Clinical decision rule and D-dimer have lower clinical utility to exclude pulmonary embolism in cancer patients

Summary

Patients with malignancy frequently present with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the safe and efficient combination of a clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer test to rule out PE performs less well in patients with malignancy. We examined potential explanations and analysed whether elevating the D-dimer cut-off could improve the clinical utility. We used data on consecutive patients with suspected PE included in a multicenter management study. The performance of the Wells CDR and the D-dimer test was compared between patients with and without malignancy and multivariable analysis was used to compare the weights of the CDR variables. Furthermore, we combined the CDR (cut-off ≤4) with different D-dimer cut-off levels for the exclusion of PE. Of 3,306 patients with suspected PE, 475 (14%) had cancer. The Wells rule variables were less diagnostic in cancer patients. Increasing the D-dimer cut-off level to 700 μg/l for all ages or using an age-dependent cut-off resulted in an increase in the proportion of patients in whom PE could be excluded from 8.4% to 13% and 12%, respectively. The corresponding false-negative rates were 1.6% (95% confidence interval 0.3–8.7%) and 0.0% (0.0–6.3%). The Wells CDR and D-dimer perform less well in patients with suspected PE if they have cancer. Individual variables in the Wells rule are less diagnostic in cancer patients than in non-cancer patients with suspected PE. A CDR combined with an age-dependent D-dimer cut-off shows a modest improvement of the strategy in cancer patients.

Keywords

Pulmonary embolism - venous thromboembolism - D-dimer - clinical decision rule - malignancy

• References

• 1 Blom JW, Doggen CJ, Osanto S. et al. Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis. J Am Med Assoc 2005; 293: 715-722.
• 2 The Christopher study investigators. van Belle A, Buller HR, Huisman MV. et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 295: 172-179.
• 3 Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Piccioli A. et al. Recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding complications during anticoagulant treatment in patients with cancer and venous thrombosis. Blood 2002; 100: 3484-3488.
• 4 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M. et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 98-107.
• 5 Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O. et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1760-1768.
• 6 Sohne M, Kruip MJ, Nijkeuter M. et al. Accuracy of clinical decision rule, D-dimer and spiral computed tomography in patients with malignancy, previous venous thromboembolism, COPD or heart failure and in older patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4: 1042-1046.
• 7 Di Nisio M, Sohne M, Kamphuisen PW. et al. D-Dimer test in cancer patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2005; 3: 1239-1242.
• 8 King V, Vaze AA, Moskowitz CS. et al. D-dimer assay to exclude pulmonary embolism in high-risk oncologic population: correlation with CT pulmonary angiography in an urgent care setting. Radiology 2008; 247: 854-861.
• 9 Righini M, Le Gal G, De Lucia S. et al. Clinical usefulness of D-dimer testing in cancer patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost 2006; 95: 715-719.
• 10 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M. et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 416-420.
• 11 Douma RA, Le Gal G, Sohne M. et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off levels increase the ability to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in older patients: a retrospective analysis of three large management study cohorts. Br Med J. 2010 in press.
• 12 Klok FA, Karami DR, Nijkeuter M. et al. Alternative diagnosis other than pulmonary embolism as a subjective variable in the Wells clinical decision rule: not so bad after all. J Thromb Haemost 2007; 5: 1079-1080.
• 13 Di Nisio M, Rutjes AW, Buller HR. Combined use of clinical pretest probability and D-dimer test in cancer patients with clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4: 52-57.
• 14 Carrier M, Lee AY, Bates SM. et al. Accuracy and usefulness of a clinical prediction rule and D-dimer testing in excluding deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients. Thromb Res 2008; 123: 177-183.
• 15 Kruip MJ, Leclercq MG, van der Heul C. et al. Diagnostic strategies for excluding pulmonary embolism in clinical outcome studies. A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 941-951.
• 16 Henry JW, Relyea B, Stein PD. Continuing risk of thromboemboli among patients with normal pulmonary angiograms. Chest 1995; 107: 1375-1378.
• 17 Oya M, Akiyama Y, Okuyama T. et al. High Preoperative Plasma D-dimer Level is Associated with Advanced Tumor Stage and Short Survival After Curative Resection in Patients with Colorectal Cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2001; 31: 388-394.
• 18 Blackwell K, Haroon Z, Broadwater G. et al. Plasma D-Dimer Levels in Operable Breast Cancer Patients Correlate With Clinical Stage and Axillary Lymph Node Status. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 600.
• 19 Dirix LY, Salgado R, Weytjens R. et al. Plasma fibrin D-dimer levels correlate with tumour volume, progression rate and survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2002; 86: 389-395.
• 20 Sadouk M, Desmarais S, Patenaude JV. et al. Comparison of diagnostic performance of three new fast D-dimer assays in the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis. Clin Chem 2000; 46: 286-287.
• 21 Di Nisio M, Squizzato A, Rutjes AW. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer test for exclusion of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review. J Thromb Haemost 2007; 5: 296-304.
• 22 Djurabi RK, Klok FA, Nijkeuter M. et al. Comparison of the clinical usefulness of two quantitative D-Dimer tests in patients with a low clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res 2009; 123: 771-774.