ArticleBlood advances2021
Clinical factors and outcomes of subsegmental pulmonary embolism in cancer patients.
Article in Blood advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2026Pooled it
- Management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Perspectives on optimizing current therapeutics with a focus on factor XI inhibition.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Review
- Importance of Pulmonary Embolism Anatomy in Ventilatory Distress and Haemodynamics.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Tool for Detection and Worklist Prioritization Reduces Time to Diagnosis of Incidental Pulmonary Embolism at CT.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2023Article
- Treatment and secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the cancer population, patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are considered to have a threefold increased risk of mortality compared with those without VTE. With the advent of modern computed tomography (CT), the rate of diagnosis of subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) has increased, likely as a result of improved visualization of the peripheral pulmonary arteries. The clinical significance of SSPE remains unclear because of the lack of randomized controlled clinical trials. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence and risk factors of recurrent proximal PE within 12 months of diagnosis of SSPE in cancer. We performed a retrospective analysis of 206 adult cancer patients who were diagnosed with SSPE from 2014 to 2016 at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. At the time of SSPE diagnosis, the majority had metastatic cancer, 108 patients (53.2%) were undergoing chemotherapy, and 23 patients (11.2%) had a history of VTE. Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2. Sixty-seven percent of SSPE was discovered incidentally on restaging CT scans, with the majority being a single and isolated event (70.9%). Within 12 months of SSPE diagnosis, 18 patients (8.7%) were found to have a recurrent PE. The patients treated with anticoagulation had a lower rate of PE recurrence (8% vs 13% in those not treated with anticoagulation). Treatment with anticoagulation did not appear to have a significant impact on overall survival (P = .48) when adjusted for ECOG performance status and cancer stage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.