Table 1

Incidences and risk factors for venous thrombosis as discussed in the review

TopicStudy populationStudy designNumber of patientsEffect estimateReference
Proportion of cancer-associated VT cases Olmsted county population Nested case-control 625/625 18% (PAR) 
 California Discharge DataSet Cohort 21 002 21% 
 Worcester metropolitan area, outpatient setting Cohort 1399 29% 
 RIETE Registry Cohort 35 539 17% 
 Tromsø Study Cohort 462 23% 
RR of VT for cancer vs no cancer MEGA study Case-control 2131/3220 OR 6.7 (95% CI; 5.2-8.6) 10 
 Olmsted county population Nested case-control 625/625 OR 4.1 (95% CI; 1.9-8.5) 12 
 Linked United Kingdom databases Cohort 82 203/577 207 HR 4.7 (95% CI; 4.5-4.9) 13 
 Danish population-based registries Cohort 57 591/287 476 HR 4.7 (95% CI; 4.3-5.1) 11 
Absolute risk of VT in cancer patients Linkage of California Cancer Registry and California Discharge Dataset Cohort 235 149 1.6% within 2 y 14 
 Referred patients with solid tumors Cohort 1041 7.8% (median follow-up 26 mo) 15 
 CATS study Cohort 840 8% within 1 y 16 
 38 papers on cohorts with cancer patients Meta-analysis NA 13/1000 PY (95% CI; 7-23) for average-risk patients 17 
    68/1000 PY (95% CI; 48-96) for high-risk patients 17 
 Linked United Kingdom databases Cohort 82 203 14/1000 PY (95% CI; 13-14) 13 
Incidence of VT in cancer patients over time US National Hospital Discharge Survey Cohort 40 787 000 1.5% in 1989; 3.5% in 1999 19 
 Discharge Database from University HealthSystem Consortium Cohort 1 015 598 ∼3.5% in 1995; ∼4.5% in 2002 18 
 Linked United Kingdom databases Cohort 82 203 10.3/1000 PY in 1997; 19/1000 PY in 2006 13 
Risk factors for VT in cancer patients      
Type of cancer 38 papers on cohorts with cancer patients Meta-analysis NA Pancreatic cancer: ∼110/1000 PY 17 
    Brain cancer: ∼80/1000 PY  
    Lung cancer: ∼45/1000 PY  
    Haematologic cancer: ∼40/1000 PY  
    Colorectal cancer: ∼30/1000 PY  
    Bone cancer: ∼30/1000 PY  
    Prostate cancer: ∼10/1000 PY  
    Breast cancer: ∼10/1000 PY  
Stage of cancer Danish population-based registries Cohort 40 994/204 970 HRs 2.9, 2.9, 7.5, and 17.1 for stage I, II, III, and IV cancer patients, respectively, vs general population 11 
 Linkage of California Cancer Registry and California Discharge Dataset Cohort 235 149 HRs ranging from 1.1 to 21.5 for different types of cancer, metastatic vs localized cancer 14 
 CATS study Cohort 740 HR 2.0 (95% CI; 1.1-3.5) for (solid) tumor grade G3+G4 vs G1+G2 24 
Time since cancer diagnosis MEGA study Case-control 2131/3220 OR 53.5 (95% CI; 8.6-334.3) in first 3 mo after cancer diagnosis 10 
    OR 14.3 (95% CI; 5.8-35.2) in 3-12 mo after cancer diagnosis  
    OR 1.1 (95% CI; 0.6-2.2) > 15 y after cancer diagnosis  
 Linkage of California Cancer Registry and California Discharge Dataset, colorectal cancer patients Cohort 68 142 5.0/100 PY 0-6 mo after cancer diagnosis 1.4/100 PY 6-12 mo after cancer diagnosis 0.6/100 PY 12-24 mo after cancer diagnosis 25 
 Linked United Kingdom databases Cohort 82 203 Median ratio 3.2 for VT risk in first 3 mo after diagnosis vs whole follow-up period, for cancer types separately 13 
Treatment Olmsted county population Nested case-control 625/625 OR 4.1 vs OR 6.5 for treatment with and without chemotherapy 12 
