MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3211983706 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-147390

Optimizing Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT) Risk Assessment Model at a Safety-Net Healthcare System

2021· article· en· W3211983706 sur OpenAlexaff
Ang Li, Wilson Luiz da Costa, Danielle Guffey, Raka Bandyo, Courtney D. Wallace, Carolina Granada, Romil Patel, Margaret Fitzgerald, Elizabeth Y. Chiao, David García, Christopher I. Amos, Marc Carrier

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineDeep veinPulmonary embolismThrombosisCancerInternal medicineMedical recordDiagnosis codeCohortEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,052

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→