Development of a clinical prediction tool for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT): the MD Anderson Cancer Center CAT model

Enhancing prediction of thrombosis associated with breast cancer using prechemotherapy hematologic and coagulation characteristics

INTRODUCTION

The applicability of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment models (RAMs), to breast cancer (BC) populations remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy of current RAMs and examine the potential of additional hematologic parameters and thromboelastography (TEG); a point of care test, in improving VTE prediction in breast cancer (BC) patients.

METHODS

In this pilot study, female BC patients were recruited before chemotherapy and followed for 6-12 months for VTE. VTE risk was assessed using Khorana score, Vienna CATS, PROTECHT, COMPASS-CAT, New Vienna CATSCORE, MDACC CAT, and hypercoagulability status. TEG and hematologic parameters were analyzed, and a modified RAM was developed.

RESULTS

Among 47 patients, 5 (10.6%) developed VTE. PROTECHT was the strongest predictor [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.844], followed by Vienna CATS (AUC = 0.781). Adding immature granulocytes and red blood cell count to PROTECHT optimized prediction (AUC = 0.856).

CONCLUSION

Incorporating hematologic parameters into PROTECHT may improve VTE risk prediction in BC patients, warranting further evaluation in larger studies.

A systematic review of risk prediction model of venous thromboembolism for patients with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) increases the risk of death or adverse outcomes in patients with lung cancer. Therefore, early identification and treatment of high-risk groups of VTE have been the research focus. In this systematic review, the risk assessment tools of VTE in patients with lung cancer were systematically analyzed and evaluated to provide a reference for VTE management.

METHODS

Relevant studies were retrieved from major English databases (The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Medline) and Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI] and WanFang Data) until July 2023 and extracted by two researchers. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42023409748).

RESULTS

Finally, two prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies were included from 2019. There was a high risk of bias in all included studies according to the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment tool (PROBAST). In the included studies, Cox and logistic regression were used to construct models. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the model ranged from 0.670 to 0.904, and the number of predictors ranged from 4 to 11. The D-dimer index was included in five studies, but significant differences existed in optimal cutoff values from 0.0005 mg/L to 2.06 mg/L. Then, three studies validated the model externally, two studies only validated the model internally, and only one study validated the model using a combination of internal and external validation.

CONCLUSION

VTE risk prediction models for patients with lung cancer have received attention for no more than 5 years. The included model shows a good predictive effect and may help identify the risk population of VTE at an early stage. In the future, it is necessary to improve data modeling and statistical analysis methods, develop predictive models with good performance and low risk of bias, and focus on external validation and recalibration of models.

Models for predicting venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with lung cancer is relatively high, and risk stratification models are vital for the targeted application of thromboprophylaxis. We aimed to review VTE risk prediction models that have been developed in patients with lung cancer and evaluated their performance.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-four eligible studies involving 123,493 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE within 12 months was 11 % (95 % CI 8 %-14 %). With the identified four VTE risk assessment tools, meta-analyses did not show a significant discriminatory capability of stratifying VTE risk for Khorana, PROTECHT and CONKO scores. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the Khorana score were 24 % (95 % CI 11 %-44 %) and 84 % (95 % CI 73 %-91 %) at the 3-point cut-off, and 43 % (95 % CI 35 %-52 %) and 61 % (95 % CI 52 %-69 %) at the 2-point cut-off. However, a COMPASS-CAT score of ≥ 7 points indicated a significantly high VTE risk, with a RR of 4.68 (95 % CI 1.05-20.80).

CONCLUSIONS

The Khorana score lacked discriminatory capability in identifying patients with lung cancer at high VTE risk, regardless of the cut-off value. The COMPASS-CAT score had better performance, but further validation is needed. The results indicate the need for robust VTE risk assessment tools specifically designed and validated for lung cancer patients. Future research should include relevant biomarkers as important predictors and consider the combined use of risk tools. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021245907.

