic agents, might affect venous thromboembolism risk and the performance of existing risk prediction models.
Do 6 externally validated risk assessment models accurately predict venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer initiating contemporary systemic anticancer therapies?
Cohort (n=806)
No
Do 6 externally validated risk assessment models accurately predict venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer initiating contemporary systemic anticancer therapies?
Effect estimate: c-statistic 0.65 (CAT Score) (95% CI 0.62-0.67)
Existing VTE risk assessment models show poor to modest discriminatory performance in contemporary cancer patients receiving modern systemic therapies, with the CAT Score performing best.
These models should not inform VTE prophylaxis decisions in cancer patients on modern therapies; leaves open development of improved risk scores.
Cancer increases the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). To identify patients with cancer at high VTE risk who might benefit from primary thromboprophylaxis, several risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed. The evolution of anticancer treatment, including the implementation of targeted and immunotherapeutic agents, might affect VTE risk and risk prediction. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the performance of 6 externally validated RAMs (Khorana score, PROTECHT, CONKO, COMPASS-CAT, CATScore, and EHR-CAT) in a prospective observational cohort study of patients with cancer initiating contemporary systemic anticancer therapies. Eight hundred six patients (49.5% female) with a median age of 61 years (interquartile range, 53-69) were included. The most common cancer types were lung (21.8%), breast (10.8%), and pancreatic (10.3%). Anticancer therapies initiated at study inclusion included chemotherapy (48.3%), a combination of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI; 16.6%), ICI monotherapy (15.4%), and targeted agents (19.7%). During an observation period of 6 months, 91 patients experienced a VTE (cumulative incidence, 11.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0-13.3). The discriminatory performance of the RAMs varied, with the best c-statistic seen with the CAT Score, whereas the COMPASS-CAT score showed the lowest area under the curve value (c-statistics: Khorana score, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.50-0.56]; PROTECHT, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.56-0.61]; CONKO, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.51-0.57]; COMPASS-CAT, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.47-0.53]; CAT Score, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.67]; EHR-CAT, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.52-0.57]). Overall, we observed a poor to modest discriminatory performance of the RAMs in our contemporary cohort of patients with cancer, with the CAT Score performing best among all evaluated scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vladić et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Cancer (n=806). Venous thromboembolism risk assessment models was evaluated on Discriminatory performance (c-statistic) for venous thromboembolism at 6 months (c-statistic 0.65 (CAT Score), 95% CI 0.62-0.67). Six validated venous thromboembolism risk assessment models showed poor to modest discriminatory performance in patients with cancer receiving contemporary systemic therapies, with the CAT Score performing best (c-statistic 0.65).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: