Optimizing Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT) Risk Assessment Model at a Safety-Net Healthcare System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Cancer associated thrombosis is a preventable complication that impacts the quality of life of patients with cancer. The Khorana score (KS) is the most widely used risk assessment model (RAM) to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory patients undergoing chemotherapy. Potential limitations of the score include modest discrimination and small proportion of patients in the highest risk subgroup. We aimed to examine if a clinical informatics approach incorporating race/ethnicity, cancer staging, type of systemic therapy, and other known VTE risk factors from the electronic health record (EHR) can improve the RAM. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at Harris Health System (HHS), a safety-net healthcare system that provides care for underserved minorities and uninsured patients in Houston. We created an integrated database that linked consecutive patients with newly diagnosed invasive cancer in the cancer registry with structured data from EPIC Caboodle database 2011-2020. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are shown in Figure 1. We followed patients from time of initial systemic therapy to time of first VTE, death, or loss of follow-up. VTE was defined as radiologically confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE), proximal or distal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LE-DVT), catheter-related DVT (CR-DVT), or splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) in inpatient or outpatient setting. We used acute, chronic or historical VTE ICD9/ICD10 facility billing codes to assess for potential events and confirmed incident and recurrent events through medical record review. We used multivariable Cox regression to assess potential risk predictors. The model was built iteratively to expand upon the KS. Kaplan Meier failures curves were used to estimate the VTE incidence. C statistic was assessed with binary outcomes at 3- and 6-month. Results: A total of 4,546 patients with newly diagnosed cancer receiving 1 st line systemic therapy met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Relevant demographics showed a median age of 54 (IQR 46-61), 57% female, 50% Hispanic, 27% Black, and 75% uninsured. Most common cancer types included breast (17%), colorectal (13%), lung (10%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%); 32% of patients had metastatic disease. First-line systemic therapy included 89% cytotoxic chemotherapy, 9% small molecule targeted +/- endocrine therapy, and 2% PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Only 1% had remote VTE history after excluding 317 patients already on therapeutic anticoagulation. Incident VTE occurred in 477 patients during a median follow-up of 11.3 months. There were 229 PE +/- other, 140 LE-DVT, 94 CR-DVT, and 14 SVT. In addition to the KS covariates (Table 1), recent cancer diagnosis (≤ 1 month) (HR 1.43, 1.16-1.76), metastatic disease (HR 1.46, 1.20-1.76), recent hospitalization (≤ 3 month) (HR 1.54, 1.24-1.90) were also associated with higher risk of VTE, whereas Hispanic ethnicity (HR 0.65, 0.51-0.84) and Asian race (HR 0.30, 0.16-0.54) were associated with a lower risk. Other appreciable predictors included targeted vs. chemotherapy (HR 0.75, 0.51-1.10) and history of PE/LE-DVT (HR 1.74, 0.93-3.27). Immunotherapy (vs. chemotherapy) and black (vs. white) were not associated with VTE. Figure 2 shows the comparison of VTE incidence using the 2 RAMs. Original KS RAM had c statistic of 0.66 and 0.62 at 3- and 6-month, respectively (Table 2). The highest risk group (3+) included 16% of patients (n=723) and 23% of all VTE (n=108). The modified RAM had better discrimination with c statistic of 0.71 and 0.67 at 3- and 6-month, respectively. The highest risk group (3+) included 33% of patients (n=1509) and 51% of all VTE (n=244). Conclusions: The KS performed reasonably well in a large safety-net healthcare system with predominantly uninsured patients with advanced cancer initiating systemic therapy. Nonetheless, simple structured data elements from the EHR such as race/ethnicity, staging, therapy type, and recent hospitalization improved the performance of the KS-based RAM and doubled the number of patients in the high-risk stratum and the number of preventable VTE. An integrated clinical informatics approach adapted to the local population can improve outcomes by identifying patients most appropriate for ambulatory thromboprophylaxis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Carrier: Sanofi: Honoraria; Leo Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».