Developing a risk assessment tool for cancer-related venous thrombosis in China: a modified Delphi-analytic hierarchy process study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Risk Assessment Tool for Cancer-related Venous Thrombosis in China.

METHODS

A modified two-round Delphi method was employed to establish consensus within a field to reach an agreement via a questionnaire or by interviewing a multidisciplinary panel of experts by collecting their feedback to inform the next round, exchanging their knowledge, experience, and opinions anonymously, and resolving uncertainties. Furthermore, The AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) was used to determine the final quality indicators' relative importance.

RESULTS

The expert's positive coefficient was 85.19% in the first round and 82.61% in the second round, with authoritative coefficients of 0.89 and 0.92 in the respective surveys. The P-value of Kendall's W test was all less than 0.001 for each round, and the W-value for concordance at the end of the two rounds was 0.115. The final Risk Assessment Tool for Cancer-related Venous Thrombosis consisted of three domains, ten subdomains, and 39 indicators, with patient factors weighing 0.1976, disease factors weighing 0.4905, and therapeutic factors weighing 0.3119.

CONCLUSION

The tool is significantly valid and reliable with a strong authority and coordination degree, and it can be used to assess the risk of cancer-related VTE and initiate appropriate thrombophylactic interventions in China.

Primary prevention of cancer-associated venous thrombosis: Rationale and challenges in clinical practice

Cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT) is a common, multifactor event known to complicate the course of cancer and jeopardize a patient's prognosis. The current guidelines regarding the prevention of CAT are sometimes considered insufficiently precise about specific situations, or are poorly applied. The expected benefits of thromboprophylaxis are balanced by the risk of major bleeding induced by anticoagulation, which implies a need to accurately identify ambulatory patients at high risk of thrombosis or hemorrhage. The Khorana score is commonly used for this, but is limited by the non-reproducibility of predicted performance across cancer types, and by the fact that antitumor treatment and cardiovascular risks are not included. The COMPASS-CAT score, which includes those two aspects, was found to be a more accurate predictor of venous thromboembolism in patients with lung cancer, and to better distinguish between patients at low or high risk of thrombosis. The frailty of patients with cancer is also a major issue, and should be taken into account when thromboprophylaxis is considered. According to current guidelines, CAT prophylaxis should be considered for hospitalized patients, those for whom surgery is scheduled, or those with pancreatic cancers. In ambulatory patients, decisions should be made according to patient, cancer and antitumoral treatment characteristics. Low molecular weight heparin is the gold standard of CAT prophylaxis. Despite increased risks of bleeding or drug-drug interactions in cancer patients, direct oral anticoagulants could be alternate options for high-risk ambulatory patients that should be accompanied by a careful global analysis of benefits, harms, and patient preferences.

Standardization of risk prediction model reporting in cancer-associated thrombosis: Communication from the ISTH SSC subcommittee on hemostasis and malignancy

Since the development of the Khorana score to predict risk of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE), many modified and de novo risk prediction models (RPMs) have been proposed. Comparison of the prognostic performance across models requires comprehensive reporting and standardized methods for model development, validation and evaluation. To improve the standardization of RPM reporting, the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) tool was published in 2015. To better understand the quality of reporting and development of RPMs for cancer-associated VTE, we performed a literature search of published RPMs and assessed each model using the TRIPOD checklist. Our results yielded 29 RPMs for which 30 items were evaluated. There was a non-significant (p = 0.15) improvement in reporting of the 30 items in the post-TRIPOD era (81%) versus the pre-TRIPOD era (75%). Of seven items (title, sample size, missing data handling, baseline demographics, methods and results for model performance, and supplemental resources) with the lowest reporting in the pre-TRIPOD era (<70%), there was an average improvement of 22% in the post-TRIPOD era. Only two of the 22 studies published in the post-TRIPOD era acknowledged compliance with TRIPOD. Informed by the results of this assessment, the Scientific and Standardization Committee (SSC) Subcommittee on Hemostasis & Malignancy of the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) advocates for standardization of four key elements of RPMs for cancer-associated VTE: (1) inclusion of the TRIPOD checklist, (2) clear definition of the derivation population, with justification of sample size, (3) clear definition of predictors, and (4) external validation prior to implementation.

