Evidence Hub

Bleeding events in patients with cancer: incidence, risk factors, and impact on prognosis in a prospective cohort study

C. Englisch, Florian Moik, D. Steiner, A. Starzer, A. Berghoff, M. Preusser, I. Pabinger, C. Ay

Blood, 2024

791 participants · 37 citations

Abstract

Hemostatic imbalances are frequent in patients with cancer. While cancer-associated thrombotic complications have been well characterized, data on bleeding events in cancer patients are sparse. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and impact on prognosis of bleeding events in cancer patients initiating systemic anti-cancer therapies in a prospective cohort study, the Vienna Cancer, Thrombosis and Bleeding Study (CAT-BLED). The primary study outcome was defined as clinically relevant bleeding (CRB), comprising major bleeding (MB) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). In total, 791 patients (48% female, median age [interquartile range, IQR]: 63 [54-70] years) with various cancer types, 65.5% stage IV, were included. Over a median follow-up of 19 months (IQR: 8.7-24.0), we observed 194 CRB events in 139 (17.6%) patients, of which 42 (30%) were tumor-related, 64 (46.0%) gastrointestinal, and 7 (5.0%) intracerebral. The 12-month cumulative incidence of first CRB and MB was 16.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.7-19.6) and 9.1% (95% CI: 6.8-11.3) in the whole cohort and 14.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.2-17.5) and 7.0% (95% CI: 4.7-9.2) in those without anticoagulation. Patients with head and neck cancer had the highest risk of CRB. Lower baseline hemoglobin and albumin were associated with bleeding in patients without anticoagulation. Seven (5.0%) bleeding events were fatal, of which 6 occurred in patients without anticoagulation.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 791 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free