ArticleJournal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH2021
Evaluation of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores for prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing venous thromboembolism risk prediction after immunotherapy for lung cancer.iScience · 2026Article
- Temporal validation of the electronic health record cancer-associated thrombosis model in patients with low bleeding risk.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Thrombosis and cancer what do the recommandations say.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2025Review
- Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism and its impact on survival in the ONCOTHROMB12-01 cohort study.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
- The role of germline and somatic mutations in predicting cancer-associated thrombosis: a narrative review.Current opinion in hematology · 2025Review
- Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a comprehensive review.Thrombosis journal · 2025Review
- Risk Assessment Models for Predicting Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- Risk assessment and prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with solid malignancies.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- A Nomogram Model to Predict Deep Vein Thrombosis Risk After Surgery in Patients with Hip Fractures.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Review
- Comparison among three predictive models for cancer-associated thromboembolism in a hispanic population.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Article
- Primary thromboprophylaxis in not surgically treated intra-luminal gastrointestinal cancer (ILGC) treated with first-line chemotherapy: A single institution preliminary safety report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2023Article
- The Diagnostic Value of the Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index for Venous Thromboembolism in Lung Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study.Mediators of inflammation · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores for prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Khorana score is a validated tool to identify cancer patients at higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).
objectiveWe compared its predictive performance to that of the clinical PROTECHT and the polygenic 5-SNP scores in patients who participated in the Dutch CPCT-02 study. PATIENTS/
methodsData on VTE and its risk factors were retrospectively collected for 2729 patients with advanced stage solid tumors planned for systemic cancer treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months. Overall discriminatory performance of the scores was evaluated by time-dependent c-indices. The scores were additionally evaluated dichotomously in competing risk models.
resultsA total of 160 (5.9%) patients developed VTE during follow-up. Time-dependent c-indices at 6 months for the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.60), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.57-0.62), and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.51-0.57), respectively. The dichotomous scores classified 9.6%, 16.8%, and 9.5% as high-risk, respectively. VTE risk was about 2-fold higher among high-risk patients than low-risk patients for the Khorana (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-3.0), PROTECHT (SHR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.0), and 5-SNP scores (SHR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.03-2.8). The sensitivity at 6 months was 16.6% (95% CI: 10.5-22.7), 28.9% (95% CI: 21.5-36.3), and 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.2), respectively.
conclusionsPerformance of the PROTECHT or 5-SNP score was not superior to that of the Khorana score. The majority of cancer patients who developed VTE during 6-month follow-up were not identified by these scores. Future directions for studies on cancer-associated VTE prediction may include combined clinical-genetic scores.
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.