3.8 Article

Meta-Analysis of VTE Risk: Ovarian Cancer Patients by Stage, Histology, Cytoreduction, and Ascites at Diagnosis

期刊

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2020/2374716

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [NIH T32GM007337]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) have been a leading secondary cause of death among ovarian cancer patients, prompting multiple studies of risk factors. The objective of this meta-analysis is to quantify the associations between VTE and the most commonly reported risk factors among ovarian cancer patients. PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were used to identify observational studies. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed quality via the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios for VTE with each of the following exposures: advanced cancer stage, clear cell histology, serous histology, ascites at diagnosis, and complete cytoreduction. TheI(2)andQtests were used to evaluate heterogeneity. Twenty cohort studies with 6,324 total ovarian cancer patients, 769 of whom experienced a VTE, were included. The odds of VTE in ovarian cancer patients were higher among patients with cancer stage III/IV (versus cancer stage I/II, pooled odds ratio (OR) 2.73; 95% CI 1.84-4.06;I-2= 64%), clear cell (versus nonclear cell) histology (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.55-2.89;I-2 = 6%), and ascites (versus no ascites) at diagnosis (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.51-2.96;I-2 = 32%). Serous (versus nonserous) histology (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.91-1.75;I-2 = 42%) and complete (versus incomplete) cytoreduction (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.27-4.11;I-2 = 88%) were not associated with VTE. This meta-analysis quantifies the significantly elevated odds of VTE in ovarian cancer patients with advanced stage at diagnosis, clear cell histology, and ascites at diagnosis. Further studies are needed to account for confounders and inform clinical decision-making tools.

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

3.8
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