 Node-positive primary operable breast cancer patients RCT 353/352 Cum. inc. of VT: 13.6% vs 2.6% for 2 y tamoxifen with vs without 6 mo additional chemotherapy 33 
 Advanced gastroesophageal cancer patients RCT 490/474 Cum. inc. of VT during and 30 days after chemotherapy: 12.2% for cisplatin vs 6.5% for oxaliplatin containing regimens 34 
 35 papers on trials with cancer patients Meta-analysis 6769 RR 1.7 (95% CI; 1.4-2.1) for VT in cancer patients treated with red blood cell transfusions with vs without ESAs 35 
 38 papers on phase 3 trials with cancer patients Meta-analysis 8172 RR 1.6 (95% CI; 1.3-1.9) for VT in cancer patients treated with red blood cell transfusions with vs without ESAs 36 
 15 Papers on trials with patients with solid tumors Meta-analysis 7956 RR 1.3 (95% CI; 1.1-1.6) for VT in cancer patients treated with standard antineoplastic therapy with vs without bevacizumab 37 
Patient-related Linkage of California Cancer Registry and California Discharge Dataset, colorectal cancer patients Cohort 68 142 HR 2.0 (95% CI; 1.7-2.3) for 3 or more comorbid conditions vs no comorbidities HR 0.4 (95% CI; 0.3-0.5) for Asian/Pacific Islanders vs Caucasians 25 
 Discharge database of University Healthsystem Consortium Cohort 1 015 598 ORs ranging from 1.4 to 1.8 for cancer patients with a comorbidity vs cancer patients without comorbidities 18 
    OR 1.2 and 0.7 for patients with black and asian ethnicity respectively vs white  
 MEGA study Case-control 2131/3220 OR 2.2 (95% CI; 0.3-17.8) for VT in cancer patients with vs without factor V Leiden 10 
TopicStudy populationStudy designNumber of patientsEffect estimateReference
Proportion of cancer-associated VT cases Olmsted county population Nested case-control 625/625 18% (PAR) 
 California Discharge DataSet Cohort 21 002 21% 
 Worcester metropolitan area, outpatient setting Cohort 1399 29% 
 RIETE Registry Cohort 35 539 17% 
 Tromsø Study Cohort 462 23% 
RR of VT for cancer vs no cancer MEGA study Case-control 2131/3220 OR 6.7 (95% CI; 5.2-8.6) 10 
 Olmsted county population Nested case-control 625/625 OR 4.1 (95% CI; 1.9-8.5) 12 
 Linked United Kingdom databases Cohort 82 203/577 207 HR 4.7 (95% CI; 4.5-4.9) 13 
 Danish population-based registries Cohort 57 591/287 476 HR 4.7 (95% CI; 4.3-5.1) 11 
Absolute risk of VT in cancer patients Linkage of California Cancer Registry and California Discharge Dataset Cohort 235 149 1.6% within 2 y 14 
 Referred patients with solid tumors Cohort 1041 7.8% (median follow-up 26 mo) 15 
 CATS study Cohort 840 8% within 1 y 16 
 38 papers on cohorts with cancer patients Meta-analysis NA 13/1000 PY (95% CI; 7-23) for average-risk patients 17 
    68/1000 PY (95% CI; 48-96) for high-risk patients 17 
 Linked United Kingdom databases Cohort 82 203 14/1000 PY (95% CI; 13-14) 13 
Incidence of VT in cancer patients over time US National Hospital Discharge Survey Cohort 40 787 000 1.5% in 1989; 3.5% in 1999 19 
 Discharge Database from University HealthSystem Consortium Cohort 1 015 598 ∼3.5% in 1995; ∼4.5% in 2002 18 
 Linked United Kingdom databases Cohort 82 203 10.3/1000 PY in 1997; 19/1000 PY in 2006 13 
Risk factors for VT in cancer patients      
Type of cancer 38 papers on cohorts with cancer patients Meta-analysis NA Pancreatic cancer: ∼110/1000 PY 17 
