Observational studyBritish journal of cancer2018
Multivariable clinical-genetic risk model for predicting venous thromboembolic events in patients with cancer.
Observational study in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03114618 (Genomic Predictors Indicating the Risk of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Cancer Patients Treated in Outpatient Clinics), which is not on this map. Cited by 65 papers, 2 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.
Genomic Predictors Indicating the Risk of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Cancer Patients Treated in Outpatient Clinics
Who cites it
65 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- SEOM clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer (2019).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Guideline
- The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Haematologica · 2019Pooled it
- Can thromboprophylaxis build a link for cancer patients undergoing surgical and/or chemotherapy treatment? The MeTHOS cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Trial
- Risk Assessment for Venous Thrombosis in Lymphoma and Emerging Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Prediction of cancer-associated thrombosis by machine learning: results from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study.ESMO open · 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
- Perioperative management of colorectal surgical patients receiving a direct oral anticoagulant: a scoping review, particular emphasis on procedure-specific risks, and pharmacogenomics.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Development and validation of the CHI-CAT score: a novel tool for assessing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism risk in China.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- 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
- Characterization of thrombosis risk in ambulatory patients with cancer: results of the observational, prospective, multicenter CARTAGO study.The oncologist · 2025Observational
- Venous Thromboembolic Events in Cancer Immunotherapy: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Time to move beyond risk assessment models for ambulatory cancer-associated thrombosis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Scoring systems to predict thrombotic complications in solid tumor patients.Current opinion in hematology · 2025Review
- Circulating tumor DNA predicts venous thromboembolism in patients with cancers.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospitalized medical patients: comparative evidence, implementation challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Risk assessment and prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with solid malignancies.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- 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
- Discovery of 5-Hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone (Juglone) Derivatives as Dual Effective Agents Targeting Platelet-Cancer Interplay through Protein Disulfide Isomerase Inhibition.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2024Article
- Developing a risk assessment tool for cancer-related venous thrombosis in China: a modified Delphi-analytic hierarchy process study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
5 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. Outpatients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, for which the Khorana score is commonly recommended. However, it has been questioned whether this tool is sufficiently accurate at identifying patients who should receive thromboprophylaxis. The present work proposes a new index, TiC-Onco risk score to be calculated at the time of diagnosis of cancer, that examines patients' clinical and genetic risk factors for thrombosis.
methodsWe included 391 outpatients with a recent diagnosis of cancer and candidates for systemic outpatient chemotherapy. All were treated according to standard guidelines. The study population was monitored for 6 months, and VTEs were recorded. The Khorana and the TiC-Onco scores were calculated for each patient and their VTE predictive accuracy VTEs was compared.
resultsWe recorded 71 VTEs. The TiC-Onco risk score was significantly better at predicting VTE than the Khorana score (AUC 0.73 vs. 0.58, sensitivity 49 vs. 22%, specificity 81 vs. 82%, PPV 37 vs. 22%, and NPV 88 vs. 82%).
conclusionsTiC-Onco risk score performed significantly better than Khorana score at identifying cancer patients at high risk of VTE who would benefit from personalised thromboprophylaxis.
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.