1
|
Huang X, Chen H, Meng S, Pu L, Xu X, Xu P, He S, Hu X, Li Y, Wang G. External validation of the Khorana score for the prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2024; 159:104867. [PMID: 39151210 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104867] [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: 12/12/2023] [Revised: 07/25/2024] [Accepted: 07/26/2024] [Indexed: 08/18/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism is the leading cause of death in cancer patients, second only to tumor progression. The Khorana score is recommended by clinical guidelines for identifying ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism during chemotherapy. However, its predictive performance is debated among cancer patients. OBJECTIVES To map the applicability of the Khorana score in cancer patients and to assess its predictive performance across various cancer types, providing guidance for clinicians and nurses to use it more appropriately. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS A comprehensive literature search of the electronic database was first conducted on August 30, 2023, and updated on May 20, 2024. Studies examining the Khorana score's predictive performance (including but not limited to the areas under the curve, C-index, and calibration plot) in cancer patients were included. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Data synthesis was achieved via random-effects meta-analysis using the R studio software. The subgroup analysis was performed according to the study design, clinical setting, cancer type, anti-cancer treatment stage, and country. RESULTS The review incorporated 67 studies, including 58 observational studies and nine randomized controlled trials. All included studies assessed the Khorana score's discrimination, with the C-index ranging from 0.40 to 0.84. The pooled C-index for randomized controlled trials was 0.61 (95 % CI 0.51-0.70), while observational studies showed a pooled C-index of 0.59 (95 % CI 0.57-0.60). Subgroup analyses revealed the pooled C-index for lung cancer, lymphoma, gastrointestinal cancer, and mixed cancer patients as 0.60 (95 % CI 0.53-0.67), 0.56 (95 % CI 0.51-0.61), 0.59 (95 % CI 0.39-0.76), and 0.60 (95 % CI 0.58-0.61), respectively. Inpatient and outpatient settings had the pooled C-index of 0.60 (95 % CI 0.58-0.63) and 0.58 (95 % CI 0.55-0.61), respectively. Calibration was assessed in only four studies. All included studies were identified to have a high risk of bias according to PROBAST. CONCLUSION The Khorana score has been widely validated in various types of cancer patients; however, it exhibited poor capability (pooled C-index<0.7) in accurately discriminating VTE risk among most types of cancer patients either in inpatient or outpatient settings. The Khorana score should be used with caution, and high-quality studies are needed to further validate its predictive performance. REGISTRATION The protocol for this study is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023470320).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xuan Huang
- Innovation Center of Nursing Research, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Hongxiu Chen
- Innovation Center of Nursing Research, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Sha Meng
- Innovation Center of Nursing Research, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Lihui Pu
- Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department Internal Medicine, Section Nursing Science, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Xueqiong Xu
- The First People's Hospital of Longquanyi District, Chengdu, China
| | - Ping Xu
- Emergency Department, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, China
| | - Shengyuan He
- Innovation Center of Nursing Research, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xiuying Hu
- Innovation Center of Nursing Research, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
| | - Yong Li
- Innovation Center of Nursing Research, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
| | - Guan Wang
- Innovation Center of Nursing Research, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
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
|