BackgroundThe recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging... Show moreBackgroundThe recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE).AimTo externally validate the performance of 4PEPS in an independent cohort.MethodsIn this post-hoc analysis of the prospective diagnostic management YEARS study, the primary outcome measures were discrimination, calibration, efficiency (proportion of imaging tests potentially avoided), and failure rate (venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis at baseline or follow-up in patients with a negative 4PEPS algorithm). Multiple imputation was used for missing 4PEPS items. Based on 4PEPS, PE was considered ruled out in patients with a very low clinical pre-test probability (CPTP) without D-dimer testing, in patients with a low CPTP and D-dimer <1000 μg/L, and in patients with a moderate CPP and D-dimer below the age-adjusted threshold.ResultsOf the 3465 patients, 474 (14 %) were diagnosed with VTE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up. Discriminatory performance of the 4PEPS items was good (area under ROC-curve, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.80–0.84) as was calibration. Based on 4PEPS, PE could be considered ruled out without imaging in 58 % (95%CI 57–60) of patients (efficiency), for an overall failure rate of 1.3 % (95%CI 0.86–1.9).ConclusionIn this retrospective external validation, 4PEPS appeared to safely rule out PE with a high efficiency. Nevertheless, although not exceeding the failure rate margin by ISTH standards, the observed failure rate in our analysis appeared to be higher than in the original 4PEPS derivation and validation study. This highlights the importance of a prospective outcome study. Show less
BackgroundCancer is suggested to confer thromboembolic and bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).ObjectivesWe aimed to describe current anticoagulant practice in patients with AF... Show moreBackgroundCancer is suggested to confer thromboembolic and bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).ObjectivesWe aimed to describe current anticoagulant practice in patients with AF and active cancer, present incidences of thromboembolic and bleeding complications, and evaluate the association between cancer type or anticoagulant management strategy with AF-related complications.MethodsThis retrospective study identified patients with AF and active cancer in 2 hospitals between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017. Follow-up lasted for 2 years. Data on cancer and anticoagulant treatment were collected. The outcomes of interest included ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB/MB). Incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) with corresponding 95% Cis were estimated.ResultsWe identified 878 patients with AF who developed cancer (cohort 1) and 335 patients with cancer who developed AF (cohort 2). IRs for ischemic stroke/TIA and MB/CRNMB were 3.9 (2.8-5.3) and 15.7 (13.3-18.5) for cohort 1 and 4.0 (2.2-6.7) and 16.7 (12.6-21.7) for cohort 2. 14.2% (cohort 1) and 19.1% (cohort 2) of patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 did not receive anticoagulant treatment. Withholding anticoagulants was associated with thromboembolic complications (SHR: 5.1 [3.20-8.0]). In nonanticoagulated patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of <2, IRs for stroke/TIA were 4.5 (0.75-15.0; cohort 1) and 16.0 (5.1-38.7; cohort 2).ConclusionPatients with AF and active cancer experience high rates of thromboembolic and bleeding complications, underlying the complexity of anticoagulant management in these patients. Our data suggest that the presence of cancer is an important factor in determining the indication for anticoagulants in patients with a low CHA2DS2-VASc score. Show less
Mehra, N.; Kloots, I.; Vlaming, M.; Aluwini, S.; Dewulf, E.; Oprea-Lager, D.E.; ... ; Ausems, M. 2023
Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are... Show moreBackground: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if >75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hered-itary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveil-lance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germ -line pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as fol-lows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less