In ambulatory patients with solid cancer, routine thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is not recommended. Several risk prediction scores to identify cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism have been proposed, but their clinical usefulness remains a matter of debate. We evaluated and directly compared the performance of the Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores in a multinational, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer were eligible if they were due to undergo chemotherapy or had started chemotherapy in the previous three months. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed symptomatic or incidental deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during a 6-month follow-up period. A total of 876 patients were enrolled, of whom 260 (30%) had not yet received chemotherapy. Fifty-three patients (6.1%) developed venous thromboembolism. The c-statistics of the scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.57. At the conventional positivity threshold of 3 points, the scores classified 13–34% of patients as high-risk; the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism in these patients ranged from 6.5% (95%CI: 2.8–12) for the Khorana score to 9.6% (95%CI: 6.6–13) for the PROTECHT score. High-risk patients had a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism when using the Vienna (subhazard ratio 1.7; 95%CI: 1.0–3.1) or PROTECHT (subhazard ratio 2.1; 95%CI: 1.2–3.6) scores. In conclusion, the prediction scores performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. The Vienna CATS and PROTECHT scores appear to discriminate better between low- and high-risk patients, but further improvements are needed before they can be considered for introduction into clinical practice.
PURPOSE Pulmonary embolism is incidentally diagnosed in up to 5% of patients with cancer on routine imaging scans. The clinical relevance and optimal therapy for incidental pulmonary embolism, particularly distal clots, is unclear. The aim of the current study was to assess current treatment strategies and the long-term clinical outcomes of incidentally detected pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted an international, prospective, observational cohort study between October 22, 2012, and December 31, 2017. Unselected adults with active cancer and a recent diagnosis of incidental pulmonary embolism were eligible. Outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality during 12 months of follow-up. Outcome events were centrally adjudicated. RESULTS A total of 695 patients were included. Mean age was 66 years and 58% of patients were male. Most frequent cancer types were colorectal (21%) and lung cancer (15%). Anticoagulant therapy was initiated in 675 patients (97%), of whom 600 (89%) were treated with low-molecular-weight heparin. Recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 41 patients (12-month cumulative incidence, 6.0%; 95% CI, 4.4% to 8.1%), major bleeding in 39 patients (12-month cumulative incidence, 5.7%; 95% CI, 4.1% to 7.7%), and 283 patients died (12-month cumulative incidence, 43%; 95% CI, 39% to 46%). The 12-month incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism was 6.4% in those with subsegmental pulmonary embolism compared with 6.0% in those with more proximal pulmonary embolism (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.9; P = .93). CONCLUSION In patients with cancer with incidental pulmonary embolism, risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism is significant despite anticoagulant treatment. Patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism seemed to have a risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism comparable to that of patients with more proximal clots.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.