Extensive screening for occult malignancy in unprovoked venous thromboembolism: A meta-analysis. Issue 157 (September 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhou, Min; Zhang, Liyong; Ding, Yong; Wang, Yonggang; Yan, Dong; Lin, Changpo; Shi, Zhenyu; Fu, Weiguo
• Is Part Of: Thrombosis research. Issue 157(2017)
• Page Start: 147
• Page End: 153
• Publication Date: 2017-09
• Subjects: Venous thromboembolism -- Occult malignancy -- Limited screening strategy -- Extensive screening strategy -- Meta-analysis; Thrombosis -- Periodicals; 616.135
• DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.07.019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0049-3848

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and sensitivity of an extensive screening strategy for occult malignant diseases in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and relevant article references. Meta-analysis was used to pool weighted relative risks (RR) for the rate of missed diagnosis, all-cause mortality, and cancer-related mortality. Heterogeneity test was performed using the inconsistency index. Furthermore, pooled analysis of the sensitivity and the proportion of false-positive findings of PET/CT were conducted. Results: A total of 5 controlled studies were included with 1, 115 and 1, 159 unprovoked VTE patients receiving limited or extensive screening strategy, respectively. The risk of missed diagnosis (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20–1.28; P = 0.15) was not significantly different between the limited and extensive screening group. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.27; P = 0.44) and cancer-related mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.46–1.62; P = 0.65) between the two groups. The pooled sensitivity and proportion of false-positive findings of PET/CT as a screening tool for occult malignancy in patients with unprovoked VTE was 95% (95% CI, 38%–100%) and 33% (95% CI, 20%–47%), respectively. Conclusions: Extensive screening strategy did not show a clinically significant benefit over limited screening strategy. Considering the high cost and the additional physical and emotional harm, current evidence did not support extensive screening for each patient in the setting. Highlights: There was no significant difference in the risk of missed diagnosis between the extensive and limited groups. There was also no significant difference in all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality between the two groups. The sensitivity and proportion of false-positive findings of PET/CT was 95% and 33%, respectively. Considering the high cost and extra harm, current evidence did not support extensive screening for each patient.