ArticleMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2017
Prediction of venous thromboembolism in newly diagnosed patients treated for lymphoid malignancies: validation of the Khorana Risk Score.
Article in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors and Risk Assessment Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Diagnosed with Lymphoma: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Pooled 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 effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients based on Khorana score: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Pooled it
- The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Haematologica · 2019Pooled it
- Risk Assessment for Venous Thrombosis in Lymphoma and Emerging Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Development and internal validation of a lymphoma-specific nomogram for predicting venous thromboembolism: a retrospective cohort of 790 patients.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Venous thromboembolism risk in newly diagnosed lymphoma patients: a real-world prospective observational study from Vietnam National Cancer Hospital.BMC cancer · 2025Observational
- Predicting thrombotic risk in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Thro-HL multicenter study.HemaSphere · 2025Article
- Incidence, Risk Factors, and Modified Risk Assessment Model of Venous Thromboembolism in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the incidence, predictors, risk assessment scores and outcomes of thromboembolism in a cohort of Egyptian NHL patients - Real World Experience.Annals of hematology · 2024Article
- The risk of venous thromboembolism in primary central nervous system lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Review
- Comprehensive evaluation of genetic and acquired thrombophilia markers for an individualized prediction of clinical thrombosis in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
- Thrombosis risk prediction in lymphoma patients: A multi-institutional, retrospective model development and validation study.American journal of hematology · 2024Article
- Cancer-associated thrombosis in hematologic malignancies.International journal of hematology · 2024Review
- Incidence of venous thromboembolism and predictive ability of age-adjusted international prognostic index for prediction of venous thromboembolism in Asian patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
- Review
- The Application of Existing Risk Assessment Models (RAMS) to Predict the Occurrence of Venous Thromboembolic Events among Patients with Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Incidence of and risk factors for venous thrombosis in hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies: A single-center, prospective cohort study.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2024Article
- Validation of venous thromboembolism predictive model in hematologic malignancies.Annals of hematology · 2023Article
- Retrospective analysis of the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.European journal of haematology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The utility of the venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment model known as the Khorana Risk Score (KRS) in patients with lymphoid malignancies receiving outpatient chemotherapy is not defined. We evaluated the association of the KRS with VTE in patients treated for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Retrospective analyses were performed in 428 patients, 241 of whom were newly diagnosed with DLBCL and 187 of whom had HL. During the initial therapy, 64 (15%) patients developed VTE and 56 died during follow-up. More VTE events occurred in patients with DLBCL than in patients with HL. According to the KRS, 364 (85%) and 64 (15%) patients were considered to be at intermediate risk and high risk of VTE development, respectively. The high-risk KRS patients were more often diagnosed with HL than DLBCL (19 vs. 10%, P = 0.0143). The KRS did not discriminate between high- and intermediate-risk patients with respect to VTE occurrence (17 vs. 15%, P = 0.5868). In our patients, the KRS did not adequately predict VTE (positive predictive value 15%, negative predictive value 82% and C statistic 0.51). In the multivariate analysis, bulky disease (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.62-3.36, P < 0.0001), poor prognostic disease (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.01-1.74, P = 0.049) and DLBCL histological subtype (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.17-2.19, P = 0.003) were all significantly associated with the VTE development. In this cohort of patients with lymphoid malignancies, the KRS did not adequately stratify or predict VTE events in patients at a higher risk of VTE. This finding suggests the need for the development of a disease-specific VTE assessment model.
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.