4.7 Article

Prevalence and Associations of VTE in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Lung Cancer

期刊

CHEST
卷 146, 期 3, 页码 650-658

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-2379

关键词

-

资金

  1. China Key Research Projects of the 12th National Five-Year Development Plan [2011BAI11B00]
  2. Wu Jieping Medical Foundation [320.6750.12623]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of China [30810103904]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The risk of VTE before anticancer therapy in patients with lung cancer is not well defined. METHODS: A total of 673 hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were examined for VTE within 1 week aft er admission at five hospitals between January 2009 and January 2011. Additionally, VTE diagnoses within the last 3 months were reviewed. All VTE events were confirmed with imaging studies. Blood cell count and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were measured before initial treatment. RESULTS: VTE events occurred in 89 of the 673 patients (13.2%) enrolled in this study. Forty-two patients (6.2%) developed lower extremity DVT alone, 33 patients (4.9%) developed pulmonary embolism (PE) alone, and 14 patients (2.1%) developed both DVT and PE. By multivariate logistic regression analysis, distant metastasis (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9) and leukocytosis (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.4) were significantly associated with DVT, adenocarcinoma (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.4) and anemia (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-14.5) were significantly associated with PE, and an elevated CEA level in tertiles was linearly associated with PE (P for trend - .06). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the prognostic or diagnostic CEA values was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.59-0.76; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of VTE was high in patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. In patients with lung cancer, the factors associated with DVT might be different from those associated with PE. An elevated CEA level might facilitate the identification of patients at a higher risk of developing PE.

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

4.7
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