ReviewCancers2024
Novel Insights in Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Methods in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: From the Guidelines to Clinical Practice.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of venous thrombosis risk prediction model and scale for lung cancer patients in intensive care unit based on interpretable machine learning.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Review
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Anticoagulation for the Prevention of Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Adult Cancer Patients with Long-Term Central Venous Catheters: Current Evidence, Clinical Uncertainties and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in Breast Cancer: Risk Factors and Personalized Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 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
- Consensus on the Management of the Clinical Challenges of Venous Thromboembolism in Special Situations.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Impact of body mass index on D-dimer diagnostic utility for deep vein thrombosis in patients with cancer: a single-center retrospective analysis.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Emerging Biomarkers for Assessing Thrombotic Risk in Patients Receiving Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs).Cardiovascular & hematological agents in medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Life expectancy in cancer patients with pulmonary thromboembolism: From clinical prognostic biomarkers and paraclinical investigations to therapeutic approaches (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Review
- Semi-Supervised Learning to Improve Generalizability of Cancer Associated-Venous Thromboembolism Risk Prediction Models.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many cancer patients will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE) at some stage, with the highest rate in the initial period following diagnosis. Novel cancer therapies may further enhance the risk. VTE in a cancer setting is associated with poor prognostic, a decreased quality of life, and high healthcare costs. If thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized cancer patients and perioperative settings is widely accepted in clinical practice and supported by the guidelines, it is not the same situation in ambulatory cancer patient settings. The guidelines do not recommend primary thromboprophylaxis, except in high-risk cases. However, nowadays, risk stratification is still challenging, although many tools have been developed. The Khrorana score remains the most used method, but it has many limits. This narrative review aims to present the current relevant knowledge of VTE risk assessment in ambulatory cancer patients, starting from the guideline recommendations and continuing with the specific risk assessment methods and machine learning models approaches. Biomarkers, genetic, and clinical features were tested alone or in groups. Old and new models used in VTE risk assessment are exposed, underlining their clinical utility. Imaging and biomolecular approaches to VTE screening of outpatients with cancer are also presented, which could help clinical decisions.
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.