ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2023
Use of the Khorana score to predict venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing chemotherapy for uterine cancer.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- External validation of established clinical risk scores for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in a Brazilian registry.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Venous thromboembolism in ovarian cancer: pathophysiology, risk, and management.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- The Association of Khorana Risk Score with Venous Thromboembolism and Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a predictive risk tool for VTE in women with breast cancer under chemotherapy: a cohort study in China.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- Review
- Monocyte recruitment in venous pulmonary embolism at time of cancer diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal cancer patients.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Gynecologic cancers are associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The Khorana score is a validated tool to assess risk of VTE in cancer patients. The purpose of this study is to determine if the Khorana score can be used as a risk stratification tool for VTE in patients with uterine cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed uterine cancer receiving chemotherapy over a 4-year period was conducted. The patients were stratified based on their Khorana score as well as their chemotherapy sequence, neoadjuvant or definitive versus adjuvant. Results: A total of 276 patients were included: 40 received neoadjuvant or definitive, 236 adjuvant chemotherapy. Most patients had advanced stage disease (64.5%). 18 (6.5%) patients developed VTE within 180 days of initiating chemotherapy. High Khorana score was associated with a non-significant increase in VTE (K ≥ 2 OR 1.17, CI 0.40-3.39, K ≥ 3 OR 1.69, CI 0.61-4.69) but had poor predictive accuracy based on area under the curve (K ≥ 2 0.51, K ≥ 3 0.55). The VTE rate was higher in the neoadjuvant/definitive chemotherapy group to adjuvant (12.5% vs 5.5%, p = 0.11). While the former group had a higher average Khorana score (2.35 vs 1.93, p = 0.0048), this was not predictive of VTE. Conclusions: While validated in other cancer types, the Khorana score was found to be a poor predictor of VTE in patients with uterine cancer. The use of the Khorana score to guide routine thromboprophylaxis in these patients should be used with caution and further investigation is warranted.
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.