ArticleCancer medicine2023
Simple yet (more?) effective. Venous thromboembolism risk assessment model for germ cell tumour patients receiving first-line chemotherapy.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simple, Effective and Validated. VTE CASE Risk Assessment Score for Venous Thromboembolism in Metastatic Germ Cell Tumour Patients Before First-Line Chemotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Simple yet (more?) effective. Venous thromboembolism risk assessment model for germ cell tumour patients receiving first-line chemotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGerm cell tumours (GCT) are highly curable malignancies. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication, needing better risk assessment models (RAM).
aimIdentification of VTE incidence and risk factors in metastatic GCT patients starting first-line chemotherapy. Developing a RAM and comparing it to Khorana risk score (KRS) and Padua Prediction Score (PPS). MATERIAL AND
methodsWe retrospectively analysed GCT patients staged IS-IIIC. VTE risk factors were identified with logistic regression. Area under curve of receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC), Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria (AIC, BIC) were calculated for the developed RAM, KRS and PPS.
resultsAmong 495 eligible patients, VTE occurred in 69 (13.9%), including 40 prior to chemotherapy. Vein compression (OR: 8.96; 95% CI: 2.85-28.13; p < 0.001), clinical stage IIIB-IIIC (OR: 5.68; 95% CI: 1.82-17.70; p = 0.003) and haemoglobin concentration (OR for 1 g/dL decrease: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.03-1.67; p = 0.026) were significant in our RAM. KRS ≥ 3 (OR: 3.31; 95% CI: 1.77-6.20; p < 0.001), PPS 4-5 (OR: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.49-6.29; p = 0.002) and PPS > 5 (OR 8.05; 95% CI 3.79-17.13; p < 0.001) correlated with VTE risk. Diagnostic criteria (AUC-ROC, AIC, BIC) for the developed RAM, KRS and PPS were (0.885; 0.567; -1641), (0.588; 0.839; -1576) and (0.700; 0.799; -1585), respectively. In the numerical score, the optimal cut-off point for high-risk was ≥9, with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 0.78, 0.77, 0.35 and 0.96, respectively.
conclusionsOur RAM, based on vein compression, clinical stage and haemoglobin concentration proved superior to both KRS and PPS. VTE is frequent in GCT patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.