Cargando…

Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND: An incidental/unsuspected diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (IPE) in cancer patients is a frequent occurrence. This single-institution analysis of uniformly managed patients investigates short and long-term outcomes and proposes a prognostic risk score, aiming to assist clinical decision-m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bozas, George, Jeffery, Natalie, Ramanujam-Venkatachala, Deiva, Avery, Ged, Stephens, Andrew, Moss, Hilary, Palmer, June, Elliott, Mandi, Maraveyas, Anthony
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5802055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29445314
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-017-0157-x
_version_ 1783298466155331584
author Bozas, George
Jeffery, Natalie
Ramanujam-Venkatachala, Deiva
Avery, Ged
Stephens, Andrew
Moss, Hilary
Palmer, June
Elliott, Mandi
Maraveyas, Anthony
author_facet Bozas, George
Jeffery, Natalie
Ramanujam-Venkatachala, Deiva
Avery, Ged
Stephens, Andrew
Moss, Hilary
Palmer, June
Elliott, Mandi
Maraveyas, Anthony
author_sort Bozas, George
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: An incidental/unsuspected diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (IPE) in cancer patients is a frequent occurrence. This single-institution analysis of uniformly managed patients investigates short and long-term outcomes and proposes a prognostic risk score, aiming to assist clinical decision-making. METHODS: Data from a prospectively recorded cohort of 234 consecutive cancer patients with IPE were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression and the Cox regression survival methods were used to identify factors with independent association with early (30-day, 3-month, 6-month) mortality and survival. Receiver operator characteristic analysis (ROC) was used to assess appropriate cut-offs for continuous variables and the fitness of prognostic scoring. RESULTS: 30-day, 3-month and 6-month mortality was 3.4% (n = 8), 15% (n = 35) and 31% (n = 72) respectively. Recurrence during anticoagulation occurred in 2.6% (n = 6) and major haemorrhage in 2.1% (n = 5) of the patients. A prognostic score incorporating performance status (0 vs 1–2 vs 3–4) and the presence of new or worsening symptoms, with and without the consideration of the presence of incurable malignancy, correlated with overall survival (p < .001 respectively) as well as early mortality (AUC = .821, p = .004 and AUC = .805, p = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSION: A simple prognostic score incorporating basic oncologic clinical assessment and self-reported symptomatology could reliably stratify the mortality risk of ambulant cancer patients and IPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Audit registration No. 2013.287, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals Trust, 29/11/2013. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12959-017-0157-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5802055
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58020552018-02-14 Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism Bozas, George Jeffery, Natalie Ramanujam-Venkatachala, Deiva Avery, Ged Stephens, Andrew Moss, Hilary Palmer, June Elliott, Mandi Maraveyas, Anthony Thromb J Research BACKGROUND: An incidental/unsuspected diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (IPE) in cancer patients is a frequent occurrence. This single-institution analysis of uniformly managed patients investigates short and long-term outcomes and proposes a prognostic risk score, aiming to assist clinical decision-making. METHODS: Data from a prospectively recorded cohort of 234 consecutive cancer patients with IPE were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression and the Cox regression survival methods were used to identify factors with independent association with early (30-day, 3-month, 6-month) mortality and survival. Receiver operator characteristic analysis (ROC) was used to assess appropriate cut-offs for continuous variables and the fitness of prognostic scoring. RESULTS: 30-day, 3-month and 6-month mortality was 3.4% (n = 8), 15% (n = 35) and 31% (n = 72) respectively. Recurrence during anticoagulation occurred in 2.6% (n = 6) and major haemorrhage in 2.1% (n = 5) of the patients. A prognostic score incorporating performance status (0 vs 1–2 vs 3–4) and the presence of new or worsening symptoms, with and without the consideration of the presence of incurable malignancy, correlated with overall survival (p < .001 respectively) as well as early mortality (AUC = .821, p = .004 and AUC = .805, p = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSION: A simple prognostic score incorporating basic oncologic clinical assessment and self-reported symptomatology could reliably stratify the mortality risk of ambulant cancer patients and IPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Audit registration No. 2013.287, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals Trust, 29/11/2013. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12959-017-0157-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5802055/ /pubmed/29445314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-017-0157-x Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Bozas, George
Jeffery, Natalie
Ramanujam-Venkatachala, Deiva
Avery, Ged
Stephens, Andrew
Moss, Hilary
Palmer, June
Elliott, Mandi
Maraveyas, Anthony
Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism
title Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism
title_full Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism
title_fullStr Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism
title_short Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism
title_sort prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5802055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29445314
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-017-0157-x
work_keys_str_mv AT bozasgeorge prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism
AT jefferynatalie prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism
AT ramanujamvenkatachaladeiva prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism
AT averyged prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism
AT stephensandrew prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism
AT mosshilary prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism
AT palmerjune prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism
AT elliottmandi prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism
AT maraveyasanthony prognosticassessmentforpatientswithcancerandincidentalpulmonaryembolism