Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer‐ and venous thromboembolism (VTE)‐related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010837.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 23 agosto 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Vascular

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Lindsay Robertson

    Correspondencia a: Department of Vascular Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Su Ern Yeoh

    College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

  • Gerard Stansby

    Northern Vascular Centre, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

  • Roshan Agarwal

    Department of Oncology, Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust, Northampton, UK

Contributions of authors

LR: drafted the protocol, selected studies for inclusion, assessed the quality of studies, carried out data extraction, performed data analysis and wrote the review.
SEY: selected studies for inclusion, assessed the quality of the studies and carried out data extraction.
GS: provided clinical input into the review.
RA: contributed to the protocol and provided clinical input into the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates, The Scottish Government, UK.

    The Cochrane Vascular editorial base is supported by the Chief Scientist Office.

Declarations of interest

LR: none known.
SEY: none known.
GS: none known.
RA: none known.

Acknowledgements

The review authors would like to thank the Cochrane Vascular editorial base for their guidance for this review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2021 Oct 01

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer‐ or venous thromboembolism (VTE)‐related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE

Review

Lindsay Robertson, Cathryn Broderick, Su Ern Yeoh, Gerard Stansby

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010837.pub5

2018 Nov 08

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer‐ or venous thromboembolism (VTE)‐related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE

Review

Lindsay Robertson, Su Ern Yeoh, Cathryn Broderick, Gerard Stansby, Roshan Agarwal

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010837.pub4

2017 Aug 23

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer‐ and venous thromboembolism (VTE)‐related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE

Review

Lindsay Robertson, Su Ern Yeoh, Gerard Stansby, Roshan Agarwal

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010837.pub3

2015 Mar 06

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer‐ and venous thromboembolism (VTE)‐related mortality and morbidity in patients with unprovoked VTE

Review

Lindsay Robertson, Su Ern Yeoh, Gerard Stansby, Roshan Agarwal

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010837.pub2

2013 Nov 19

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer‐ and venous thromboembolism (VTE)‐related mortality and morbidity in patients with unprovoked VTE

Protocol

Lindsay Robertson, Roshan Agarwal, Su Ern Yeoh

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010837

Differences between protocol and review

The primary outcome 'Non‐cancer‐related mortality (death due to some cause other than cancer or cancer‐related treatment)' was re‐phrased to 'all‐cause mortality' for clarity.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, Outcome 1 Cancer‐related mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, Outcome 1 Cancer‐related mortality.

Comparison 1 Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, Outcome 2 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: type of cancer.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, Outcome 2 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: type of cancer.

Comparison 1 Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, Outcome 3 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: stage of cancer.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, Outcome 3 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: stage of cancer.

Comparison 1 Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, Outcome 4 Frequency of underlying cancer diagnosis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, Outcome 4 Frequency of underlying cancer diagnosis.

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 2 Cancer‐related mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 2 Cancer‐related mortality.

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 3 Venous thromboembolism‐related morbidity.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 3 Venous thromboembolism‐related morbidity.

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 4 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: type of cancer.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 4 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: type of cancer.

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 5 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: stage of cancer.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 5 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: stage of cancer.

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 6 Frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, Outcome 6 Frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion

Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion

Patient or population: people with unprovoked VTE

Setting: hospital

Intervention: extensive tests

Comparison: tests at the physician's discretion

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with tests at physician's discretion

Risk with extensive tests

All‐cause mortality1

See comment

See comment

See comment

See comment

See comment

No study measured this outcome.

Cancer‐related mortality2

Study population

OR 0.49
(0.15 to 1.67)

396
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low3

40 per 1000

20 per 1000
(6 to 65)

VTE‐related mortality4

See comment

See comment

See comment

See comment

See comment

No study measured this outcome.

VTE‐related morbidity5

See comment

See comment

See comment

See comment

See comment

No study measured this outcome.

Stage of cancer ‐ early6

Study population

OR 5.00
(1.05 to 23.76)

201

(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low7

20 per 1000

91 per 1000
(21 to 322)

Stage of cancer ‐ advanced8

Study population

OR 0.25
(0.03 to 2.28)

201
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low7

39 per 1000

10 per 1000
(1 to 85)

Time to cancer diagnosis9

See comments

See comments

See comments

201

(1 RCT)

See comments

Time to cancer diagnosis (measured from time of diagnosis of VTE) measured in 1 study (Piccioli 2004b), and reported as a mean of 1 month with extensive tests compared to 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion (P < 0.001). Standard deviations for these means not given. Attempts to contact author for these data made but no response received.

