Dataset Information

Arterial Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients: A Danish Population-Based Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The relation between cancer and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) remains unclear.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate ATE risk in cancer patients.

Methods

Danish registries were used to identify all cancer patients between 1997 and 2017, each matched to three cancer-free comparator individuals. ATE was defined as the composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic/unspecified stroke, and peripheral arterial occlusion. A competing risk approach was used to compute cumulative incidences and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs). Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression. Among cancer patients, mortality risk was estimated in Cox regression analysis by treating ATE as a time-varying exposure. Patients were followed for 12 months.

Results

The study included 458,462 cancer patients and 1,375,386 comparator individuals. In the 6-month period following cancer diagnosis/index date, the cumulative incidence for ATE was 1.50% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47% to 1.54%) in cancer patients and 0.76% (95% CI: 0.75% to 0.77%) in comparator individuals (HR: 2.36; 95% CI: 2.28 to 2.44). Among cancer patients age <65 years, 65 to 75 years, and >75 years, this was 0.79% (95% CI: 0.74% to 0.83%), 1.61% (95% CI: 1.55% to 1.67%), and 2.30% (95% CI: 2.22% to 2.38%), respectively. Other predictors for ATE among cancer patients were prior ATE (SHR: 2.96; 95% CI: 2.77 to 3.17), distant metastasis (adjusted SHR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.30), and chemotherapy (SHR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.61). Among cancer patients, ATE was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR: 3.28; 95% CI: 3.18 to 3.38).

Conclusions

Cancer patients are at increased risk of ATE. Clinicians should be aware of this risk, which is associated with mortality.

SUBMITTER: Mulder FI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8352038 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCancer-specific survival estimates rely on precise and correct data on the cause of death; however, these data can be difficult to acquire, particularly in elderly patients where comorbidity is common. Furthermore, while some deaths are directly related to cancer, others are more complex, with cancer merely contributing. Another, more precise, method is to assess the relative mortality, i.e., mortality in patients compared to the general population. The aims of this study were to describe the relative mortality in soft tissue sarcoma, and to compare the relative mortality with the cancer-specific mortality.MethodsWe included 1246 patients treated for soft tissue sarcoma and 6230 individually age- and sex-matched individuals from the general population. The relative mortality was estimated as rates, and rate ratios adjusted for comorbidity. Mortality rate ratios were computed using the Cox proportional hazard model for 0-5 years and 5-10 years, according to age, sex and level of comorbidity. The cancer-specific mortality was compared to the corresponding relative mortality.ResultsThe overall 5- and 10-year relative mortality was 32.8% and 36.0%. Patients with low-grade soft tissue sarcoma did not have increased mortality compared with the general population. Soft tissue sarcoma patients had a 4.4 times higher risk of dying within the first five years after diagnosis and a 1.6 times higher risk between five and ten years compared with the general comparison cohort. The relative mortality varied according to age, grade, stage at diagnosis, and level of comorbidity, being highest in younger patients and in patients without comorbidity. The overall 5- and 10-year cancer-specific mortality was underestimated by 1.5 and overestimated by 0.7 percentage points compared to the relative mortality, respectively. No statistical significant difference between the relative and the cancer-specific mortality was found.ConclusionThe relative mortality provides an unbiased and accurate method to differentiate between cancer-specific and non-cancer-specific deaths. However, when data on the cause of death is of a sufficient quality, there is no difference between relative mortality and disease-specific mortality based on death certificates.