On the necessity of new decision-making methods for cancer-associated, symptomatic, pulmonary embolism

[Translation into French and republication of: "Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism"]

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Prediction of serious complications in patients with pulmonary thromboembolism and solid cancer: Validation of the EPIPHANY Index in a prospective cohort of patients from the PERSEO study

INTRODUCTION

There is currently no validated score capable of classifying cancer-associated pulmonary embolism (PE) in its full spectrum of severity. This study has validated the EPIPHANY Index, a new tool to predict serious complications in cancer patients with suspected or unsuspected PE.

METHOD

The PERSEO Study prospectively recruited individuals with PE and active cancer or receiving antineoplastic therapy from 22 Spanish hospitals. The estimation of the relative frequency θ of complications based on the EPIPHANY Index categories was made using the Bayesian alternative for the binomial test.

RESULTS

A total of 900 patients, who were diagnosed with PE between October 2017 and January 2020, were enrolled. The rate of serious complications at 15 days was 11.8%, 95% highest density interval [HDI], 9.8-14.1%. Of the EPIPHANY low-risk patients, 2.4% (95% HDI, 0.8-4.6%) had serious complications, as did 5.5% (95% HDI, 2.9-8.7%) of the moderate-risk participants and 21.0% (95% HDI, 17.0-24.0%) of those with high-risk episodes. The EPIPHANY Index was associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with different risk levels: median OS was 16.5, 14.4, and 4.4 months for those at low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. Both the EPIPHANY Index and the Hestia criteria exhibited greater negative predictive value and a lower negative likelihood ratio than the remaining models. The incidence of bleeding at 6 months was 6.2% (95% HDI, 2.9-9.5%) in low/moderate-risk vs 12.7% (95% HDI, 10.1-15.4%) in high-risk (p-value = 0.037) episodes. Of the outpatients, serious complications at 15 days were recorded in 2.1% (95% HDI, 0.7-4.0%) of the cases with EPIPHANY low/intermediate-risk vs 5.3% (95% HDI, 1.7-11.8%) in high-risk cases.

CONCLUSION

We have validated the EPIPHANY Index in patients with incidental or symptomatic cancer-related PE. This model can contribute to standardize decision-making in a scenario lacking quality evidence.

A snapshot of cancer-associated thromboembolic disease in 2018-2019: First data from the TESEO prospective registry

BACKGROUND

The ever-growing complexity of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), with new antineoplastic drugs and anticoagulants, distinctive characteristics, and decisions with low levels of evidence, justifies this registry.

METHOD

TESEO is a prospective registry promoted by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology to which 34 centers contribute cases. It seeks to provide an epidemiological description of CAT in Spain.

RESULTS

Participants (N=939) with CAT diagnosed between July 2018 and December 2019 were recruited. Most subjects had advanced colon (21.4%), non-small cell lung (19.2%), and breast (11.1%) cancers, treated with dual-agent chemotherapy (28.4%), monochemotherapy (14.4%), or immune checkpoint inhibitors (3.6%). Half (51%) were unsuspected events, albeit only 57.1% were truly asymptomatic. Pulmonary embolism (PE) was recorded in 571 (58.3%); in 120/571 (21.0%), there was a concurrent deep venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most initially received low molecular weight heparin (89.7%). Suspected and unsuspected VTE had an OS rate of 9.9 (95% CI, 7.3-non-computable) and 14.4 months (95% CI, 12.6-non-computable) (p=0.00038). Six-month survival was 80.9%, 55.9%, and 55.5% for unsuspected PE, unsuspected PE admitted for another reason, and suspected PE, respectively (p<0.0001). The 12-month cumulative incidence of venous rethrombosis was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.7-10.2) in stage IV vs 3.0% (95% CI, 0.9-7.1) in stages I-III. The 12-month cumulative incidence of major/clinically relevant bleeding was 9.6% (95% CI, 6.1-14.0) in the presence of risk factors.

CONCLUSION

CAT continues to be a relevant problem in the era of immunotherapy and targeted therapies. The initial TESEO data highlight the evolution of CAT, with new agents and thrombotic risk factors.

Keeping prognostic assessment simple: The value of clinical features in normotensive cancer patients with pulmonary embolism

INTRODUCTION

Although normotensive cancer patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are a heterogeneous population, most validated clinical prognostic scores classify these patients as high-risk individuals, which limits their usefulness in this setting. In this study, we aimed to identify readily available clinical predictors of overall 30-day and one-year mortality in normotensive cancer patients with PE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective single-center study that included all normotensive cancer patients with PE diagnosed by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) during emergency department stay between January 2010 and December 2011. Clinical, MDCT and laboratory variables were collected for all patients. A total of 69 patients were included. All-cause mortality was 28% and 55% at 30 days and one year of follow-up, respectively. Lower mean arterial pressure, higher lactate level and a higher Shock Index (SI) at hospital admission were associated with increased all-cause mortality at 30 days and one year of follow-up. The simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index was not a predictor of short- or long-term mortality. An SI of ≥0.7 was found to be associated with lower event-free survival in both short- and long-term follow-up (hazard ratio 7.20 [95% CI, 1.66-31.21, p<0.01] and 3.51 [95% CI, 1.70-7.25, p<0.01], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first article reporting the value of the SI, a user-friendly and readily available clinical tool, as an independent and accurate predictor of 30-day and one-year all-cause mortality in normotensive cancer patients with symptomatic PE.

