Comparison of Khorana vs. ONKOTEV predictive score to individualize anticoagulant prophylaxis in outpatients with cancer.

BACKGROUND

Based on the Khorana score, guidelines recommend anticoagulation for primary prophylaxis (PP) in outpatients with cancer with an intermediate-to-high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). ONKOTEV score has been prospectively externally validated as novel risk assessment model (RAM) with good discriminatory performances but no direct comparisons with Khorana Score are available.

METHODS

Using the ONKOTEV validation dataset (n = 425), we applied generalized decision curve analysis (gDCA) which integrates the principles of evidence-based medicine with treatment effects, model accuracy and patient preferences (weighted as the relative value [RV] of avoiding VTE versus major bleeding [MB]). The aim is to select the most optimal treatment strategy among multiple options: "no treatment", "treat all patients with DOAC/LMVH", or "use ONKOTEV/KHORANA scores to guide PP with DOAC/LMWH".

RESULTS

Results showed that ONKOTEV-guided PP (using DOAC or LMWH) remained the most optimal strategy for wide range assumption of treatment efficacy and patient's preference. For those patients, who value avoiding VTE more than MB, then offering DOAC to all patients represents the best strategy. When MBs are feared more than the morbidity of VTE, ONKOTEV-guided PP (DOAC) represents the best management strategy. In all cases, ONKOTEV outperformed Khorana for individualized VTE prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

When the two predictive models are integrated within a decision analysis framework, ONKOTEV appears superior to Khorana Score in guiding individualized prevention of cancer-related VTE in outpatients with cancer. The findings herein reported provide cutting edge insights in cancer care and support the spread of ONKOTEV score in the ambulatory cancer setting.