External validation of the Khorana score for the prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Xuan Huang , Hongxiu Chen , Sha Meng , Lihui Pu , Xueqiong Xu , Ping Xu , Shengyuan He , Xiuying Hu , Yong Li , Guan Wang
{"title":"External validation of the Khorana score for the prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Xuan Huang ,&nbsp;Hongxiu Chen ,&nbsp;Sha Meng ,&nbsp;Lihui Pu ,&nbsp;Xueqiong Xu ,&nbsp;Ping Xu ,&nbsp;Shengyuan He ,&nbsp;Xiuying Hu ,&nbsp;Yong Li ,&nbsp;Guan Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Venous thromboembolism is the leading cause of death in cancer patients, second only to tumor progression. The Khorana score is recommended by clinical guidelines for identifying ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism during chemotherapy. However, its predictive performance is debated among cancer patients.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To map the applicability of the Khorana score in cancer patients and to assess its predictive performance across various cancer types, providing guidance for clinicians and nurses to use it more appropriately.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A comprehensive literature search of the electronic database was first conducted on August 30, 2023, and updated on May 20, 2024. Studies examining the Khorana score's predictive performance (including but not limited to the areas under the curve, C-index, and calibration plot) in cancer patients were included. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Data synthesis was achieved via random-effects meta-analysis using the R studio software. The subgroup analysis was performed according to the study design, clinical setting, cancer type, anti-cancer treatment stage, and country.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The review incorporated 67 studies, including 58 observational studies and nine randomized controlled trials. All included studies assessed the Khorana score's discrimination, with the C-index ranging from 0.40 to 0.84. The pooled C-index for randomized controlled trials was 0.61 (95 % CI 0.51–0.70), while observational studies showed a pooled C-index of 0.59 (95 % CI 0.57–0.60). Subgroup analyses revealed the pooled C-index for lung cancer, lymphoma, gastrointestinal cancer, and mixed cancer patients as 0.60 (95 % CI 0.53–0.67), 0.56 (95 % CI 0.51–0.61), 0.59 (95 % CI 0.39–0.76), and 0.60 (95 % CI 0.58–0.61), respectively. Inpatient and outpatient settings had the pooled C-index of 0.60 (95 % CI 0.58–0.63) and 0.58 (95 % CI 0.55–0.61), respectively. Calibration was assessed in only four studies. All included studies were identified to have a high risk of bias according to PROBAST.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The Khorana score has been widely validated in various types of cancer patients; however, it exhibited poor capability (pooled C-index<!--> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.7) in accurately discriminating VTE risk among most types of cancer patients either in inpatient or outpatient settings. The Khorana score should be used with caution, and high-quality studies are needed to further validate its predictive performance.</p></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><p>The protocol for this study is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023470320).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50299,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","volume":"159 ","pages":"Article 104867"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748924001809","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Venous thromboembolism is the leading cause of death in cancer patients, second only to tumor progression. The Khorana score is recommended by clinical guidelines for identifying ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism during chemotherapy. However, its predictive performance is debated among cancer patients.

Objectives

To map the applicability of the Khorana score in cancer patients and to assess its predictive performance across various cancer types, providing guidance for clinicians and nurses to use it more appropriately.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of the electronic database was first conducted on August 30, 2023, and updated on May 20, 2024. Studies examining the Khorana score's predictive performance (including but not limited to the areas under the curve, C-index, and calibration plot) in cancer patients were included. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Data synthesis was achieved via random-effects meta-analysis using the R studio software. The subgroup analysis was performed according to the study design, clinical setting, cancer type, anti-cancer treatment stage, and country.

Results

The review incorporated 67 studies, including 58 observational studies and nine randomized controlled trials. All included studies assessed the Khorana score's discrimination, with the C-index ranging from 0.40 to 0.84. The pooled C-index for randomized controlled trials was 0.61 (95 % CI 0.51–0.70), while observational studies showed a pooled C-index of 0.59 (95 % CI 0.57–0.60). Subgroup analyses revealed the pooled C-index for lung cancer, lymphoma, gastrointestinal cancer, and mixed cancer patients as 0.60 (95 % CI 0.53–0.67), 0.56 (95 % CI 0.51–0.61), 0.59 (95 % CI 0.39–0.76), and 0.60 (95 % CI 0.58–0.61), respectively. Inpatient and outpatient settings had the pooled C-index of 0.60 (95 % CI 0.58–0.63) and 0.58 (95 % CI 0.55–0.61), respectively. Calibration was assessed in only four studies. All included studies were identified to have a high risk of bias according to PROBAST.

Conclusion

The Khorana score has been widely validated in various types of cancer patients; however, it exhibited poor capability (pooled C-index < 0.7) in accurately discriminating VTE risk among most types of cancer patients either in inpatient or outpatient settings. The Khorana score should be used with caution, and high-quality studies are needed to further validate its predictive performance.

Registration

The protocol for this study is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023470320).

用于预测癌症患者静脉血栓栓塞的 Khorana 评分的外部验证:系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景静脉血栓栓塞是癌症患者的主要死因,仅次于肿瘤进展。临床指南推荐使用霍拉娜评分来识别化疗期间静脉血栓栓塞高危的非卧床癌症患者。目的 对 Khorana 评分在癌症患者中的适用性进行摸底,并评估其在不同癌症类型中的预测性能,为临床医生和护士更合理地使用该评分提供指导。方法 2023 年 8 月 30 日首次对电子数据库进行了全面的文献检索,并于 2024 年 5 月 20 日进行了更新。纳入了对 Khorana 评分在癌症患者中的预测性能(包括但不限于曲线下面积、C 指数和校准图)进行研究的文献。预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)用于评估纳入研究的方法质量。使用 R studio 软件通过随机效应荟萃分析进行数据综合。根据研究设计、临床环境、癌症类型、抗癌治疗阶段和国家进行了亚组分析。结果综述纳入了 67 项研究,包括 58 项观察性研究和 9 项随机对照试验。所有纳入的研究都评估了 Khorana 评分的区分度,C 指数范围在 0.40 至 0.84 之间。随机对照试验的汇总 C 指数为 0.61(95 % CI 0.51-0.70),而观察性研究的汇总 C 指数为 0.59(95 % CI 0.57-0.60)。亚组分析显示,肺癌、淋巴瘤、胃肠道癌症和混合型癌症患者的集合 C 指数分别为 0.60(95 % CI 0.53-0.67)、0.56(95 % CI 0.51-0.61)、0.59(95 % CI 0.39-0.76)和 0.60(95 % CI 0.58-0.61)。住院和门诊环境的汇总 C 指数分别为 0.60 (95 % CI 0.58-0.63) 和 0.58 (95 % CI 0.55-0.61)。只有四项研究对校准进行了评估。结论Khorana评分已在各种类型的癌症患者中得到广泛验证;然而,它在准确判别大多数类型癌症患者(无论是住院还是门诊患者)的VTE风险方面表现出很差的能力(汇总C指数< 0.7)。应谨慎使用 Khorana 评分,并需要高质量的研究来进一步验证其预测性能。注册本研究方案已在 PROSPERO 注册(注册号:CRD42023470320)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
181
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) is a highly respected journal that has been publishing original peer-reviewed articles since 1963. It provides a forum for original research and scholarship about health care delivery, organisation, management, workforce, policy, and research methods relevant to nursing, midwifery, and other health related professions. The journal aims to support evidence informed policy and practice by publishing research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion, and commentary of the highest standard. The IJNS is indexed in major databases including PubMed, Medline, Thomson Reuters - Science Citation Index, Scopus, Thomson Reuters - Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the BNI (British Nursing Index).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信