Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40117478›Full record

Observational studyBlood advances2025

Validation of risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer receiving systemic therapies.

Nikola Vladić, Cornelia Englisch, Julia M Berger, Florian Moik, Anna S Berghoff, Matthias Preusser, Ingrid Pabinger, Cihan Ay

Abstract readObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Time to move beyond risk assessment models for ambulatory cancer-associated thrombosis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Article
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

8 authors.

Nikola VladićDivision of Hematology and Hemostaseology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0009-0002-3806-2250
Cornelia EnglischDivision of Hematology and Hemostaseology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9007-7738
Julia M BergerDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-1695-8577
Florian MoikDivision of Hematology and Hemostaseology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7738-4119
Anna S BerghoffDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9379-6797
Matthias PreusserDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-3541-2315
Ingrid PabingerDivision of Hematology and Hemostaseology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-7677-9896
Cihan AyDivision of Hematology and Hemostaseology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2607-9717

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractCancer increases the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). To identify patients with cancer at high VTE risk who might benefit from primary thromboprophylaxis, several risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed. The evolution of anticancer treatment, including the implementation of targeted and immunotherapeutic agents, might affect VTE risk and risk prediction. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the performance of 6 externally validated RAMs (Khorana score, PROTECHT, CONKO, COMPASS-CAT, CATScore, and EHR-CAT) in a prospective observational cohort study of patients with cancer initiating contemporary systemic anticancer therapies. Eight hundred six patients (49.5% female) with a median age of 61 years (interquartile range, 53-69) were included. The most common cancer types were lung (21.8%), breast (10.8%), and pancreatic (10.3%). Anticancer therapies initiated at study inclusion included chemotherapy (48.3%), a combination of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI; 16.6%), ICI monotherapy (15.4%), and targeted agents (19.7%). During an observation period of 6 months, 91 patients experienced a VTE (cumulative incidence, 11.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0-13.3). The discriminatory performance of the RAMs varied, with the best c-statistic seen with the CAT Score, whereas the COMPASS-CAT score showed the lowest area under the curve value (c-statistics: Khorana score, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.50-0.56]; PROTECHT, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.56-0.61]; CONKO, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.51-0.57]; COMPASS-CAT, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.47-0.53]; CAT Score, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.67]; EHR-CAT, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.52-0.57]). Overall, we observed a poor to modest discriminatory performance of the RAMs in our contemporary cohort of patients with cancer, with the CAT Score performing best among all evaluated scores.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsVenous ThromboembolismAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID40117478
PMCPMC12268659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.