4.4 Article

Prediction of venous thromboembolism in newly diagnosed patients treated for lymphoid malignancies: validation of the Khorana Risk Score

期刊

MEDICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12032-017-1065-4

关键词

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma; Hodgkin lymphoma; Venous thromboembolism; Khorana Risk Score

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The utility of the venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment model known as the Khorana Risk Score (KRS) in patients with lymphoid malignancies receiving outpatient chemotherapy is not defined. We evaluated the association of the KRS with VTE in patients treated for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Retrospective analyses were performed in 428 patients, 241 of whom were newly diagnosed with DLBCL and 187 of whom had HL. During the initial therapy, 64 (15%) patients developed VTE and 56 died during follow-up. More VTE events occurred in patients with DLBCL than in patients with HL. According to the KRS, 364 (85%) and 64 (15%) patients were considered to be at intermediate risk and high risk of VTE development, respectively. The high-risk KRS patients were more often diagnosed with HL than DLBCL (19 vs. 10%, P = 0.0143). The KRS did not discriminate between high-and intermediate-risk patients with respect to VTE occurrence (17 vs. 15%, P = 0.5868). In our patients, the KRS did not adequately predict VTE (positive predictive value 15%, negative predictive value 82% and C statistic 0.51). In the multivariate analysis, bulky disease (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.62-3.36, P < 0.0001), poor prognostic disease (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.01-1.74, P = 0.049) and DLBCL histological subtype (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.17-2.19, P = 0.003) were all significantly associated with the VTE development. In this cohort of patients with lymphoid malignancies, the KRS did not adequately stratify or predict VTE events in patients at a higher risk of VTE. This finding suggests the need for the development of a disease-specific VTE assessment model.

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

4.4
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