Evaluation of Cancer Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: Performance of the American College of Physicians Guideline

Concomitant Deep Vein Thrombosis in Cancer Patients with Unsuspected Pulmonary Embolism

Simple Summary

Cancer patients have a significantly higher risk of developing venous thromboembolism during their disease course when compared with the general population. During routine staging or follow-up imaging studies, incidental venous thromboemboli, including incidental pulmonary embolisms, can be identified. Identifying factors associated with incidental or unsuspected venous thromboembolism is important and can improve the management plan. In the current study, we found that 20.9% of patients with unsuspected pulmonary embolisms had concomitant deep vein thrombosis, and most of these patients were asymptomatic. In addition, we found that concomitant deep vein thrombosis increases the odds of venous thrombosis recurrence in cancer patients presenting with unsuspected pulmonary emboli. Therefore, for patients with isolated incidental subsegmental pulmonary embolism and concomitant deep vein thrombosis, initiating anticoagulants if no contraindications exist is recommended. In addition, the presence of concomitant deep vein thrombosis among cancer patients with unsuspected pulmonary embolisms is associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes in these patients.

Abstract

Incidental venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients and identifying factors associated with these events can improve the management plan. We studied the characteristics of concomitant deep vein thrombosis (C-DVT) in cancer patients presenting with unsuspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and the association of C-DVT with VTE recurrence and survival outcomes. Patients presenting to our emergency department with confirmed unsuspected/incidental PE between 1 January 2006 and 1 January 2016, were identified. Radiologic reports were reviewed to confirm the presence or absence of C-DVT. Logistic regression analyses and cox regression modeling were used to determine the effect of C-DVT on VTE recurrence and survival outcomes. Of 904 eligible patients, 189 (20.9%) had C-DVT. Patients with C-DVT had twice the odds of developing VTE recurrence (odds ratio 2.07, 95% confidence interval 1.21–3.48, p = 0.007). The mortality rates among C-DVT were significantly higher than in patients without. C-DVT was associated with reduced overall survival in patients with unsuspected PE (hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.09–1.63, p = 0.005). In conclusion, C-DVT in cancer patients who present with unsuspected PE is common and is associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrence and poor short- and long-term survival. Identifying other venous thrombi in cancer patients presenting with unsuspected PE is recommended and can guide the management plan. For patients with isolated incidental subsegmental pulmonary embolism and concomitant deep vein thrombosis, initiating anticoagulants if no contraindications exist is recommended.

Characteristics and predictors of venous thrombosis recurrence in patients with cancer and catheter-related thrombosis

Background

Central venous catheters raise the risk of catheter‐related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with cancer, typically affecting the upper extremity. Management of CRT involves catheter removal and anticoagulation. However, robust evidence is lacking on the optimal timing of anticoagulation relative to catheter removal.

Objectives

Our goal is to provide a better understanding of the factors that increase the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients with cancer in our hospital affected by CRT between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. We measured recurrence of VTE as thrombosis in any vascular bed or pulmonary embolism, for up to 2 years after diagnosis. Logistic and competing risk regression analyses were used to determine the association between different clinical factors and any VTE recurrence in patients with cancer and CRT.

Results

Of the 257 individuals meeting the inclusion criteria, 80.2% had their catheter removed; of these, 50.5% did not receive anticoagulation before the removal. Patients who did not receive anticoagulation before the removal had increased 3‐month and 1‐year risks of recurrent VTE (odds ratio, 5.07 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53–23.18]; and hazard ratio, 3.47 [95% CI, 1.34–9.01]), respectively.

Conclusions

Our study supports the use of anticoagulants before catheter removal in patients with CRT. Randomized clinical trials are recommended to establish stronger evidence pertaining to the long‐term risk of VTE recurrence and the effect of catheter reinsertion.

Building a CAT clinic - real-world systems approaches to prevention and treatment

Cancer patients have an increased risk of developing venous thrombosis. The implementation of a cancer associated thrombosis clinic can be instrumental for the prevention, early recognition, and management of venous thromboembolism in this vulnerable population. Cancer thrombosis clinics rely on a multidisciplinary approach to care and require standardization along with a dedicated team of healthcare professionals. Cancer thrombosis clinics have the potential to improve patient outcomes and lower healthcare expenditure. Herein, we describe a successful model of a cancer thrombosis clinic and highlight the potential impact on clinical outcomes.

Clinical characteristics, management, and outcome of incidental pulmonary embolism in cancer patients

Incidental pulmonary embolisms (IPEs) are common in cancer patients. Examining the characteristics and outcomes of IPEs in cancer patients can help to ensure proper management, promoting better outcomes. To determine the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of IPEs for cancer patients, we conducted a 1:2 ratio case-control study and identified all consecutive patients with IPE who visited the emergency department at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1 January 2006 and 1 January 2016. Each IPE case was matched with 2 controls using a propensity score obtained using logistic regression for IPE status with other factors affecting overall survival. A total of 904 confirmed cases were included in the analysis. IPE frequently occurred during the first year after cancer diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.37-3.29; P < .001). Patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy had a nearly threefold greater risk of developing IPE (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.42-3.40; P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 1.9%. The 7- and 30-day mortality rates among the cases were 1.8% and 9.9%, respectively, which was significantly higher than in the control groups: 0.2% and 3.1%, respectively (P < .001). IPE was associated with reduced overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.74-2.14; P < .001). Concurrent incidental venous thromboembolism was identified in 189 of the patients (20.9%) and was also associated with reduced overall survival (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.25; P = .001). Our results show that IPE events are associated with poor outcomes in cancer patients. Proper management plans similar to those of symptomatic pulmonary embolisms are essential.

Clinical and Cancer-Related Predictors for Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The accurate detection of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) can avoid unnecessary diagnostic imaging or laboratory tests.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine clinical and cancer-related risk factors of VTE that can be used as predictors for oncology patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected VTE.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients who presented with suspicion of VTE to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ED between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2013. Logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors that were associated with VTE. The ability of these factors to predict VTE was externally validated using a second cohort of patients who presented to King Hussein Cancer Center ED between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2016.

RESULTS

Cancer-related covariates associated with the occurrence of VTE were high-risk cancer type (odds ratio [OR] 3.64 [95% confidence interval {CI} 2.37-5.60], p < 0.001), presentation within 6 months of the cancer diagnosis (OR 1.92 [95% CI 1.62-2.28], p < 0.001), active cancer (OR 1.35 [95% CI 1.10-1.65], p = 0.003), advanced stage (OR 1.40 [95% CI 1.01-1.94], p = 0.044), and the presence of brain metastasis (OR 1.73 [95% CI 1.32-2.27], p < 0.001). When combined, these factors along with other clinical factors showed high prediction performance for VTE in the external validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer risk group, presentation within 6 months of cancer diagnosis, active and advanced cancer, and the presence of brain metastases along with other related clinical factors can be used to predict VTE in patients with cancer presenting to the ED.