Frequency of underlying cancer diagnosis10

60 per 1000

78 per 1000
(36 to 158)

OR 1.32
(0.59 to 2.93)

396
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low3

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 Death due to any cause.
2 Defined as death due to malignant disease itself, or death due to complications of treatments or procedures to diagnose or treat cancer.
3 Risk of bias was high in two included studies (Piccioli 2004b; Prandoni 2016). Piccioli 2004b terminated early after inclusion of only 201 participants after 5 years for several reasons. First, only five of more than 40 potential participating centres could contribute participants to study. Second, some medical ethics committees rejected the protocol because of absence of screening for occult cancer in the control group, other centres could not start because the proposed extensive screening was judged unethical. Finally, identification of cancer at an apparent early stage in extensive screening group led to an increasing tendency among physicians in participating hospitals to initiate screening for cancer in control participants. Prandoni 2016 study terminated early due to low recruitment rate and failure to show an appreciable advantage of CT‐based strategy over control strategy for detection of cancer.
4 Fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). PE diagnosed "on the basis of a lung scan indicating a high probability of its presence, as indicated by the presence of new or enlarged areas of segmental perfusion defects with ventilation‐perfusion mismatch; an abnormal perfusion scan with documentation of new or recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT); the presence of non‐enhancing filling defects in the central pulmonary vasculature on helical computed tomography; a finding of intraluminal filling defects on pulmonary angiography; or evidence of fresh PE at autopsy" (Lee 2003b). Fatal PE including probable fatal PE and unexplained sudden death used if reported, as defined by individual studies.
5 Frequency of recurrent VTE. Recurrent PE or DVT diagnosed if a previously compressible proximal venous segment or segments could no longer be compressed on ultrasonography or if there were constant intraluminal filling defects in two or more projections on venography. Unequivocal extension of the thrombus required for diagnosis of recurrence if results abnormal on previous testing (Lee 2003b)
6 Early‐stage malignancies, defined as T1 or T2 without locoregional or distant metastases (N0 M0).
7 Quality of evidence downgraded for imprecision due to low number of events. Evidence downgraded further as risk of bias high in Piccioli 2004b. Study terminated early after inclusion of only 201 participants after five years for several reasons. First, only five of more than 40 potential participating centres could contribute participants to study. Second, some medical ethics committees rejected the protocol because of absence of screening for occult cancer in the control group, other centres could not start because the proposed extensive screening was judged unethical. Finally, identification of cancer at an apparent early stage in extensive screening group led to an increasing tendency among physicians in participating hospitals to initiate screening for cancer in control participants.
8 Advanced‐stage malignancies, defined as T3 with locoregional or distant metastases (N1 or M1).
9 Time to cancer diagnosis, as defined in included studies.
10 Frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (i.e. number of times cancer diagnosed through screening following an unprovoked VTE as defined in included studies) at time of VTE presentation and overall over follow‐up period.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion
Summary of findings 2. Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone

Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone

Patient or population: people with unprovoked VTE

Setting: hospital

Intervention: standard testing + PET/CT scanning

Comparison: standard testing alone

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with standard testing alone

Risk with standard testing + PET/CT scanning

All‐cause mortality1

Study population

OR 1.22
(0.49 to 3.04)

1248
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate2

14 per 1000

17 per 1000
(7 to 42)

Cancer‐related mortality3

Study population

OR 0.55
(0.20 to 1.52)

1248
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate2

18 per 1000

10 per 1000
(4 to 26)

VTE‐related mortality4

See comment

See comment

See comment

See comment

See comment

No study measured this outcome.

VTE‐related morbidity5

Study population

OR 1.02
(0.48 to 2.17)

854
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate6

32 per 1000

33 per 1000
(16 to 68)

Stage of cancer ‐ early

Study population

OR 1.78
(0.51 to 6.17)

394
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low2,6

20 per 1000

36 per 1000
(10 to 113)

Stage of cancer ‐ advanced

Study population

OR 1.00
(0.14 to 7.17)

394
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low2,6

10 per 1000

10 per 1000
(1 to 69)

Time to cancer diagnosis7

See comments

See comments

See comments

854

(1 RCT)

See comments

Time to cancer diagnosis measured in Carrier 2015 as 4.2 months in standard testing group and 4.0 months in standard testing + PET/CT group (P = 0.88). However, standard deviations for these means not given. Attempts made to contact author for these data but no response received.

Frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis8

Study population

OR 1.71
(0.91 to 3.20)

1248
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate2

29 per 1000

48 per 1000
(26 to 86)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; PET/CT: positron emission tomography/computed tomography; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 Death due to any cause.
2 Quality of evidence downgraded as risk of detection bias high for one study as outcome assessors not blinded to treatment (Robin 2016).
3 Defined as death due to malignant disease itself, or death due to complications of treatments or procedures to diagnose or treat cancer.
4 Fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). PE diagnosed "on the basis of a lung scan indicating a high probability of its presence, as indicated by the presence of new or enlarged areas of segmental perfusion defects with ventilation‐perfusion mismatch; an abnormal perfusion scan with documentation of new or recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT); the presence of non‐enhancing filling defects in the central pulmonary vasculature on helical computed tomography; a finding of intraluminal filling defects on pulmonary angiography; or evidence of fresh PE at autopsy" (Lee 2003b). Fatal PE including probable fatal PE and unexplained sudden death used if reported, as defined by individual studies.
5 Frequency of recurrent VTE. Recurrent PE or DVT diagnosed if a previously compressible proximal venous segment or segments could no longer be compressed on ultrasonography or if there were constant intraluminal filling defects in two or more projections on venography.
6 Quality of evidence downgraded for imprecision due to low number of events.
7 Time to cancer diagnosis, as defined in included studies.
8 Frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (i.e. number of times cancer diagnosed through screening following an unprovoked VTE as defined in included studies) at time of VTE presentation and overall over follow‐up period.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone
Comparison 1. Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cancer‐related mortality Show forest plot

2

396

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.15, 1.67]

2 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: type of cancer Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Lung

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.08 [0.19, 23.34]

2.2 Bladder

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.08 [0.19, 23.34]

2.3 Stomach

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.06, 16.71]

2.4 Kidney

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.12 [0.13, 77.55]

2.5 Adrenal gland

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.12 [0.13, 77.55]

2.6 Liver

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.12 [0.13, 77.55]

2.7 Uterus

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.12 [0.13, 77.55]

2.8 Breast

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.06, 16.71]

2.9 Ovary

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.12 [0.13, 77.55]

2.10 Colon

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.05, 5.72]

2.11 Prostate

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.05, 5.72]

2.12 Pancreas

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.01, 4.26]

3 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: stage of cancer Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 T1 or T2 (N0 M0)

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

5.00 [1.05, 23.76]

3.2 T3

1

201

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.03, 2.28]

4 Frequency of underlying cancer diagnosis Show forest plot

2

396

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.59, 2.93]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion
Comparison 2. Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality Show forest plot

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.49, 3.04]

2 Cancer‐related mortality Show forest plot

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.20, 1.52]

3 Venous thromboembolism‐related morbidity Show forest plot

1

854

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.48, 2.17]

4 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: type of cancer Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Acute leukaemia

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.62 [0.20, 13.22]

4.2 Gynaecological

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.39 [0.43, 13.36]

4.3 Skin: melanoma

1

854

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.06, 16.34]

4.4 Colorectal

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.08, 2.40]

4.5 Prostate

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.52 [0.48, 13.12]

4.6 Pancreatic

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

4.81 [0.55, 42.48]

4.7 Cholangiocarcinoma

1

854

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.05, 5.63]

4.8 Lymphoma

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.09, 5.83]

4.9 Breast

1

854

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.01, 4.24]

4.10 Urological

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.03, 12.32]

4.11 Liver

1

394

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.19]

4.12 Head and neck

1

394

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.02 [0.12, 74.47]

4.13 Lung

1

394

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.02 [0.12, 74.47]

4.14 Unknown primary

1

854

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.34]

5 Characteristics of diagnosed cancer: stage of cancer Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Early

1

394

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.78 [0.51, 6.17]

5.2 Advanced

1

394

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.14, 7.17]

6 Frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis Show forest plot

2

1248

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.71 [0.91, 3.20]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone