scholarly journals Meta-Analysis of VTE Risk: Ovarian Cancer Patients by Stage, Histology, Cytoreduction, and Ascites at Diagnosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Kristin S. Weeks ◽  
Emma Herbach ◽  
Megan McDonald ◽  
Mary Charlton ◽  
Marin L. Schweizer
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cancer Stage ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Incomplete Cytoreduction

Venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) have been a leading secondary cause of death among ovarian cancer patients, prompting multiple studies of risk factors. The objective of this meta-analysis is to quantify the associations between VTE and the most commonly reported risk factors among ovarian cancer patients. PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were used to identify observational studies. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed quality via the Newcastle–Ottawa tool. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios for VTE with each of the following exposures: advanced cancer stage, clear cell histology, serous histology, ascites at diagnosis, and complete cytoreduction. The I2 and Q tests were used to evaluate heterogeneity. Twenty cohort studies with 6,324 total ovarian cancer patients, 769 of whom experienced a VTE, were included. The odds of VTE in ovarian cancer patients were higher among patients with cancer stage III/IV (versus cancer stage I/II, pooled odds ratio (OR) 2.73; 95% CI 1.84–4.06; I2= 64%), clear cell (versus nonclear cell) histology (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.55–2.89; I2 = 6%), and ascites (versus no ascites) at diagnosis (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.51–2.96; I2 = 32%). Serous (versus nonserous) histology (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.91–1.75; I2 = 42%) and complete (versus incomplete) cytoreduction (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.27–4.11; I2 = 88%) were not associated with VTE. This meta-analysis quantifies the significantly elevated odds of VTE in ovarian cancer patients with advanced stage at diagnosis, clear cell histology, and ascites at diagnosis. Further studies are needed to account for confounders and inform clinical decision-making tools.

Abstract P126: Risk Factors For Hypertensive Emergencies: A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis

Hypertension ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Benenson ◽  
Frederick Waldron
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Target Organ Damage ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Hypertensive Crisis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Hypertensive Urgency

Background: Hypertensive emergency (HTNE) is a subtype of hypertensive crisis. In contrast to hypertensive urgency (HTNU), which is a severely elevated BP without acute target organ damage (TOD), HTNE presents with the equally high BP in the presence of potentially life-threatening acute TOD such as myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary edema and acute kidney injury. Knowledge on risk factors of HTNE may be used in clinical decision-making to differentiate between HTNE and HTNU in patients presenting with markedly high BP. Method: A search of 4 databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and CINAHL), 7 grey literature sites and relevant organizational websites revealed 11,387 titles. After duplicates were removed, 9,183 studies were screened by the title and abstract for eligibility. Forty full-text articles were retrieved, and each was assessed for eligibility. Fourteen full-text studies that included 10,376 participants were critically appraised and included in this review. The extracted data were pooled to meta-analysis, where HTNU patients (BP ≥180/110 mmHg without acute TOD) were compared to HTNE patients (BP ≥180/110 mmHg with acute TOD) based on several modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Results: Patients with HTNE had higher mean systolic (MD 2.413, 95% CI 0.477,4.350) and diastolic BP (MD 2.043, 95% CI 0.624,3.461) compared to patients with HTNU. HTNE were more common in men (OR 1.390, 95% CI 1.207,1.601), older patients (mean diff 5.282, 95% CI 3.229, 7.335). Diabetes (OR 1.723, 95% CI 1.485, 2.000), hyperlipidemia (OR 2.028, 95% CI 1.642, 2.505), and chronic kidney disease (OR 2.448, 95% CI 1.169, 5.124) increased the risk of HTNE. Non-adherence to antihypertensives (OR 0.939, 95% CI 0.647,1.363) and HTN diagnosis unawareness (OR 0.807, 95% CI 0.564, 1.154) did not change the odds of HTNE. Conclusion: Systolic and diastolic BP are marginally higher in patients with HTNE compared to patients with HTNU. Since these differences are small and not clinically significant, clinicians should rely on other symptoms and signs to differentiate between HTNU and HTNE. Measures to prevent and treat cardiometabolic comorbidities should be implemented in order to mitigate the risk of HTNE.

Correlation of tumor-profiling results with drug selection in ovarian cancer patients.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15555-e15555
Author(s):  
Laura K. Shawver ◽  
Deborah A. Zajchowski
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Protein Levels ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
Therapy Choice ◽  
Tumor Profile ◽  
Tumor Profiling

