Estimating Bleeding Risk in Patients with Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Evaluation of Existing Risk Scores and Development of a New Risk Score

Author:

de Winter Maria A.1,Dorresteijn Jannick A. N.2,Ageno Walter3,Ay Cihan45,Beyer-Westendorf Jan6,Coppens Michiel7,Klok Frederikus A.8ORCID,Moustafa Farès9,Riva Nicoletta10ORCID,Ruiz Artacho Pedro C.111213ORCID,Vanassche Thomas14,Nijkeuter Mathilde1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Acute Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

2. Department of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

3. Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

4. Clinical Division of Haematology and Haemostaseology, Department of Medicine I, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

5. I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia

6. Department of Hematology/Hemostasis, Dresden University Hospital “Carl-Gustav Carus,” Dresden, Germany

7. Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

8. Department of Medicine—Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

9. Department of Emergency, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France

10. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

11. Department of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain

12. CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

13. Interdisciplinar Teragnosis and Radiosomics Research Group (INTRA-Madrid), Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain

14. Department of Cardiology, Leuven University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium

Abstract

Abstract Background Bleeding risk is highly relevant for treatment decisions in cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Several risk scores exist, but have never been validated in patients with CAT and are not recommended for practice. Objectives To compare methods of estimating clinically relevant (major and clinically relevant nonmajor) bleeding risk in patients with CAT: (1) existing risk scores for bleeding in venous thromboembolism, (2) pragmatic classification based on cancer type, and (3) new prediction model. Methods In a posthoc analysis of the Hokusai VTE Cancer study, a randomized trial comparing edoxaban with dalteparin for treatment of CAT, seven bleeding risk scores were externally validated (ACCP-VTE, HAS-BLED, Hokusai, Kuijer, Martinez, RIETE, and VTE-BLEED). The predictive performance of these scores was compared with a pragmatic classification based on cancer type (gastrointestinal; genitourinary; other) and a newly derived competing risk-adjusted prediction model based on clinical predictors for clinically relevant bleeding within 6 months after CAT diagnosis with nonbleeding-related mortality as the competing event (“CAT-BLEED”). Results Data of 1,046 patients (149 events) were analyzed. Predictive performance of existing risk scores was poor to moderate (C-statistics: 0.50–0.57; poor calibration). Internal validation of the pragmatic classification and “CAT-BLEED” showed moderate performance (respective C-statistics: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56–0.66, and 0.63; 95% CI 0.58–0.68; good calibration). Conclusion Existing risk scores for bleeding perform poorly after CAT. Pragmatic classification based on cancer type provides marginally better estimates of clinically relevant bleeding risk. Further improvement may be achieved with “CAT-BLEED,” but this requires external validation in practice-based settings and with other DOACs and its clinical usefulness is yet to be demonstrated.

Funder

Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Hematology

Cited by 32 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3