Observational studyClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Comparative analysis of risk prediction scores including all types of cancer-associated thrombosis.
Observational study in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClassically, risk assessment models have focused on classic, clinically symptomatic thrombotic events, such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), not taking into account incidental thrombosis or non-conventional thrombotic events such as catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) or splenic vein thrombosis (SVT), although they contribute to morbidity and increase the consumption of health resources.
methodsThe primary objective was to evaluate and compare the predictive performance of the Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, modified VIENA-CATS (excluding P-selectin values), and MICA-CATS scores in assessing all type of thrombotic events in cancer patients (p) in the second cohort of the observational, multicenter, prospective ONCOTHROMB12-01 study. Data from 391 patients undergoing ambulatory systemic therapy across 11 Spanish hospitals between 2018 and 2021 were analyzed.
results95 patients (24.3%) developed a thrombotic event. MICA-CATS score showed the best predictive capacity for all thrombotic events, as assessed by both the AUROC and the AUPRC, with an AUROC of 0.61 (95% CI 0.54-0.67) and an AUPRC of 0.38 (95% CI 0.30-0.46). For incidental thrombotic events, both the PROTECHT (0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.68) and MICA-CATS (0.60, 95% CI 0.51-0.68) scores demonstrated utility.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that MICA-CATS score has the best predictive capacity for overall venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41139366What 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.