Thrombosis research · 2024
Models for predicting venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yan Ann-Rong, Samarawickrema Indira, Naunton Mark, Peterson Gregory M, Yip Desmond, Newman Phillip, Mortazavi Reza
Аннотация
AIMS: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with lung cancer is relatively high, and risk stratification models are vital for the targeted application of thromboprophylaxis. We aimed to review VTE risk prediction models that have been developed in patients with lung cancer and evaluated their performance.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-four eligible studies involving 123,493 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE within 12 months was 11 % (95 % CI 8 %-14 %). With the identified four VTE risk assessment tools, meta-analyses did not show a significant discriminatory capability of stratifying VTE risk for Khorana, PROTECHT and CONKO scores. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the Khorana score were 24 % (95 % CI 11 %-44 %) and 84 % (95 % CI 73 %-91 %) at the 3-point cut-off, and 43 % (95 % CI 35 %-52 %) and 61 % (95 % CI 52 %-69 %) at the 2-point cut-off. However, a COMPASS-CAT score of ≥ 7 points indicated a significantly high VTE risk, with a RR of 4.68 (95 % CI 1.05-20.80).
CONCLUSIONS: The Khorana score lacked discriminatory capability in identifying patients with lung cancer at high VTE risk, regardless of the cut-off value. The COMPASS-CAT score had better performance, but further validation is needed. The results indicate the need for robust VTE risk assessment tools specifically designed and validated for lung cancer patients. Future research should include relevant biomarkers as important predictors and consider the combined use of risk tools. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021245907.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-four eligible studies involving 123,493 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE within 12 months was 11 % (95 % CI 8 %-14 %). With the identified four VTE risk assessment tools, meta-analyses did not show a significant discriminatory capability of stratifying VTE risk for Khorana, PROTECHT and CONKO scores. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the Khorana score were 24 % (95 % CI 11 %-44 %) and 84 % (95 % CI 73 %-91 %) at the 3-point cut-off, and 43 % (95 % CI 35 %-52 %) and 61 % (95 % CI 52 %-69 %) at the 2-point cut-off. However, a COMPASS-CAT score of ≥ 7 points indicated a significantly high VTE risk, with a RR of 4.68 (95 % CI 1.05-20.80).
CONCLUSIONS: The Khorana score lacked discriminatory capability in identifying patients with lung cancer at high VTE risk, regardless of the cut-off value. The COMPASS-CAT score had better performance, but further validation is needed. The results indicate the need for robust VTE risk assessment tools specifically designed and validated for lung cancer patients. Future research should include relevant biomarkers as important predictors and consider the combined use of risk tools. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021245907.