Key result
Low Khorana score shows ~95% negative predictive value for thromboembolic events in hospitalized cancer patients.
Why the study?
Hospitalized cancer patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events, and a tailored risk-assessment model is needed to guide thromboprophylaxis and reduce hemorrhagic complications.
Does the Khorana Score accurately predict thromboembolic events in hospitalized cancer patients?
Observational (n=535)
No
Does the Khorana Score accurately predict thromboembolic events in hospitalized cancer patients?
The Khorana Score has a good negative predictive value but poor positive predictive value for thromboembolic events in hospitalized cancer patients, prompting the development of a new risk assessment model.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Low KS may identify hospitalized cancer patients at low TE risk for sparing prophylaxis; leaves open external validation of the new albumin-LDH-vascular compression RAM.
Background: Hospitalized cancer patients are at increased risk for Thromboembolic Events (TEs). As untailored thromboprophylaxis is associated with hemorrhagic complications, the definition of a risk-assessment model (RAM) in this population is needed. Objectives: INDICATE was an observational study enrolling hospitalized cancer patients, with the primary objective of assessing the Negative Predictive Value (NPV) for TEs during hospitalization and within 45 days from discharge of low-grade Khorana Score (KS=0). Secondary objectives were to assess KS Positive Predictive Value (PPV), the impact of TEs on survival and the development of a new RAM. Materials and Methods: Assuming 7% of TEs in KS=0 patients as unsatisfactory percentage and 3% of as satisfactory, 149 patients were needed to detect the favorable NPV with one-sided a= 0.10 and power=0.80. Stepwise logistic regression was adopted to identify variables included in a new RAM.Results: Among 535 enrolled patients, 153 (28.6%) had a KS=0. The primary study objective was met: 29 (5.4%) TEs were diagnosed, with 7 (4.6%) cases in the KS=0 group (NPV=95.4%, 95%CI: 90.8-98.1%; one-sided p=0.084). However, the PPV was low (5.7%, 95%CI: 1.9-12.8%); a new RAM based on albumin (OR 0.34, p=0.003), log(LDH) (OR 1.89, p=0.023) and presence of vascular compression (OR 5.32, p<.001) was developed and internally validated. Also, TEs were associated with poorer OS (median, 5.7 vs 24.8 months, p <.001).Conclusion: INDICATE showed that the KS has a good NPV but poor PPV for TEs in hospitalized cancer patients. A new RAM was developed, and deserves further assessment in external cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nichetti et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Active solid malignancy requiring hospitalization (n=535). Low-grade Khorana Score (KS=0) vs. High-grade Khorana Score was evaluated on Negative Predictive Value (NPV) for thromboembolic events during hospitalization and within 45 days from discharge (NPV 95.4%, 95% CI 90.8-98.1, p=0.084). A low-grade Khorana Score (KS=0) demonstrated a high negative predictive value of 95.4% for thromboembolic events in hospitalized cancer patients, though its positive predictive value was poor.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: