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:BackgroundDespite recent improvements in the treatment of cancer, little is known about the long-term survival in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism. We aimed to examine the five-year mortality of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients in a large population-based cohort study.MethodsUsing Danish healthcare registries from 1995 to 2020, we obtained data on cancer patients with venous thromboembolism and comparison cohorts of cancer patients without venous thromboembolism, matched in terms of cancer type, age, sex, and year of cancer diagnosis, and adjusted for level of comorbidity and frailty using the Charlson Comorbidity Index Score and Hospital Frailty Risk Score, marital status, use of selected medications, and recent surgery (<90 days).FindingsDuring the study period, 886,536 patients were diagnosed with cancer. Of 1882 cancer patients diagnosed at the time of their venous thromboembolism, 44.4% (835/1882) had distant metastases. In this cohort, the one- and five-year mortality cumulative incidences were 68% (1284/1882) and 84% (1578/1882), respectively, in contrast to 38% (2135/5549) and 67% (3653/5549) in the comparison cohort. The mortality rate ratio was 4.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.95-4.78) for the first year of follow-up and 3.44 (95% CI 3.17-3.73) for the five-year follow-up period. Of the 23,366 patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism after cancer diagnosis, 18% (4183/23,366) had distant metastases at the time of cancer diagnosis. The cumulative incidence of death at one year was 45% (10,465/23,366; mortality rate ratio 3.48, 95% CI 3.37-3.60) and at five years 69% (15,669/23,366; mortality rate ratio 2.57, 95% CI 2.50-2.63).InterpretationDespite improved cancer treatment, venous thromboembolism in cancer patients is strongly associated with a poor prognosis.FundingThe study was supported by grants from the Independent Research Fund Denmark (record no. 3101-00102B) and the Karen Elise Jensen Foundation.

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.