Poor performance of D-dimer in excluding venous thromboembolism among patients with lymphoma and leukemia

Different diagnostic strategies using D-dimer for peripherally inserted central catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

OBJECTIVE

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the upper extremities caused by a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) is distinct from the typical DVT. This specific type of mural thrombus might have an effect on the D-dimer levels. In the present study, we aimed to ascertain whether the D-dimer level might be considered an independent diagnostic marker to rule out upper extremity DVT caused by PICCs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case-cohort study of 205 patients who had undergone D-dimer measurement and color Doppler ultrasound within 14 days after placement of a PICC to December 31, 2020, from January 1, 2018. The participants were followed up for 3 months to evaluate for upper extremity DVT. In addition, different D-dimer diagnostic strategies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 205 included patients, 53 (25.9%) had had a negative D-dimer level. Of the 53 patients, 10 had had upper extremity DVT attributable to a PICC using color Doppler ultrasound. Of these 10 patients, 3 had developed upper extremity DVT during the 3-month follow-up. Using the various D-dimer diagnostic techniques, the negative predictive value for the D-dimer levels was 81.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study has shown that the different D-dimer diagnostic strategies are not effective for safely excluding the diagnosis of suspected PICC-related upper extremity DVT. Adding PICC placement as a special factor in the modified Wells score, in addition to the D-dimer level, could securely rule out PICC-related upper extremity DVT; however, the diagnostic efficacy was low.

Venous Thromboembolism in Women with Cancer with an Additional Focus on Breast and Gynecological Cancers

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in women with cancer. Many clinical practice guidelines provide guidance for prevention and treatment; however, there are no specific recommendations for women. This is unfortunate because the proportion of women with breast- and gynecological cancers is high among patients with cancer-associated VTE. Thromboembolism often heralds cancer progression and poor prognosis and should—besides adequate anticoagulant management—also prompt reassessment and, if necessary, changes in cancer treatment. Recently, the new class of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has started to replace low-molecular-weight heparin as standard thromboprophylaxis and therapy in cancer patients. They are very effective, but they also carry a relevant risk of bleeding. Therefore, despite their ease of use, not every tumor patient qualifies for a DOAC, and this is especially true for gynecological tumor patients. Each prescription must be weighed individually. This review addresses specific aspects of VTE prophylaxis and management in women with cancer. Every physician who treats breast and gynecological cancers should be familiar with prophylaxis, diagnosis, and therapy of cancer-associated VTE. At the same time, patients should be informed by their physician what symptoms to look for and whom to contact if these symptoms occur, even outside of office hours and on weekends.

Systematic review of observational studies reporting antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with solid tumors

This review summarizes the evidence on antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies and related thromboembolic events in patients with solid tumors. Data sources included Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed ePubs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through August 2019 without restrictions. Observational studies that evaluated patients with solid tumors for the presence of aPL antibodies were included. Data were extracted and quality was assessed by one reviewer and cross-checked by another. Thirty-three studies were identified. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) cancers were the most frequently reported. Compared with healthy patients, patients with GI cancer were more likely to develop anticardiolipin antibodies (risk ratio [RR], 5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-9.95), as were those with GU (RR, 7.3; 95% CI, 3.3-16.2) and lung cancer (RR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.3-20.6). The increased risk for anti-β2-glycoprotein I or lupus anticoagulant was not statistically significant. Patients with lung cancer who had positive aPL antibodies had higher risk of developing thromboembolic events than those who had negative antibodies (RR, 3.8%; 95% CI, 1.2-12.2), while the increased risk in patients with GU cancer was not statistically significant. Deaths due to thromboembolic events were more common among patients with lung cancer who had elevated aPL antibodies. A limitation of this review is that the results are contingent on the reported information. We found an increased risk of developing aPL antibodies in patients with GI, GU, and lung cancers resulting in thromboembolic events and death. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathogenesis and development of aPL antibodies in cancer.

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.

Deep Venous Thrombosis in a Patient with a Moderate Pretest Probability and a Negative D-Dimer Test: A Review of the Diagnostic Algorithms

Modern diagnostic strategies of venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been developed. In this review, the diagnostic algorithms for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and their parameters are discussed individually in the context of reporting a case of DVT in a 43-year-old Caucasian female with a moderate pretest probability stratified by Wells’ score and a negative high quality D-dimer test. The patient was on treatment with Xarelto (rivaroxaban), 20 mg PO daily at the time of presentation. The diagnosis was verified through a complete lower limb ultrasound (US). This case highlights the diagnostic challenges and pitfalls of the current algorithms, especially those seen in a subgroup of patients such as patients with cancer, pregnancy, recurrent VTE or are on anticoagulation therapy at the time of presentation. The diagnosis of DVT is less plausible in a patient who is on anticoagulation therapy, but physicians should be aware of such a possibility. Physicians should also know in advance the numerous clinically relevant limitations of D-dimer testing before interpreting the results. Unifying the current diagnostic strategies, modifying the current Wells’ score and using the protocol of a whole-leg compression US instead of the limited US protocol are among the several cautious suggestions that have been proposed based on this review to possibly decrease the incidence of missed DVT.

