Characteristics and Prognostic Factors of Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients

Optimal D-Dimer Cutoff Values for Diagnosing Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients with Comorbid Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Patients with malignancy are at high risk of venous thromboembolism, and early diagnosis is important. The Khorana score is known as a risk assessment for cancer-related thrombosis during chemotherapy, but there are still few reports on its diagnostic potential, the optimal D-dimer cutoff values for indications other than chemotherapy and the use of the Khorana score in combination with D-dimers. In this study, we examined the clinical appropriateness of increasing the D-dimer cutoff value.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 208 malignancies out of 556 patients who underwent lower extremity venous ultrasonography at our hospital over a 2-year period from January 2018 to December 2019. The optimal D-dimer cutoff value for predicting deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with malignancy was calculated by the Youden index. The usefulness of the Khorana score alone and the model combining the Khorana score with D-dimer for predicting DVT diagnosis was compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

Of 208 eligible patients, 59 (28.4%) had confirmed DVT. The optimal D-dimer cutoff value for predicting DVT comorbidity in patients with malignancy was 3.96 μg/mL. When the new D-dimer cutoff value was set at 4.0 μg/mL, the odds ratio (OR) for DVT diagnosis was 4.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10-8.55, P < 0.001), which was higher than the OR of 1.33 (95% CI: 0.98-1.81, P = 0.064) for the Khorana score. The area under the curve for the Khorana score and D-dimer was 0.714, which was significantly higher than the 0.611 for the Khorana score alone, with the difference being significantly higher at 0.103 (P = 0.004, 95% CI: 0.033-0.173).

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal D-dimer cutoff value for the diagnosis of DVT in patients with malignancy was 4.0 μg/mL. It was also suggested that the combination of the Khorana score with the D-dimer level was more accurate in diagnosing DVT than the Khorana score alone.

Unveiling the diagnostic enigma of D-dimer testing in cancer patients: Current evidence and areas of application

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a well-known risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). A combined strategy of D-dimer testing and clinical pre-test probability is usually used to exclude VTE. However, its effectiveness is diminished in cancer patients due to reduced specificity, ultimately leading to a decreased clinical utility. This review article seeks to provide a comprehensive summary of how to interpret D-dimer testing in cancer patients.

METHODS

In accordance with PRISMA standards, literature pertaining to the diagnostic and prognostic significance of D-dimer testing in cancer patients was carefully chosen from reputable sources such as PubMed and the Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

D-dimers have not only a diagnostic value in ruling out VTE but can also serve as an aid for rule-in if their values exceed 10-times the upper limit of normal. This threshold allows a diagnosis of VTE in cancer patients with a positive predictive value of more than 80%. Moreover, elevated D-dimers carry important prognostic information and are associated with VTE reoccurrence. A gradual increase in risk for all-cause death suggests that VTE is also an indicator of biologically more aggressive cancer types and advanced cancer stages. Considering the lack of standardization for D-dimer assays, it is essential for clinicians to carefully consider the variations in assay performance and the specific test characteristics of their institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardizing D-dimer assays and developing modified pretest probability models specifically for cancer patients, along with adjusted cut-off values for D-dimer testing, could significantly enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of VTE diagnosis in this population.

Dilemmas in the Choice of Adequate Therapeutic Treatment in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism—From Modern Recommendations to Clinical Application

Pulmonary thromboembolism is a very common cardiovascular disease, with a high mortality rate. Despite the clear guidelines, this disease still represents a great challenge both in diagnosis and treatment. The heterogeneous clinical picture, often without pathognomonic signs and symptoms, represents a huge differential diagnostic problem even for experienced doctors. The decisions surrounding this therapeutic regimen also represent a major dilemma in the group of patients who are hemodynamically stable at initial presentation and have signs of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction proven by echocardiography and positive biomarker values (pulmonary embolism of intermediate–high risk). Studies have shown conflicting results about the benefit of using fibrinolytic therapy in this group of patients until hemodynamic decompensation, due to the risk of major bleeding. The latest recommendations give preference to new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA), except for certain categories of patients (patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, mechanical valves, pregnancy). When using oral anticoagulant therapy, special attention should be paid to drug–drug interactions, which can lead to many complications, even to the death of the patient. Special population groups such as pregnant women, obese patients, patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and the incidence of cancer represent a great therapeutic challenge in the application of anticoagulant therapy. In these patients, not only must the effectiveness of the drugs be taken into account, but great attention must be paid to their safety and possible side effects, which is why a multidisciplinary approach is emphasized in order to provide the best therapeutic option.