Evidence Hub

Venous thromboembolism and cancer risk in patients with a history of migraine: a population-based cohort study

Oscar Rosenkrantz, D. Farkas, E. Horváth-Puhó, S. K. Martiny, Holly Elser, C. H. Fuglsang, Henrik T. Sørensen

Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 2025

7,131 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Migraine is associated with elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although unprovoked VTE is recognized as a potential marker of occult cancer, it remains unclear whether VTE in patients with migraine is a marker of cancer. Objective To examine cancer risk following VTE in patients with migraine, compared with expected risks in the general population. Methods A population-based cohort study using Danish health registry data. Patients with first-time VTE diagnosis and history of migraine (discharge diagnosis or migraine-specific medications) were identified between 1996-2022. Follow-up extended until cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, 15 years, or December 31, 2022. We computed cumulative cancer risk and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) using national cancer incidence rates during the first year and from 1 to 15 years. Results We identified 7131 patients with VTE diagnosis and migraine. Most (71.2%) were identified by prescriptions, and the median follow-up time was 5.4 years. Within the first year, the cumulative cancer risk was 4.4%, SIR 4.28 (95% CI, 3.81-4.78), and lung, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers were observed most frequently when comparing with expected observations from the general population. After first year of follow-up, cumulative risk was 15.6%, and the SIR was 1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.25). Conclusion Patients with migraine and VTE had elevated short-term and long-term risks of cancer compared with the general population. These findings…

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: 7,131 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