Trial reportHaematologica2017
Comparison of risk prediction scores for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a prospective cohort study.
Trial report in Haematologica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
115 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Accuracy of the COMPASS-CAT thrombosis risk assessment scale in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Pooled it
- The Role of Anticoagulation on Venous Thromboembolism Primary Prophylaxis in Low- to Intermediate-Risk Ambulatory Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Pooled it
- Driver Genes Associated With the Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients with a high Khorana score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Blood advances · 2020Pooled it
- The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Haematologica · 2019Pooled it
- D-Dimer Enhances Risk-Targeted Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Patients with Cancer.The oncologist · 2020Trial
- Development and Validation of a Risk Score for Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Lung Cancer.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisTrial
- External validation of established clinical risk scores for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in a Brazilian registry.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Plasma proteomics improves thrombosis prediction in patients with cancer and identifies targetable IL-17-driven endothelial activation.Science translational medicine · 2026Article
- Tumor Whole-Genome Sequencing for Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Metastasized Solid Cancer.Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of risk prediction scores including all types of cancer-associated thrombosis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Observational
- Machine learning survival model for personalised prevention of catheter-related thrombosis in tumour patients.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Unmet Needs and Challenges in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Development, validation, and clinical utility of risk prediction models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A retrospective and prospective cohort study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (CAT); mechanisms and treatment options.Thrombosis journal · 2025Review
- Article
- Validation of risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer receiving systemic therapies.Blood advances · 2025Observational
- Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a comprehensive review.Thrombosis journal · 2025Review
- Risk factors for in-hospital venous thromboembolism in patients with bladder cancer: A retrospective single-center study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In ambulatory patients with solid cancer, routine thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is not recommended. Several risk prediction scores to identify cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism have been proposed, but their clinical usefulness remains a matter of debate. We evaluated and directly compared the performance of the Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores in a multinational, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer were eligible if they were due to undergo chemotherapy or had started chemotherapy in the previous three months. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed symptomatic or incidental deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during a 6-month follow-up period. A total of 876 patients were enrolled, of whom 260 (30%) had not yet received chemotherapy. Fifty-three patients (6.1%) developed venous thromboembolism. The c-statistics of the scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.57. At the conventional positivity threshold of 3 points, the scores classified 13-34% of patients as high-risk; the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism in these patients ranged from 6.5% (95%CI: 2.8-12) for the Khorana score to 9.6% (95%CI: 6.6-13) for the PROTECHT score. High-risk patients had a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism when using the Vienna (subhazard ratio 1.7; 95%CI: 1.0-3.1) or PROTECHT (subhazard ratio 2.1; 95%CI: 1.2-3.6) scores. In conclusion, the prediction scores performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. The Vienna CATS and PROTECHT scores appear to discriminate better between low- and high-risk patients, but further improvements are needed before they can be considered for introduction into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.