4.6 Review

Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12122954

关键词

cancer; chemotherapy; venous thromboembolism; prevalence; screening

资金

  1. NSW Brain Clot Bank from the NSW Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to calculate the pooled prevalence of VTE in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients, finding a prevalence rate of 6% which is higher than the overall crude prevalence rate. Comprehensive cancer care should consider stratified VTE risk assessment based on cancer phenotype.
Objective: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a life-threatening complication that may exacerbate cancer prognosis. Whilst some studies indicate an increased risk of VTE in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, the prevalence estimates on the pooled prevalence of VTE in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy are not known. This study aims to calculate the pooled prevalence of VTE in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients. Methods: Studies on VTE occurrence in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were retrieved after database search. The terms used included cancer, chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to obtain a pooled estimate of VTE prevalence in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Results: A total of 102 eligible studies involving 30,671 patients (1773 with VTE, 28,898 without) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of VTE prevalence was found to be 6%, ranging from 6% to 7% (ES 6%; 95% CI 6-7%; z = 18.53; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The estimated pooled prevalence rate of VTEs was 6% in cancer patients undergoing CRT, which was higher than the overall crude prevalence rate (5.78%). Comprehensive cancer care should consider stratified VTE risk assessment based on cancer phenotype, given that certain phenotypes of cancer such as bladder, gastric and ovarian posing particularly high risks of VTE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据