Abstract 1655
Background
Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) remain one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Various risk scores were developed to help oncologists in the decision-makingprocess relating to VTE in this challenging group of patients.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed a group of 124 cancer patients diagnosed with VTE between September 2012 and June 2017 in M.Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute, Warsaw, Poland and selected patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 72). We compared the patients KHORANA, PROTECHT and CONKO scores in order to determine which of them would be more precise in terms of VTE prediction during chemotherapy. Statistical analysis was made using descriptive statistics, differences between scales were tested using chi-squared test applying Bonferroni correction.
Results
VTE’s were observed mainly during chemotherapy treatment (n = 72, 58.1%). VTE’s occurred significantly more frequently in patients who received Cisplatin- or Gemcitabine- basedchemotherapy (p < 0,05). In 27 (21.8%) cases VTE was the first manifestation of the disease and/or appeared during the diagnostic process. Most of the patients (69,64% - 88,89% depending of the scale) were classified as having low/intermediate risk, without the potential need for thromboprohylaxis use. The PROTECHT score was the best indicator to discriminate between patients with high or low/intermediate risk, followed by the CONKO score and finally by the KHORANA score. The PROTECHT score more often assigned patients to the “high-risk group” and this difference was statistically significant comparing with the KHORANA score, p = 0,016 (Table).Table: 1723P
| Risk | KHORANA | PROTECHT | CONKO | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Low | 21 | 29,17% | 17 | 23,61% | 26 | 36,11% |
| Intermediate | 43 | 59,72% | 33 | 45,83% | 34 | 47,22% |
| High | 8 | 11,11% | 22 | 30,56% | 12 | 16,67% |
| chi2 | 10,99 | |||||
| df | 4 | |||||
| p | 0,0267 | |||||
| KHORANA vs. PROTECHT | KHORANA vs. CONKO | PROTECHT vs. CONKO | ||||
| chi2 | 8,27 | 2,38 | 4,84 | |||
| df | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| p | 0,0160 | 0,3036 | 0,0889 | |||
| Bonferroni | 0,0480 | 0,9108 | 0,2667 |
Conclusions
The PROTECHT score discriminated better between low- and high-risk patients and appeared to have the highest sensitivity. The implementation of VTE prophylaxis in patients assessed as high-risk patients, according to the PROTECHT score, could potentially prevent the largest amount of VTEs.
Clinical trial identification
Legal entity responsible for the study
Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute, Warsaw, Poland.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Editorial Acknowledgement
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.