Key result
RIETE and SOME scores fail to accurately predict occult cancer in unprovoked VTE.
Why the study?
The predictive performance of the RIETE and SOME risk scores to identify occult cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE is unclear.
Do the RIETE and SOME risk scores accurately predict occult cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,753)
Do the RIETE and SOME risk scores accurately predict occult cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE?
The RIETE and SOME risk scores have poor discriminatory performance for predicting occult cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE, and their use in daily clinical practice is not supported.
RIETE and SOME scores should not guide occult cancer screening in unprovoked VTE; challenges their validity and supports superior model development.
Background The Registro Informatizado de Pacientes con Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) score and the Screening for Occult Malignancy in Patients with Idiopathic Venous Thromboembolism (SOME) risk scores aim to identify patients with acute unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) at high risk of occult cancer, but their predictive performance is unclear. Methods The scores were evaluated in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Studies were eligible if enrolling consecutive adults with unprovoked VTE who underwent protocol-mandated screening for cancer. The primary outcome was a cancer diagnosis between 30 days and 2 years of follow-up. The discriminatory performance was evaluated by computing the area under the receiver (ROC) curve in random-effects meta-analyses. Results The RIETE score could be calculated in 1753 patients, of whom 63 (3.6%) were diagnosed with cancer. The pooled area under the ROC curve was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.66; I2 = 0%). Of the 427 patients (24%) classified as high risk, 25 (5.9%) were diagnosed with cancer compared with 38 of 1326 (2.9%) low-risk patients (hazard ratio [HR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4). The SOME score was calculated in 925 patients, of whom 37 (4.0%) were diagnosed with cancer. The pooled area under the ROC curve was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65; I2 = 46%). Of the 161 patients (17%) classified as high risk (≥2 points), eight (5.0%) were diagnosed with cancer compared with 29 of 764 (3.8%) low-risk patients (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.55-2.7). Conclusions The predictive discriminatory performance of both scores is poor. When used dichotomously, the RIETE score is able to discriminate between low- and high-risk patients. Because this is largely driven by advanced age, these results do not support the use of these scores in daily clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mulder et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis in unprovoked venous thromboembolism (n=1,753). High-risk classification by RIETE score vs. Low-risk classification by RIETE score was evaluated on cancer diagnosis between 30 days and 2 years of follow-up (HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.4). The RIETE and SOME risk scores showed poor discriminatory performance for occult cancer in unprovoked VTE, with pooled areas under the ROC curve of 0.59 and 0.56, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: