ArticleClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis2018
Performance of Current Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Tools in Patients With Gastric Cancer and Validity After First Treatment.
Article in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence and associated factors of venous thromboembolism in patients with gastric cancer across treatment settings after diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Thrombosis journal · 2026Review
- Validating Khorana Risk Score in gastric cancer patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy.Immunotherapy · 2025Article
- The Prognostic Value of Inflammatory Indices in Acute Pulmonary Embolism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Derivation, validation and assessment of a novel nomogram-based risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with lung cancer: A retrospective case control study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Immune/Inflammation Biomarkers for Venous Thromboembolism: Is It Reliable for Clinical Practice?Journal of inflammation research · 2021Review
- Mechanisms and biomarkers of cancer-associated thrombosis.Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Patterns and predictors of thromboembolic events among patients with gastric cancer.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Paraneoplastic Thromboembolism and Thrombophilia: Significance in Visceral Medicine.Visceral medicine · 2020Review
- MicroRNAs and Neutrophil Activation Markers Predict Venous Thrombosis in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Distal Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with gastric cancer (GC) are at higher risk of thromboembolism when compared to other solid tumors. We aim to determine the predictive performance of current venous thromboembolism (VTE) predictive tools and their variability and validity after first treatment. Single institution cohort of GC-treated patients (2010*15). We abstracted predictive tools, validated for VTE prediction in patient with cancer; including the Khorana Score (KRS), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR). The primary outcome was CAT prediction. We included 112 patients who were predominantly men (66%), 58 (51-64)-year-olds, with adenocarcinoma (84%) and advanced disease (59%). The median follow-up was 21.3 months (9.5-42.6). The VTE occurrence was 12%. The median time from diagnosis to VTE occurrence was 59 days (36-258). In our cohort, performance status (PS; hazard ratio [HR], 8.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.37-27.14; P < .01) was an independent predictor of VTE whereas KRS (univariate HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.7-7.4; P = .17), PLR (univariate HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-3.1; P = .8), and NLR (univariate HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5; P = .8) at baseline were not associated with VTE risk. The posttreatment KRS was an independent predictor of VTE (HR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.17-11.65; P = .25) along with PS (HR, 7.58; 95% CI, 2.27-25.33; P = .01). Posttreatment KRS appears as a valid tool to identify patients with GC at high risk of VTE after first cancer treatment.
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.