External validation of three risk stratification rules in patients presenting with pulmonary embolism and cancer

Numerous risk stratification rules exist to predict post-pulmonary embolism (PE) mortality; however, few were designed for use in cancer patients. In the EPIPHANY registry, adapted versions of common rules (the Hestia criteria, Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI], and simplified PESI [sPESI]) displayed high sensitivity for prognosticating mortality in PE patients with cancer. These adapted rules have yet to be externally validated. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the performance of an adapted Hestia criteria, PESI, and sPESI for predicting 30-day post-PE mortality in patients with cancer. We identified consecutive, adults presenting with objectively confirmed PE and cancer to our institution (November 2010 to January 2014). The proportion of patients categorized as low or high risk by these three risk stratification rules was calculated, and each rule's accuracy for predicting 30-day all-cause mortality was determined. Of the 124 patients with PE and active cancer identified, 25 (20%) experienced mortality at 30 days. The adapted Hestia criteria categorized 23 (19%) patients as low risk, while exhibiting a sensitivity of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 68-97%), a negative predictive value NPV of 87% (95% CI = 65-97%), and a specificity of 20% (95% CI = 13-30%). A total of 38 (31%) and 30 (24%) patients were low risk by the adapted PESI and sPESI, with both displaying sensitivities of 92% and NPVs > 93%. Specificities were 36% (95% CI = 27-47%) and 28% (95% CI = 20-38%) for PESI and sPESI. In our external validation, the adapted Hestia, PESI, and sPESI demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for 30-day PE mortality in patients with cancer. Larger, prospective trials are needed to optimize strategies for risk stratification in this population.

Validation of the EPIPHANY index for predicting risk of serious complications in cancer patients with incidental pulmonary embolism

PURPOSE

The EPIPHANY index was developed to classify cancer associated pulmonary embolism (PE) into different risk categories using decision tree modeling. In this study, we tried to externally validate this index in a distinct group of patients solely composed of incidental PE (IPE).

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients diagnosed with IPE in two Emergency Departments in the USA and South Korea from 2013 to 2014 was performed. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a serious medical complication within 15 days of presentation to ED. Thirty-day complication was the secondary outcome. Cumulative hazard curves for each prognostic category were drawn to show the change in hazards over time.

RESULTS

A total of 258 patients with IPE were included (193 from MD Anderson Cancer Center and 65 from Asan Medical Center). Serious complication within 15 days occurred in 23 (8.9%) patients. The risk of overall 15-day and 30-day serious complications increased with each category (low, intermediate, and high risk: 3.4, 8.9, and 23.8%, P = 0.033; 6.9, 9.5, and 33.3%, P = 0.011). Cumulative hazard curves for each prognostic category were drawn and the survival functions factored by prognostic categories were significantly different over 15 days (P = 0.015) and 30 days (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests the EPIPHANY index could be a useful adjunct tool in risk stratification of cancer patients with IPE.

Clinical prediction rules for mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism and cancer to guide outpatient management: a meta-analysis

Essentials Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can stratify patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and cancer. A meta-analysis was done to assess prognostic accuracy in CPRs for mortality in these patients. Eight studies evaluating ten CPRs were included in this study. CPRs should continue to be used with other patient factors for mortality risk stratification.

SUMMARY

Background Cancer treatment is commonly complicated by pulmonary embolism (PE), which remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Some guidelines recommend the use of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) to help clinicians identify patients at low risk of mortality and therefore guide care. Objective To determine and compare the accuracy of available CPRs for identifying cancer patients with PE at low risk of mortality. Methods A literature search of Medline and Scopus (January 2000 to August 2017) was performed. Studies deriving/validating ≥ 1 CPR for early post-PE all-cause mortality were included. A bivariate, random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity estimates for each CPR. Traditional random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the weighted proportion of patients deemed at low risk of early mortality, mortality in low risk patients and odds ratios for death compared with higher-risk patients. Results Eight studies evaluating 10 CPRs were included. The highest sensitivities were observed with Hestia (98.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 75.6-99.9%) and the EPIPHANY index (97.4%, 95% CI = 93.2-99.0%); sensitivities of remaining rules ranged from 59.9 to 96.6%. Of the six CPRs with sensitivities ≥ 95%, none had specificities > 33%. Random-effects meta-analysis suggested that 6.6-51.6% of cancer patients with PE were at low risk of mortality, 0-14.3% of low-risk patients died and low-risk patients had a 43-94% lower odds of death compared with those at higher risk. Conclusions Because of the limited total body of evidence regarding CPRs, their results, in conjunction with other pertinent patient-specific clinical factors, should continue to be used in identifying appropriate management for PE in patients with cancer.