Models for predicting venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with lung cancer: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer and has a determining role in the disease prognosis. The risk is significantly increased with certain types of cancer, such as lung cancer. Partly due to difficulties in managing haemorrhage in outpatient settings, anticoagulant prophylaxis is only recommended for ambulatory patients at high risk of VTE. This requires a precise VTE risk assessment in individual patients. Although VTE risk assessment models have been developed and updated in recent years, there are conflicting reports on the effectiveness of such risk prediction models in patient management. The aim of this systematic review is to gain a better understanding of the available VTE risk assessment tools for ambulatory patients with lung cancer and compare their predictive performance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases from inception to 30 September 2021, to identify all reports published in English describing VTE risk prediction models which have included adult ambulatory patients with primary lung cancer for model development and/or validation. Two independent reviewers will conduct article screening, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the primary studies. Any disagreements will be referred to a third researcher to resolve. The included studies will be assessed for risk of bias and applicability. The Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies will be used for data extraction and appraisal. Data from similar studies will be used for meta-analysis to determine the incidence of VTE and the performance of the risk models.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required. We will disseminate the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021245907.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Clinical Scoping Review of the Risk Assessment Models Across Solid Tumours and Haematological Malignancies

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a leading cause of death in cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. The latest guidelines emphasize stratifying the patients in terms of CAT risks periodically. Multiple risk assessment models (RAMs) were developed to classify patients and guide thromboprophylaxis to high-risk patients. This study aimed to discuss and highlight different RAMs across various malignancy types with their related advantages and disadvantages. A scoping review was conducted using predefined search terms in three scientific databases, including Google Scholar, Science Direct, and PubMed. The search for studies was restricted to original research articles that reported risk assessment models published in the last thirteen years (between 2008 and 2021) to cover the most recently published evidence following the development of the principal risk assessment score in 2008. Data charting of the relevant trials, scores, advantages, and disadvantages were done iteratively considering the malignancy type. Of the initially identified 1115 studies, 39 studies with over 67,680 patients were included in the review. In solid organ malignancy, nine risk assessment scores were generated. The first and most known Khorana risk score still offers the best available risk assessment model when used for high-risk populations with a threshold of 2 and above. However, KRS has a limitation of failure to stratify low-risk patients. The COMPASS-CAT score showed the best performance in the lung carcinoma patients who have a higher prevalence of thrombosis than other malignancy subtypes. In testicular germ cell tumours, Bezan et al RAM is a validated good discriminatory RAM for this malignancy subtype. CAT in haematological malignancy seems to be under-investigated and has multiple disease-related, and treatment-related confounding factors. AL-Ani et al score performed efficiently in acute leukemia. In multiple myeloma, both SAVED and IMPEDED VTE scores showed good performance. Despite the availability of different disease-specific scores in lymphoma-related thrombosis, the standard of care needs to be redefined.

Risk Factors and Prediction Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Patients with Lung Cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of mortality in patients with lung cancer. Despite the availability of a wide range of anticoagulants to help prevent thrombosis, thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients is a challenge due to its associated risk of haemorrhage. As a result, anticoagulation is only recommended in patients with a relatively high risk of VTE. Efforts have been made to develop predictive models for VTE risk assessment in cancer patients, but the availability of a reliable predictive model for ambulate patients with lung cancer is unclear. We have analysed the latest information on this topic, with a focus on the lung cancer-related risk factors for VTE, and risk prediction models developed and validated in this group of patients. The existing risk models, such as the Khorana score, the PROTECHT score and the CONKO score, have shown poor performance in external validations, failing to identify many high-risk individuals. Some of the newly developed and updated models may be promising, but their further validation is needed.