    Brain cancer: ∼80/1000 PY  
    Lung cancer: ∼45/1000 PY  
    Haematologic cancer: ∼40/1000 PY  
    Colorectal cancer: ∼30/1000 PY  
    Bone cancer: ∼30/1000 PY  
    Prostate cancer: ∼10/1000 PY  
    Breast cancer: ∼10/1000 PY  
Stage of cancer Danish population-based registries Cohort 40 994/204 970 HRs 2.9, 2.9, 7.5, and 17.1 for stage I, II, III, and IV cancer patients, respectively, vs general population 11 
 Linkage of California Cancer Registry and California Discharge Dataset Cohort 235 149 HRs ranging from 1.1 to 21.5 for different types of cancer, metastatic vs localized cancer 14 
 CATS study Cohort 740 HR 2.0 (95% CI; 1.1-3.5) for (solid) tumor grade G3+G4 vs G1+G2 24 
Time since cancer diagnosis MEGA study Case-control 2131/3220 OR 53.5 (95% CI; 8.6-334.3) in first 3 mo after cancer diagnosis 10 
    OR 14.3 (95% CI; 5.8-35.2) in 3-12 mo after cancer diagnosis  
    OR 1.1 (95% CI; 0.6-2.2) > 15 y after cancer diagnosis  
 Linkage of California Cancer Registry and California Discharge Dataset, colorectal cancer patients Cohort 68 142 5.0/100 PY 0-6 mo after cancer diagnosis 1.4/100 PY 6-12 mo after cancer diagnosis 0.6/100 PY 12-24 mo after cancer diagnosis 25 
 Linked United Kingdom databases Cohort 82 203 Median ratio 3.2 for VT risk in first 3 mo after diagnosis vs whole follow-up period, for cancer types separately 13 
Treatment Olmsted county population Nested case-control 625/625 OR 4.1 vs OR 6.5 for treatment with and without chemotherapy 12 
 Node-positive primary operable breast cancer patients RCT 353/352 Cum. inc. of VT: 13.6% vs 2.6% for 2 y tamoxifen with vs without 6 mo additional chemotherapy 33 
 Advanced gastroesophageal cancer patients RCT 490/474 Cum. inc. of VT during and 30 days after chemotherapy: 12.2% for cisplatin vs 6.5% for oxaliplatin containing regimens 34 
 35 papers on trials with cancer patients Meta-analysis 6769 RR 1.7 (95% CI; 1.4-2.1) for VT in cancer patients treated with red blood cell transfusions with vs without ESAs 35 
 38 papers on phase 3 trials with cancer patients Meta-analysis 8172 RR 1.6 (95% CI; 1.3-1.9) for VT in cancer patients treated with red blood cell transfusions with vs without ESAs 36 
 15 Papers on trials with patients with solid tumors Meta-analysis 7956 RR 1.3 (95% CI; 1.1-1.6) for VT in cancer patients treated with standard antineoplastic therapy with vs without bevacizumab 37 
Patient-related Linkage of California Cancer Registry and California Discharge Dataset, colorectal cancer patients Cohort 68 142 HR 2.0 (95% CI; 1.7-2.3) for 3 or more comorbid conditions vs no comorbidities HR 0.4 (95% CI; 0.3-0.5) for Asian/Pacific Islanders vs Caucasians 25 
 Discharge database of University Healthsystem Consortium Cohort 1 015 598 ORs ranging from 1.4 to 1.8 for cancer patients with a comorbidity vs cancer patients without comorbidities 18 
    OR 1.2 and 0.7 for patients with black and asian ethnicity respectively vs white  
 MEGA study Case-control 2131/3220 OR 2.2 (95% CI; 0.3-17.8) for VT in cancer patients with vs without factor V Leiden 10 

Cum. inc., cumulative incidence; NA, not applicable; PAR, population attributable risk; PY, person-years; RCT, randomized controlled trial; VT, venous thrombosis.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal