Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 27:12:1580920.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1580920. eCollection 2025.

Predictive model for CRT risk in cancer patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wenjuan Yang  1 , Meng Fang  2 , Kangqin Cai  1 , Qin Pan  1 , Cheng Zhang  3 , Jiquan Zhang  4
Affiliations

Predictive model for CRT risk in cancer patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wenjuan Yang et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Introduction: With the high incidence of central venous access device catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with cancer, its early onset, and the characteristics of clinically insignificant symptoms, risk assessment is essential for the targeted application of thromboprophylaxis. The aim of this paper was to review the risk prediction models developed for central venous access device CRT in patients with cancer and to evaluate their performance.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases were searched, and the search timeframes ranged from the establishment of the database to May 22, 2024. Two researchers independently performed literature screenings, data extractions, and quality assessments. The risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were assessed using the Predictive Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. A meta-analysis of the areas under the curve (AUC) values for model validation was performed using Stata 17.0 software.

Results: Nineteen papers with 29 predictive models were included in this systematic review, reporting AUC values of 0.470-1.000. The incidence of central venous access device CRT in cancer patients ranges from 2.02 to 39.4%. The most commonly used predictors are D-dimer levels, BMI, and diabetes. All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias, mainly due to poor reporting of the areas analyzed. The combined AUC value of the six validated models was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.86), indicating good model discrimination.

Discussion: Most available CRT prediction models exhibited moderate-to-good predictive performance. However, all the studies were rated as having a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST scale. Future studies should adhere to methodological and reporting guidelines for large-sample, multi-center external validation of models, focusing on studies that report rigorous design and optimization or on the development of new models.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42024516563.

Keywords: cancer patients; catheter-related thrombosis (CRT); central venous access devices; meta-analysis; risk prediction models.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart of literature search and selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk factors included in the CRT prediction model.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Summary results on risk of bias and applicability assessment (PROBAST).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of the random effects meta-analysis of pooled AUC estimates for six validation models.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Ellis ML, Okano S, McCann A, McDowall A, Van Kuilenburg R, McCarthy AL, et al. Incidence and risk factors of catheter-related thrombosis in adult patients with cancer treated with central venous access devices. Intern Med J. (2020) 50:1475–82. 10.1111/imj.14780 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pinelli F, Balsorano P, Mura B, Pittiruti M. Reconsidering the Gavecelt consensus on catheter-related thrombosis, 13 years later. J Vasc Access. (2021) 22:501–8. 10.1177/1129729820947594 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang J, Wu Y, Zhang S, Yao W, Bu F, Wang A, et al. Appraising the quality standard of clinical practice guidelines related to CVC-related thrombosis prevention: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ Open. (2024) 14:e074854. 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074854 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chopra V, Anand S, Hickner A, Buist M, Rogers MA, Saint S, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2013) 382:311–25. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60592-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Verso M, Agnelli G. Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2003) 21:3665–75. 10.1200/JCO.2003.08.008 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources