ArticleCancers2025
Comparative Evaluation of Risk Assessment Models for Predicting Venous Thromboembolic Events in Cancer Patients with Implanted Central Venous Access Devices.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesCancer patients using implanted venous access devices (ICVADs) for chemotherapy are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the performance of risk assessment models (RAMs) in this setting is understudied. This study evaluated VTE incidence, risk factors, and the predictive performance of the Khorana, COMPASS-CAT, and ONKOTEV models.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed records of adult cancer patients treated with chemotherapy via ICVADs. The cumulative incidence (CI) of VTEs was estimated using the Fine-Gray method, and RAM performance was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, accuracy, and AUC. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests.
resultsA total of 446 patients were included. The most common cancers were colorectal (29.6%), gastric (26%), pancreatic (18.4%), and breast (13.9%). During a median follow-up of 16.5 months, VTEs occurred in 82 patients (18.4%), including 43 (9.6%) that were ICVAD-related. Median time to VTE was 117 days and 68 days for ICVAD-related events. The CI of VTEs was 9% at 1 year and 18.4% at 2 years. ONKOTEV showed the best performance (accuracy of 74.4%, specificity of 85.7%, and AUC of 0.607), with 1-year incidence higher in the high-risk group (28.5% vs. 12.4%,
conclusionsCancer patients with ICVADs face a substantial risk of early VTEs. Among evaluated RAMs, ONKOTEV performed best for overall but not ICVAD-related events. Prospective studies are needed to guide prophylaxis strategies using validated RAMs.
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.