4.6 Article

Venous thrombosis in pancreaticobiliary tract cancer: outcome and prognostic factors

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 555-562

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jth.12843

关键词

biliary tract cancer; comparative study; mortality; pancreatic cancer; venous thrombosis

资金

  1. Karen Elise Jensen Foundation
  2. Toyota Denmark Foundation
  3. Arvid Nielson Foundation
  4. Ejner Willumsen Foundation
  5. Civil Engineer Bent Bogh and Wife Foundation
  6. Blegdalens Erhvervs og Uddannelses Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe differences in outcome among cancer patients with incidental vs. symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) are unknown. In this study, patients with extrahepatic pancreaticobiliary tract cancer (PBC) were selected for a prospective cohort study between February 2008 and February 2011. MethodsAt the time of cancer diagnosis, all patients were examined for deep vein thrombosis with bilateral compression ultrasonography (biCUS). Computed tomography pulmonary angiography was also performed to diagnose pulmonary embolisms. After inclusion, the patients were followed up with clinical examinations, blood collections, and biCUS. ResultsA total of 121 PBC patients were enrolled. At the time of cancer diagnosis, 15 patients had experienced a VTE (12.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI]7.1-19.6), including six symptomatic and nine incidental cases. A total of 25 first-time VTE events were identified (20.7%; 95%CI13.8-29.0). Patients with a VTE had reduced survival, with a median overall survival (OS) of 4.4months (95%CI2.2-11.5). The median OS of the patients with incidental VTE was 3.0months (95%CI0.1-15.0), which was not different from the median OS of the patients with symptomatic VTE (5.0months; 95%CI2.1-14.5). The median OS was 11.9months (95%CI8.1-14.7) in the PBC patients with no VTEs. ConclusionThe occurrence of a VTE event in a PBC patient within the first months of the disease is associated with significantly increased mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据