4.6 Article

A New Risk Prediction Model for Venous Thromboembolism and Death in Ambulatory Lung Cancer Patients

期刊

CANCERS
卷 15, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184588

关键词

non-small cell lung cancer; venous thromboembolism; hypercoagulability; biomarkers; survival; D-dimer; thrombin generation; risk assessment model

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that VTE is a common complication in lung cancer patients during chemotherapy and is associated with increased mortality. A new prediction model was developed to stratify the risk of VTE and mortality in lung cancer patients, which showed higher accuracy compared to other existing models.
(1) Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in ambulatory lung cancer patients during chemotherapy and is associated with increased mortality. (2) Methods: We analyzed 568 newly diagnosed metastatic lung cancer patients prospectively enrolled in the HYPERCAN study. Blood samples collected before chemotherapy were tested for thrombin generation (TG) and a panel of hemostatic biomarkers. The Khorana risk score (KRS), new-Vienna CATS, PROTECHT, and CONKO risk assessment models (RAMs) were applied. (3) Results: Within 6 months, the cumulative incidences of VTE and mortality were 12% and 29%, respectively. Patients with VTE showed significantly increased levels of D-dimer, FVIII, prothrombin fragment 1 + 2, and TG. D-dimer and ECOG performance status were identified as independent risk factors for VTE and mortality by multivariable analysis and utilized to generate a risk score that provided a cumulative incidence of VTE of 6% vs. 25%, death of 19% vs. 55%, and in the low- vs. high-risk group, respectively (p < 0.001). While all published RAMs significantly stratified patients for risk of death, only the CATS and CONKO were able to stratify patients for VTE. (4) Conclusions: A new prediction model was generated to stratify lung cancer patients for VTE and mortality risk, where other published RAMs failed.

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