ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
Assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with haematological cancers using three prediction models.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Von Willebrand, factor VIII, and D-dimer levels as predictors of risk and clinical outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Anticoagulants in hematologic malignancies: what is the data?Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025Review
- Magnitude of cancer-associated thrombosis in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.iScience · 2025Article
- Emerging Biomarkers for Assessing Thrombotic Risk in Patients Receiving Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs).Cardiovascular & hematological agents in medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Venous thrombosis and obesity: from clinical needs to therapeutic challenges.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the incidence, predictors, risk assessment scores and outcomes of thromboembolism in a cohort of Egyptian NHL patients - Real World Experience.Annals of hematology · 2024Article
- How Protein Depletion Balances Thrombosis and Bleeding Risk in the Context of Platelet's Activatory and Negative Signaling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Retinal Vessel Analysis and Microvascular Abnormalities in Patients with Philadelphia-Negative Chronic Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAssessment of individual VTE risk in cancer patients prior to chemotherapy is critical for determining necessity of interventions. Risk assessment models (RAM) are available but have not been validated for haematological malignancy. We aimed to assess the validity of the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (V-CATS) score in prediction of VTE in a variety of haematological malignancies.
methodsThis is a prospective cohort study conducted on 81 newly diagnosed cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Demographic, clinical and cancer related data were collected, patients were followed up for 6 months, and VTE events were recorded. Khorana score (KS) was calculated. Plasma D-dimer and sP-selectin were measured, and then, V-CATS score was calculated. Receiver operator curve (ROC) was used to assess the sensitivity and specificity of RAMs. A modified V-CATS was generated and subsequently assessed by using new cut-off levels of d-dimer and sP-selectin based on ROC curve of the patients' results and compared the probability of VTE occurrence using all three RAMs.
resultsAmong the 81 patients included in this study, a total of 2.7% were diagnosed with advanced metastatic cancer. The most frequent cancer was non-Hodgkin lymphoma (39.5%), and 8 patients (9.8%) developed VTE events. The calculated probability of VTE occurrence using KS, V-CATS and modified V-CATS scores at cut-off levels ≥ 3 was 87.5%, 87.5% and 100%, respectively. The AUC in ROC curve of modified Vienna CATS score showed significant difference when compared to that of V-CATS and KS (P = 0.047 and 0.029, respectively).
conclusionThe findings of our study highlight the value of three VTE risk assessment models in haematological malignancies. The modified V-CATS score demonstrated higher specificity compared to both V-CATS and KS, while all three scores exhibited similar sensitivity. We encourage the implementation of RAMs in haematological cancers for an appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis.
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.