MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeep veinPulmonary embolismThrombosisCancerInternal medicineMedical recordDiagnosis codeCohortEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→