Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37280671›Full record

ArticleThrombosis journal2023

Prognosis of incidental pulmonary embolism vs. symptomatic pulmonary embolism in cancer patients: a single-center retrospective cohort study in China.

Yanfei Wang, Zhongfen Liu, Qiuyu Li, Lina Xia, Yunyi Wang, Danfeng Jiang, Xiaoyan Chen, Yanqun Zheng, Wei Liu, Dan Wang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Thrombosis journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yanfei Wang *Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Day Oncology Unit, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Zhongfen Liu *Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Department of Supportive Care, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Qiuyu LiPeking University Third Hospital, Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing, China.
Lina XiaPeking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Department of Supportive Care, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Yunyi WangPeking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Day Oncology Unit, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Danfeng JiangPeking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Day Oncology Unit, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyan ChenPeking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Day Oncology Unit, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Yanqun ZhengPeking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Day Oncology Unit, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Wei LiuPeking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Day Oncology Unit, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Dan WangPeking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Medical Department, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China. hsm20072007@163.com.
Dong XuePeking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Cancer Institute, Medical Department, Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Pathogenesis and Transformation Research, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China. xuedong123321@hotmail.com.
Peking University Cancer Hospital · CNPeking University · CNMinistry of Education · ETPeking University Third Hospital · CN

Funding

Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program PG2020023Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals' Mission Plan SML20181102Science Foundation of Peking University Cancer Hospital 2021-23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe incidence of incidental pulmonary embolism (IPE) has greatly increased, but its clinical characteristics and outcomes are still controversial. This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes between cancer patients with IPE and patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism (SPE). PATIENTS/

methodsClinical data of 180 consecutive patients with cancer complicated with pulmonary embolism admitted to Beijing Cancer Hospital from July 2011 to December 2019 were retrospectively collected and analysed. General characteristics, diagnosis time of pulmonary embolism (PE), location of PE, concurrent deep venous thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment, impact of PE on anti-tumor treatment, recurrent venous thromboembolism, rate of bleeding after anticoagulation therapy, survival and risk factors of IPE were compared with SPE.

resultsOf 180 patients, 88 (49%) had IPEs and 92 (51%) had SPEs. Patients with IPE and SPE did not differ in age, sex, tumor type, or tumor stage. Median diagnosis times of IPE and SPE after cancer were 108 (45, 432) days and 90 (7, 383) days, respectively. Compared to SPE, IPE tended to be central (44% versus 26%; P < 0.001), isolated (31.8% versus 0.0%; P < 0.001), and unilateral (67.1% versus 12.8%; P < 0.00). The rate of bleeding after anticoagulation therapy did not differ between IPE and SPE. Patients with IPE had a better prognosis than patients with SPE in terms of 30-, and 90-day mortality, as well as overall survival after diagnosis of PE (median: 314.5 vs. 192.0 days, log-rank P = 0.004) and cancer (median: 630.0 vs. 450.5 days, log-rank P = 0.018). SPE (compared to IPE) was an independent risk factor for poor survival after diagnosis of PE in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.564, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.008-2.425, p = 0.046).

conclusionsIPE accounts for nearly one half of PE cases among Chinese cancer patients. With active anticoagulation treatment, IPE is expected to achieve better survival rates than SPE.

Indexed as

CancerPrognosisPulmonary embolismSurvivalThrombosis

Identifiers

PMID37280671
PMCPMC10245445
OpenAlexW4379537214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.