Observational studyBlood advances2025
Validation of risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer receiving systemic therapies.
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.
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.
- The Cancer Immunotherapy Thromboembolism Assessment: A Novel Score for Predicting Thromboembolic Events in Melanoma Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibition.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Inflammation-coagulation biomarkers predict catheter-related thrombosis following peripherally inserted central catheter placement in patients with hematologic malignancies: a retrospective cohort study.Translational cancer research · 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
- Prediction of cancer-associated thrombosis by machine learning: results from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study.ESMO open · 2026Article
- SAGES colorectal and metabolic bariatric surgery committee joint task force call to action for synchronized severe obesity and colorectal cancer management.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Mechanobiology of cancer-associated thrombosis: from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic innovation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Validation of a Risk Score for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Using Nationwide EHR Data.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- New Horizons in Venous Thromboembolism Management: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Time to move beyond risk assessment models for ambulatory cancer-associated thrombosis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.