2014
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-014-9902-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The increased risk of venous thromboembolism by advancing age cannot be attributed to the higher incidence of cancer in the elderly: the Tromsø study

Abstract: Whether the high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the elderly can be attributed to cancer is not wellstudied. We assessed the impact of cancer on risk of VTE in young, middle-aged and elderly. 26,094 subjects without a history of cancer or VTE were recruited from the Tromsø study. Incident cancer (n=2,290) and VTE (n=531) were recorded from baseline (1994-95) through December 31st, 2009. Cox regression with cancer as time-varying exposure was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, Blix et al calculated age-specific population attributable risks of VT due to cancer based on incidences of cancer and VT in the Tromsø Study and found a smaller actual difference than postulated between the young (<50 years, population attributable risk 14%) and the elderly (>70 years, population attributable risk 18%). 262 These findings show that malignancy does not explain a substantial proportion of the VT events in the elderly, and, most importantly, that studies focusing on risk factors in the elderly are urgently needed, because extrapolations do not suffice. A limited number of studies have investigated the impact of age-specific risk factor on VT risk, and prelimi- nary data have shown that thickening of the venous valves occurs with age, which may contribute to the high incidence of thrombosis in the elderly.…”
Section: European Research Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Recently, Blix et al calculated age-specific population attributable risks of VT due to cancer based on incidences of cancer and VT in the Tromsø Study and found a smaller actual difference than postulated between the young (<50 years, population attributable risk 14%) and the elderly (>70 years, population attributable risk 18%). 262 These findings show that malignancy does not explain a substantial proportion of the VT events in the elderly, and, most importantly, that studies focusing on risk factors in the elderly are urgently needed, because extrapolations do not suffice. A limited number of studies have investigated the impact of age-specific risk factor on VT risk, and prelimi- nary data have shown that thickening of the venous valves occurs with age, which may contribute to the high incidence of thrombosis in the elderly.…”
Section: European Research Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…[31][32][33][34] In the present study, the effect of age on the risk of VTE was surpassed by both second primary cancers following CLL diagnosis and previous VTE, which is in line with several studies in cancer populations where increasing age was not associated with increased risk of VTE. 11,[35][36][37] A higher risk of VTE was observed in periods when patients were exposed to CLL treatment than in periods of watch and wait, which has been shown in large studies and common cancers and indicated by the study on VTE in CLL byŠimkovič et al 7,9,[38][39][40][41] Interestingly, Simkovič et al 7 also mentioned a second cancer as a risk factor for VTE in CLL patients, but it was not further investigated, perhaps due to the study design and its aim.…”
Section: Time Since Cll Diagnosis (Years)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also examined the apparent effects of discordant levels of PTH and calcium on VTE risk in a cause-specific analysis where subjects who developed MI, stroke or cancer were censored at the date of event. Events of MI, stroke and cancer were validated by an independently endpoint-committee as previously described (22,23,24).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%