Top ten errors of statistical analysis in observational studies for cancer research

Observational studies using registry data make it possible to compile quality information and can surpass clinical trials in some contexts. However, data heterogeneity, analytical complexity, and the diversity of aspects to be taken into account when interpreting results makes it easy for mistakes to be made and calls for mastery of statistical methodology. Some questionable research practices that include poor analytical data management are responsible for the low reproducibility of some results; yet, there is a paucity of information in the literature regarding specific statistical pitfalls of cancer studies. In addition to proposing how to avoid or solve them, this article seeks to expose ten common problematic situations in the analysis of cancer registries: convenience, dichotomization, stratification, regression to the mean, impact of sample size, competing risks, immortal time and survivor bias, management of missing values, and data dredging.

Key points to optimizing management and research on cancer-associated thrombosis

Despite the fact that thromboembolism is relatively common in oncology patients and that the interrelationship between thrombotic risk and specific mechanisms of tumorigenesis has long been known, many cardinal elements of prevention and treatment remain unresolved. Among the existing knowledge gaps, the need to validate the Ay scale and compare it to the Khorana index, develop, and standardize the use of predictive biomarkers for thrombotic risk, conduct clinical trials in thromboprophylaxis adapted to thrombotic risk, evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct anticoagulants, select patients who can benefit from anticoagulants for antitumor treatment, validate the EPIPHANY study decision tree to choose patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism, and accumulate more practical experience in special situations (rethrombosis, prolonged therapy beyond 6 months, etc.) are especially remarkable. These gray areas surrounding cancer-related thromboembolism explain why it continues to be a relatively common cause of serious events, at times interfering significantly with the development of new tumor-fighting strategies.

Predicting serious complications in patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism using decision tree modelling: the EPIPHANY Index

Background:

Our objective was to develop a prognostic stratification tool that enables patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE), whether incidental or symptomatic, to be classified according to the risk of serious complications within 15 days.

Methods:

The sample comprised cases from a national registry of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with cancer (1075 patients from 14 Spanish centres). Diagnosis was incidental in 53.5% of the events in this registry. The Exhaustive CHAID analysis was applied with 10-fold cross-validation to predict development of serious complications following PE diagnosis.

Results:

About 208 patients (19.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1–21.8%) developed a serious complication after PE diagnosis. The 15-day mortality rate was 10.1%, (95% CI, 8.4–12.1%). The decision tree detected six explanatory covariates: Hestia-like clinical decision rule (any risk criterion present vs none), Eastern Cooperative Group performance scale (ECOG-PS; <2 vs ⩾2), O₂ saturation (<90 vs ⩾90%), presence of PE-specific symptoms, tumour response (progression, unknown, or not evaluated vs others), and primary tumour resection. Three risk classes were created (low, intermediate, and high risk). The risk of serious complications within 15 days increases according to the group: 1.6, 9.4, 30.6% P<0.0001. Fifteen-day mortality rates also rise progressively in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients: 0.3, 6.1, and 17.1% P<0.0001. The cross-validated risk estimate is 0.191 (s.e.=0.012). The optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.779 (95% CI, 0.717–0.840).

Conclusions:

We have developed and internally validated a prognostic index to predict serious complications with the potential to impact decision-making in patients with cancer and PE.

Clinical features and short-term outcomes of cancer patients with suspected and unsuspected pulmonary embolism: the EPIPHANY study

The study aimed to identify predictors of overall 30-day mortality in cancer patients with pulmonary embolism including suspected pulmonary embolism (SPE) and unsuspected pulmonary embolism (UPE) events. Secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day major bleeding and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence.

The study cohort included 1033 consecutive patients with pulmonary embolism from the multicentre observational ambispective EPIPHANY study (March 2006–October 2014). A subgroup of 497 patients prospectively assessed for the study were subclassified into three work-up scenarios (SPE, truly asymptomatic UPE and UPE with symptoms) to assess outcomes.

The overall 30-day mortality rate was 14%. The following variables were associated with the overall 30-day mortality on multivariate analysis: VTE history, upper gastrointestinal cancers, metastatic disease, cancer progression, performance status, arterial hypotension <100 mmHg, heart rate >110 beats·min−1, basal oxygen saturation <90% and SPE (versus overall UPE).

The overall 30-day mortality was significantly lower in patients with truly asymptomatic UPE events (3%) compared with those with UPE-S (20%) and SPE (21%) (p<0.0001). Thirty- and 90-day VTE recurrence and major bleeding rates were similar in all the groups.

In conclusion, variables associated with the severity of cancer and pulmonary embolism were associated with short-term mortality. Our findings may help to develop pulmonary embolism risk-assessment models in this setting.