e15555 Background: With the aim of informing therapy-selection decisions for ovarian cancer patients, we have profiled tumors from 190 ovarian cancer patients since 2008 for expression of 25 biomarkers associated with drug response. For 48 patients with mature follow-up data, we asked how frequently the drugs designated as likely to be of clinical benefit based on the tumor profile were administered. Methods: The tumor profiles and therapeutic choices of 48 patients that received a median of 2 (range 1-9) prior therapies for recurrent disease were extracted from our privacy-protected database. Protein levels of drug sensitivity (ER/PR, hormonal agents; TOPO1, topotecan/irinotecan (T-I); TOP2A, liposomal doxorubicin/etoposide (PLD-E); SPARC, nab-paclitaxel, N-P) and resistance (TS, pemetrexed/capecitabine (PC); RRM1, gemcitabine (G)) markers in each tumor were compared to expression in the ovarian cancer population to assign drugs likely to be associated with clinical benefit (values ≥ 25th percentile: sensitivity; ≤ 25th percentile: resistance). Results: A median of two drugs (range 1-5) were prioritized for each patient based on marker expression. 38 patients received one of the 6 drug classes evaluated by the profile. Of those 38, 22 (58%) received a therapy that correlated with the profile and 16 (42%) received drugs that were not prioritized by the profile. G and PLD were most frequently administered both before (68%) and after (48%) profiling but were supported by the tumor profile in only 40% (4/10: G) and 30% (3/10: PLD-E) of the cases. These frequencies are similar to the patient fraction (26-34%) in which those drugs were each prioritized by profiling, suggesting that the profile is not influencing therapy choice. In contrast, 11 of the 14 patients who received N-P, T-I, or hormonal agents had tumor profiles that prioritized those agents, a frequency of profile match to the treatment received that is higher than expected based on the patient fraction assigned to each therapy. Conclusions: These results require confirmation in a much larger study, but suggest that tumor profiling may guide clinical decision-making for some therapies, although frequently used drugs are often given regardless of the tumor profiling evidence.

Thrombosis in Cancer Patients Treated with Hematopoietic Growth Factors - A Meta-Analysis

1996 ◽  
Vol 75 (02) ◽  
pp. 368-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Barbul ◽  
G Finazzi ◽  
A Grassi ◽  
R Marchioli
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Hematopoietic Growth Factors ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Cytotoxic Treatment ◽  
Pertinent Data ◽  
Thrombotic Complications ◽  
Vascular Occlusions

SummaryHematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are largely used in patients with cancer undergoing cytotoxic treatment to accelerate neutrophil recovery and decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Clinical practice guidelines for their use have been recently established (1), taking into account clinical benefit, but also cost and toxicity. Vascular occlusions have been recently reported among the severe reactions associated with the use of CSFs, in anedoctal case reports (2, 3), consecutive case series (4) and randomized clinical trial (5, 6). However, the role of CSFs in the pathogenesis of thrombotic complications is difficult to ascertain, because pertinent data are scanty and widely distributed over a number of heterogenous investigations. We report here a systematic review of relevant articles, with the aims to estimate the prevalence of thrombosis associated with the use of CSFs and to assess if this rate is significantly higher than that observed in cancer patients not receiving CSFs.

scholarly journals 798. Metronidazole Exposure Prior to Clostridiodes difficile Infection (CDI) is a Risk Factor for Severe C. difficile Disease in Cancer Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S442-S443
Author(s):  
Denise Marie A Francisco ◽  
Liangliang Zhang ◽  
Ying Jiang ◽  
Adilene Olvera ◽  
Eduardo Yepez Guevara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Study Investigator ◽  
Severity Levels ◽  
Permutation Analysis

Abstract Background Antibiotic use is a risk factor for CDI. Few studies have correlated use of prior antibiotics with CDI severity in cancer patients. This study identified clinical and microbiology risk factors associated with severe CDI in patients with cancer. We hypothesized that previous antibiotic exposure and microbiome composition at time of CDI presentation, are risk factors for severe disease in cancer patients. Methods This non-interventional, prospective, single-center cohort study examined patients with cancer who had their first episode or first recurrence of CDI between Oct 27, 2016 and Jul 1, 2019. C. difficile was identified using nucleic acid amplification testing. Multivariate analysis was used to determine significant clinical risk factors for severe CDI as defined in the 2018 IDSA/SHEA guidelines. Alpha, and beta diversities were calculated to measure the average species diversity and the overall microbial composition. Differential abundance analysis and progressive permutation analysis were used to single out the significant microbial features that differed across CDI severity levels. Results Patient (n=200) demographics show mean age of 60 yrs., 53% female, majority White (76%) and non-Hispanic (85%). Prior 90 day metronidazole use (Odds Ratio OR 4.68 [1.47-14.91] p0.009) was a significant risk factor for severe CDI. Other factors included Horn’s Index > 2 (OR 7.75 [1.05-57.35] p0.045), Leukocytosis (OR 1.29 [1.16-1.43] p< 0.001), Neutropenia (OR 6.01 [1.34-26.89] p0.019) and Serum Creatinine >0.95 mg/dL (OR 25.30 [8.08-79.17] p< 0.001). Overall, there were no significant differences in alpha and beta diversity between severity levels. However, when identifying individual microbial features, the high presence of Bacteroides uniformis, Ruminococceae, Citrobacter koseri and Salmonella were associated with protection from severe CDI (p< 0.05). Table 1 - Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with severe CDI Figure 1. Microbiome features identified by progressive permutation analysis as seen in a volcano plot. Conclusion A number of risk factors for severe CDI were identified among this population, including prior 90 day metronidazole use. Also, increased relative abundance of Bacteroides uniformis, Ruminococceae, Citrobacter koseri and Salmonella were linked to protection from severe CDI. Reducing metronidazole use in patients with cancer may help prevent subsequent severe CDI. Disclosures Adilene Olvera, MPH MLS (ASCP), MERK (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Kevin W. Garey, PharmD, MS, FASHP, Merck & Co. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Ryan J. Dillon, MSc, Merck & Co., Inc., (Employee) Engels N. Obi, PhD, Merck & Co. (Employee)

Abstract P111: Comparative Efficacy Of Bisoprolol Compared To Other Selective Beta-1 Blockers In Patients With Hypertension - A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies

Hypertension ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Uday M Jadhav ◽  
Tiny Nair ◽  
SANDEEP BANSAL ◽  
Saumitra Ray
Keyword(s):  
Lipid Profile ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hdl Cholesterol ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Favourable Effect ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Cholesterol Levels

Introduction: Selective beta-1 blockers (s-BBs) are used in the management of hypertension (HT) in specific subsets. Studies comparing the potency of blood pressure (BP) lowering with different s-BBs are sparse. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of bisoprolol compared to other s-BBs (Atenolol, Betaxolol, Esmolol, Acebutolol, Metoprolol, Nebivolol) in HT patients by examining their effect on BP, heart rate (HR) and metabolic derangements, by examining the evidences reported in observational studies. Methods: Electronic databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program and 12 PV databases were systematically searched from inception to October 2019. Observational studies that compared bisoprolol with other s-BBs in patients with HT were evaluated in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Pooled data were calculated using random-effects model for meta-analysis in terms of mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each outcome. Outcomes of interest were BP, HR and lipid profile. Results: Four observational studies which compared bisoprolol with other s-BBs (nebivolol and atenolol) were included in this meta-analysis. Significant reduction was observed in office diastolic BP [MD: -1.70; 95% CI: -2.68,-0.72; P <0.01] among arterial HT patients treated with bisoprolol for 26 weeks (w) compared to those treated with other s-BBs. HT patients treated with bisoprolol for 26 w showed significant reduction in HR [MD: -2.20; 95% CI: -3.57,-0.65; P <0.01] and office HR [MD: -2.55; 95% CI: -3.57,-1.53; P <0.01] than other s-BBs. HDL cholesterol levels increased significantly in essential HT patients treated with bisoprolol at 26 w [MD: 7.17; 95% CI: 1.90,12.45; P <0.01], 78 w [MD: 11.70; 95% CI: 4.49,18.91; P <0.01] and 104 w [MD: 10.20, 95% CI: 4.49,18.91; P <0.01] compared to other s-BBs. Conclusion: Our results suggests that bisoprolol is superior to other s-BBs in reducing BP and HR. Bisoprolol also had a favourable effect on lipid profile shown by increase in HDL cholesterol. This meta-analysis emphasizes the efficacy of bisoprolol over other s-BBs, which aids clinical decision making in treatment of patients with HT.

A meta-analysis of confidence and judgment accuracy in clinical decision making.

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J. Miller ◽  
Elliot S. Spengler ◽  
Paul M. Spengler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Judgment Accuracy

scholarly journals Factors predict postoperative morbidity in advanced stage ovarian cancer patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malika Kengsakul ◽  
Gatske M. Nieuwenhuyzen-de Boer ◽  
Suwasin Udomkarnjananun ◽  
Stephen J. Kerr ◽  
Christa D. Niehot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Postoperative Morbidity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Advanced Stage

scholarly journals Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19–Infected Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Han Han ◽  
Tianhui He ◽  
Kristen E Labbe ◽  
Adrian V Hernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Previous studies have indicated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with cancer have a high fatality rate. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies that reported fatalities in COVID-19 patients with cancer. A comprehensive meta-analysis that assessed the overall case fatality rate and associated risk factors was performed. Using individual patient data, univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for each variable with outcomes. Results We included 15 studies with 3019 patients, of which 1628 were men; 41.0% were from the United Kingdom and Europe, followed by the United States and Canada (35.7%), and Asia (China, 23.3%). The overall case fatality rate of COVID-19 patients with cancer measured 22.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17.3% to 28.0%). Univariate analysis revealed age (OR = 3.57, 95% CI = 1.80 to 7.06), male sex (OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.13), and comorbidity (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.04 to 3.85) were associated with increased risk of severe events (defined as the individuals being admitted to the intensive care unit, or requiring invasive ventilation, or death). In multivariable analysis, only age greater than 65 years (OR = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.45 to 6.88) and being male (OR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.87) were associated with increased risk of severe events. Conclusions Our analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 patients with cancer have a higher fatality rate compared with that of COVID-19 patients without cancer. Age and sex appear to be risk factors associated with a poorer prognosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document