Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38365812›Full record

ReviewCardio-oncology (London, England)2024

Pericardial effusion in oncological patients: current knowledge and principles of management.

S Mori, M Bertamino, L Guerisoli, S Stratoti, C Canale, P Spallarossa, I Porto, P Ameri

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S MoriDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
M BertaminoDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
L GuerisoliDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
S StratotiDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
C CanaleIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
P SpallarossaIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
I PortoDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
P AmeriDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy. pietroameri@unige.it.
University of Genoa · ITOspedale Policlinico San Martino · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis article provides an up-to-date overview of pericardial effusion in oncological practice and a guidance on its management. Furthermore, it addresses the question of when malignancy should be suspected in case of newly diagnosed pericardial effusion. MAIN BODY: Cancer-related pericardial effusion is commonly the result of localization of lung and breast cancer, melanoma, or lymphoma to the pericardium via direct invasion, lymphatic dissemination, or hematogenous spread. Several cancer therapies may also cause pericardial effusion, most often during or shortly after administration. Pericardial effusion following radiation therapy may instead develop after years. Other diseases, such as infections, and, rarely, primary tumors of the pericardium complete the spectrum of the possible etiologies of pericardial effusion in oncological patients. The diagnosis of cancer-related pericardial effusion is usually incidental, but cancer accounts for approximately one third of all cardiac tamponades. Drainage, which is mainly attained by pericardiocentesis, is needed when cancer or cancer treatment-related pericardial effusion leads to hemodynamic impairment. Placement of a pericardial catheter for 2-5 days is advised after pericardial fluid removal. In contrast, even a large pericardial effusion should be conservatively managed when the patient is stable, although the best frequency and timing of monitoring by echocardiography in this context are yet to be established. Pericardial effusion secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitors typically responds to corticosteroid therapy. Pericardiocentesis may also be considered to confirm the presence of neoplastic cells in the pericardial fluid, but the yield of cytological examination is low. In case of newly found pericardial effusion in individuals without active cancer and/or recent cancer treatment, a history of malignancy, unremitting or recurrent course, large effusion or presentation with cardiac tamponade, incomplete response to empirical therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, and hemorrhagic fluid at pericardiocentesis suggest a neoplastic etiology.

Indexed as

CancerCardio-oncologyManagement.PericardiocentesisPericardiumTamponade

Identifiers

PMID38365812
PMCPMC10870633
OpenAlexW4391880625

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.