Background The DASH prediction model has been proposed as a guide to identify patients at low risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but has never been validated in an independent cohort. Aims To validate the calibration and discrimination of the DASH prediction model, and to evaluate the DASH score in a predefined patient subgroup aged > 65 years. Methods Patients with a proximal unprovoked deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) who received a full course of vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant (> 3 months) and had D-dimer measured after treatment withdrawal were eligible. The DASH score was computed on the basis of the D-dimer level after therapy withdrawal and personal characteristics at the time of the event. Recurrent VTE events were symptomatic proximal or distal DVT/PE, and were analyzed with a time-dependent analysis. Observed 12-month and 24-month recurrence rates were compared with recurrence rates predicted by the DASH model. Results We analyzed a total of 827 patients, of whom 100 (12.1%) had an objectively documented recurrence. As compared with the original DASH cohort, there was a greater proportion of subjects with a 'low-risk' (≤ 1) DASH score (66.3% versus 51.6%, P < 0.001). The slope of the observed versus expected cumulative incidence at 2 years was 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.51-1.45). The c-statistic was lower for subjects aged > 65 years (0.54) than for younger subjects (0.72). Conclusions These results confirm the validity of DASH prediction model, particularly in young subjects. The recurrence risk in elderly patients (> 65 years) was, however, > 5% even in those with the lowest DASH scores.

No abstract

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is among the neoplastic diseases that has the best long-term outcome after cytotoxic treatment. Cure rates approach 80–90%; however, 15–20% of patients will be resistant to therapy (primary refractory) or relapse after treatment. Prognostic factors should help to stratify treatment according to the risk profile and identify patients at risk for failure. Significance of prognostic factors partly depends on the efficacy of the treatments administered, since new effective therapies can variably counterbalance the adverse effects of some unfavorable clinical determinants. As a consequence, some prognostic factors thought to be important in the past may become meaningless when modern successful therapies are used. Therefore, the value of prognostic factors has to be updated periodically, and then adapted to new emerging biomarkers. Besides the prognostic role of PET imaging, tissue and circulating biomarkers, as the number of tumor-infiltrating macrophages, cytokine and chemokine levels and profiling of circulating nucleic acids (DNA and microRNAs) have shown promise.

Lymphoma is listed among the neoplasias with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk factors for VTE appear to differ from risk factors in solid tumors. We review the literature of the last 20 years for reports identifying these risk factors in cohorts consisting exclusively of lymphoma patients. We selected 25 publications. The most frequent studies were analyses of retrospective single-center cohorts. We also included two reports of pooled analyses of clinical trials, two meta-analyses, two analyses of patient registries, and three analyses of population-based databases. The VTE risk is the highest upfront during the first two months after lymphoma diagnosis and decreases over time. This upfront risk may be related to tumor burden and the start of chemotherapy as contributing factors. Factors consistently reported as VTE risk factors are aggressive histology, a performance status ECOG ≥ 2 leading to increased immobility, more extensive disease, and localization to particular sites, such as central nervous system (CNS) and mediastinal mass. Association between laboratory values that are part of risk assessment models in solid tumors and VTE risk in lymphomas are very inconsistent. Recently, VTE risk scores for lymphoma were developed that need further validation, before they can be used for risk stratification and primary prophylaxis. Knowledge of VTE risk factors in lymphomas may help in the evaluation of the individual risk-benefit ratio of prophylaxis and help to design prospective studies on primary prophylaxis in lymphoma.