Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32969580›Full record

Trial reportThe oncologist2020

D-Dimer Enhances Risk-Targeted Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Patients with Cancer.

Vaibhav Kumar, Joseph R Shaw, Nigel S Key, Anton Ilich, Ranjeeta Mallick, Philip S Wells, Marc Carrier

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Implementation failure: thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. How we manage a high D-dimer.Haematologica · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Vaibhav Kumar *Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-9497
Joseph R Shaw *Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Nigel S KeyDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Anton IlichDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Ranjeeta MallickDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Philip S WellsDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Marc CarrierDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USOttawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

Research Training in Hematology at UNC Chapel HillT32HL007149 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Nigel S. Key · 1985 to 2026
$8.6M
Mechanism of sickle cell disease-specific venous thromboembolismR01HL157441 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KEY, NIGEL S., PAWLINSKI, RAFAL L · 2021 to 2024
$2.6M
CIHRNHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL157441NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007149
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThromboprophylaxis for ambulatory patients with cancer is effective, although uncertainties remain on who should be targeted. Using D-dimer values from individuals enrolled to the AVERT trial, we sought to identify and validate a more efficient venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk threshold for thromboprophylaxis. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe AVERT trial compared thromboprophylaxis with apixaban with placebo among patients with cancer with a Khorana Risk Score ≥2. The D-dimer measured at randomization was used to calculate an individualized 6-month VTE risk using the validated CATScore. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was used to assess efficacy (VTE) and safety (major and overall bleeding) in the (a) complete cohort and (b) ≥8% and < 8% 6-month VTE risk thresholds.

resultsFive hundred seventy-four patients were randomized in the AVERT trial; 466 (81%) with baseline D-dimer were included in the study. Two hundred thirty-seven subjects received apixaban; 229 received placebo. In the complete cohort, there were 13 (5.5%) VTE events in the apixaban arm compared with 26 (11.4%) events in the placebo arm (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.49 [0.25-0.95], p < .05). Number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one VTE = 17. Eighty-two (35%) and 72 (31%) patients in the apixaban and placebo arms, respectively, had a 6-month VTE risk ≥8%. In this subgroup, 7 (8.4%) VTE events occurred with apixaban and 19 (26.3%) events with placebo (aHR 0.33 [0.14-0.81], p < .05), NNT = 6. Individuals with a VTE risk <8% derived no benefit from apixaban thromboprophylaxis (aHR 0.89 [0.30-2.65), p = .84). Increased rates of overall bleeding were observed with apixaban in both the complete (aHR 2.11 [1.09-4.09], p < .05) and ≥ 8% predicted risk cohorts (aHR 2.87 [0.91-9.13], p = .07).

conclusionA 6-month VTE risk threshold of ≥8% increases the efficiency of risk-targeted thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Ambulatory patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). A Khorana Risk Score (KRS) ≥2 is currently the suggested threshold for thromboprophylaxis. Using baseline D-dimer values from individuals enrolled to the AVERT trial, this retrospective validation study identifies a 6-month VTE risk of ≥8% as a more efficient threshold for thromboprophylaxis. At this threshold, the number needed to treat to prevent one VTE is 6, compared with 17 when using a KRS ≥2. Conversely, individuals with a predicted risk of <8% derive no clinical benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Future prospective studies should validate this threshold for outpatient thromboprophylaxis.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantsFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation ProductsHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesAnticoagulantsFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Productsfibrin fragment DApixabanCancer-associated thrombosisD-dimerThromboprophylaxisVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID32969580
PMCPMC7938400
OpenAlexW3088260985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.