1
|
Drăgan A, Drăgan AŞ. Novel Insights in Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Methods in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: From the Guidelines to Clinical Practice. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:458. [PMID: 38275899 PMCID: PMC10813930 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020458] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2023] [Revised: 01/07/2024] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 01/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Many cancer patients will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE) at some stage, with the highest rate in the initial period following diagnosis. Novel cancer therapies may further enhance the risk. VTE in a cancer setting is associated with poor prognostic, a decreased quality of life, and high healthcare costs. If thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized cancer patients and perioperative settings is widely accepted in clinical practice and supported by the guidelines, it is not the same situation in ambulatory cancer patient settings. The guidelines do not recommend primary thromboprophylaxis, except in high-risk cases. However, nowadays, risk stratification is still challenging, although many tools have been developed. The Khrorana score remains the most used method, but it has many limits. This narrative review aims to present the current relevant knowledge of VTE risk assessment in ambulatory cancer patients, starting from the guideline recommendations and continuing with the specific risk assessment methods and machine learning models approaches. Biomarkers, genetic, and clinical features were tested alone or in groups. Old and new models used in VTE risk assessment are exposed, underlining their clinical utility. Imaging and biomolecular approaches to VTE screening of outpatients with cancer are also presented, which could help clinical decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anca Drăgan
- Department of Cardiovascular Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Emergency Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases “Prof. Dr. C C Iliescu”, 258 Fundeni Road, 022328 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Adrian Ştefan Drăgan
- Faculty of General Medicine, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Eroii Sanitari Blvd, 050474 Bucharest, Romania;
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chiasakul T, Lam BD, McNichol M, Robertson W, Rosovsky RP, Lake L, Vlachos IS, Adamski A, Reyes N, Abe K, Zwicker JI, Patell R. Artificial intelligence in the prediction of venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Eur J Haematol 2023; 111:951-962. [PMID: 37794526 PMCID: PMC10900245 DOI: 10.1111/ejh.14110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 09/16/2023] [Accepted: 09/18/2023] [Indexed: 10/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate diagnostic and prognostic predictions of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are crucial for VTE management. Artificial intelligence (AI) enables autonomous identification of the most predictive patterns from large complex data. Although evidence regarding its performance in VTE prediction is emerging, a comprehensive analysis of performance is lacking. AIMS To systematically review the performance of AI in the diagnosis and prediction of VTE and compare it to clinical risk assessment models (RAMs) or logistic regression models. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to April 20, 2021. Search terms included "artificial intelligence" and "venous thromboembolism." Eligible criteria were original studies evaluating AI in the prediction of VTE in adults and reporting one of the following outcomes: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, or area under receiver operating curve (AUC). Risks of bias were assessed using the PROBAST tool. Unpaired t-test was performed to compare the mean AUC from AI versus conventional methods (RAMs or logistic regression models). RESULTS A total of 20 studies were included. Number of participants ranged from 31 to 111 888. The AI-based models included artificial neural network (six studies), support vector machines (four studies), Bayesian methods (one study), super learner ensemble (one study), genetic programming (one study), unspecified machine learning models (two studies), and multiple machine learning models (five studies). Twelve studies (60%) had both training and testing cohorts. Among 14 studies (70%) where AUCs were reported, the mean AUC for AI versus conventional methods were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85) versus 0.61 (95% CI: 0.54-0.68), respectively (p < .001). However, the good to excellent discriminative performance of AI methods is unlikely to be replicated when used in clinical practice, because most studies had high risk of bias due to missing data handling and outcome determination. CONCLUSION The use of AI appears to improve the accuracy of diagnostic and prognostic prediction of VTE over conventional risk models; however, there was a high risk of bias observed across studies. Future studies should focus on transparent reporting, external validation, and clinical application of these models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thita Chiasakul
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Division of Hemostasis and Thrombosis, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Division of Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Center of Excellence in Translational Hematology, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Barbara D Lam
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Division of Hemostasis and Thrombosis, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Megan McNichol
- Division of Knowledge Services, Department of Information Services (M.M.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - William Robertson
- National Blood Clot Alliance, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
- Department of Emergency Healthcare, College of Health Professions, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, USA
| | - Rachel P Rosovsky
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Leslie Lake
- National Blood Clot Alliance, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Ioannis S Vlachos
- Department of Pathology, Cancer Research Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Alys Adamski
- Division of Blood Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Nimia Reyes
- Division of Blood Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Karon Abe
- Division of Blood Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Jeffrey I Zwicker
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Division of Hemostasis and Thrombosis, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Department of Medicine, Hematology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Rushad Patell
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Division of Hemostasis and Thrombosis, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mantha S, Chatterjee S, Singh R, Cadley J, Poon C, Chatterjee A, Kelly D, Sterpi M, Soff G, Zwicker J, Soria J, Ruiz M, Muñoz A, Arcila M. Application of Machine Learning to the Prediction of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism. RESEARCH SQUARE 2023:rs.3.rs-2870367. [PMID: 37214902 PMCID: PMC10197737 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2870367/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and impactful complication of cancer. Several clinical prediction rules have been devised to estimate the risk of a thrombotic event in this patient population, however they are associated with limitations. We aimed to develop a predictive model of cancer-associated VTE using machine learning as a means to better integrate all available data, improve prediction accuracy and allow applicability regardless of timing for systemic therapy administration. A retrospective cohort was used to fit and validate the models, consisting of adult patients who had next generation sequencing performed on their solid tumor for the years 2014 to 2019. A deep learning survival model limited to demographic, cancer-specific, laboratory and pharmacological predictors was selected based on results from training data for 23,800 individuals and was evaluated on an internal validation set including 5,951 individuals, yielding a time-dependent concordance index of 0.72 (95% CI = 0.70-0.74) for the first 6 months of observation. Adapted models also performed well overall compared to the Khorana Score (KS) in two external cohorts of individuals starting systemic therapy; in an external validation set of 1,250 patients, the C-index was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.65-0.77) for the deep learning model vs 0.66 (95% CI = 0.59-0.72) for the KS and in a smaller external cohort of 358 patients the C-index was 0.59 (95% CI = 0.50-0.69) for the deep learning model vs 0.56 (95% CI = 0.48-0.64) for the KS. The proportions of patients accurately reclassified by the deep learning model were 25% and 26% respectively. In this large cohort of patients with a broad range of solid malignancies and at different phases of systemic therapy, the use of deep learning resulted in improved accuracy for VTE incidence predictions. Additional studies are needed to further assess the validity of this model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Gerald Soff
- University of Miami Health System/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | - José Soria
- Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB-Sant Pau)
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|