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.

Pulmonary Embolism Can Be Nauseous: A Case Report and Review of D-Dimer Use in Pediatric Oncology Patients

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a very common presentation in the emergency department (ED). Despite being life-threatening, PE is preventable if diagnosed and managed early, especially in high-risk patients like pediatric oncology patients. A negative d-dimer has a high negative predictive value and can rule out PE in low-risk patients; however, it does not lower post-test probability enough and should be coupled with further diagnostics in high-risk patients.

CASE REPORT

We describe the case of a 14-year-old girl known to have acute lymphoblastic leukemia and presented to the ED with persistent nausea and vomiting only, which was exacerbated by exertion. She had previously presented to the ED 1 week earlier for the same complaint, with a nonrevealing physical examination. At that time, the patient was worked up for nausea and vomiting and received symptomatic treatment. An electrocardiogram (ECG) during that presentation showed normal sinus rhythm. During this presentation, ECG showed new ST segment depressions from V1 to V6 in addition to an S1Q3T3 pattern. This, coupled with the exacerbation of her initial symptoms, triggered further investigations. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the chest was performed and showed a right lower lobe segmental pulmonary artery embolus. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: This case highlights the importance of having a high level of suspicion for PE, especially in pediatric oncology patients and specifically in hematologic malignancies. Although our patient's presentation, examination, and laboratory results were not concerning initially, CTA of the chest showed a PE. We are addressing this particular topic to increase the awareness of emergency physicians of cases like this, as PE can have an unusual presentation and missing such a diagnosis can be fatal.

Normal D-dimer levels in cancer patients with radiologic evidence of pulmonary embolism

Accurate and expeditious diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary embolism in cancer patients improves patient outcomes. D-dimer is often used to rule out pulmonary embolism. However, this test is less accurate in cancer patients, and it is unclear whether cancer patients with normal D-dimer levels can present with pulmonary embolism. All consecutive patients who presented to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, USA, between May 2009 and November 2015 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography and plasma D-dimer level measurement were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and normal D-dimer levels were identified. Among the 8023 cancer patients identified, 1156 (14%) had pulmonary embolism. Only 35 patients with pulmonary embolism (3%) had normal plasma D-dimer levels. Twenty-six of these patients had acute pulmonary embolism and the other nine had subacute or chronic pulmonary embolism. Thirteen of the 26 acute cases were in patients with hematological cancer. Most patients (23/35, 66%) had subsegmental or segmental pulmonary embolism. Only one patient had pulmonary embolism in the main pulmonary arteries. Although it is uncommon (3%), cancer patients with radiologic evidence of pulmonary embolism can present with normal D-dimer levels. Recognizing the possibility of this uncommon occurrence is critical in the decision process for ordering diagnostic tests for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism.

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

BACKGROUND

Accurate risk stratification of pulmonary embolism (PE) can reduce unnecessary imaging. We investigated the extent to which the American College of Physicians (ACP) guideline for evaluation of patients with suspected PE could be applied to cancer patients in the emergency department of a comprehensive cancer center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from cancer patients who underwent CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) between August 1, 2015, and October 31, 2015, were collected. We assessed each patient's diagnostic workup for its adherence to the ACP guideline in terms of clinical risk stratification and age-adjusted d-dimer level and the degree to which these factors were associated with PE.

RESULTS

Of the 380 patients identified, 213 (56%) underwent CTPA indicated per the ACP guideline, and 78 (21%) underwent CTPA not indicated per the guideline. Only one of the patients who underwent nonindicated CTPA had a PE. Fifty-seven patients underwent unnecessary d-dimer evaluation, and 71 patients with negative d-dimer test results underwent nonindicated CTPA. PEs were found in 6 of 108 (6%) low-risk patients, 22 of 219 (10%) intermediate-risk patients, and 13 of 53 (25%) high-risk patients. The ACP guideline had negative predictive value of 99% (95% confidence interval: 93%-100%) and sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval: 86%-100%) in predicting PE.

CONCLUSION

The ACP guideline has good sensitivity for detecting PE in cancer patients and thus can be applied in this population. Compliance with the ACP guideline when evaluating cancer patients with suspected PE could reduce the use of unnecessary imaging and laboratory studies.