Identification of Low-Risk Patients with Acute Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism for Outpatient Therapy.

RATIONALE: Patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) deemed to be at low risk for early complications might be candidates for partial or complete outpatient treatment. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a clinical prediction rule that accurately identifies patients with PE and low risk of short-term complications and to compare its prognostic ability with two previously validated models (i.e., the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] and the Simplified PESI [sPESI]) METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression of a large international cohort of patients with PE prospectively enrolled in the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) registry. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All-cause mortality, recurrent PE, and major bleeding up to 10 days after PE diagnosis were determined. Of 18,707 eligible patients with acute symptomatic PE, 46 (0.25%) developed recurrent PE, 203 (1.09%) bled, and 471 (2.51%) died. Predictors included in the final model were chronic heart failure, recent immobilization, recent major bleeding, cancer, hypotension, tachycardia, hypoxemia, renal insufficiency, and abnormal platelet count. The area under receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.78) for the RIETE score, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.70-0.73) for PESI (P < 0.05), and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.73) for sPESI (P < 0.05). Our RIETE score outperformed the prognostic value of PESI in terms of net reclassification improvement (P < 0.001), integrated discrimination improvement (P < 0.001), and sPESI (net reclassification improvement, P < 0.001; integrated discrimination improvement, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We built a new score, based on widely available variables, that can be used to identify patients with PE at low risk of short-term complications, assisting in triage and potentially shortening duration of hospital stay.

Prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival in advanced biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancer is an uncommon cancer with a poor outcome. We assembled data from the National Cancer Research Institute (UK) ABC-02 study and 10 international studies to determine prognostic outcome characteristics for patients with advanced disease. METHODS: Multivariable analyses of the final dataset from the ABC-02 study were carried out. All variables were simultaneously included in a Cox proportional hazards model, and backward elimination was used to produce the final model (using a significance level of 10%), in which the selected variables were associated independently with outcome. This score was validated externally by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis using the independent international dataset. RESULTS: A total of 410 patients were included from the ABC-02 study and 753 from the international dataset. An overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) Cox model was derived from the ABC-02 study. White blood cells, haemoglobin, disease status, bilirubin, neutrophils, gender, and performance status were considered prognostic for survival (all with P < 0.10). Patients with metastatic disease {hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.02]} and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2 had worse survival [HR 2.24 (95% CI 1.53-3.28)]. In a dataset restricted to patients who received cisplatin and gemcitabine with ECOG PS 0 and 1, only haemoglobin, disease status, bilirubin, and neutrophils were associated with PFS and OS. ROC analysis suggested the models generated from the ABC-02 study had a limited prognostic value [6-month PFS: area under the curve (AUC) 62% (95% CI 57-68); 1-year OS: AUC 64% (95% CI 58-69)]. CONCLUSION: These data propose a set of prognostic criteria for outcome in advanced biliary tract cancer derived from the ABC-02 study that are validated in an international dataset. Although these findings establish the benchmark for the prognostic evaluation of patients with ABC and confirm the value of longheld clinical observations, the ability of the model to correctly predict prognosis is limited and needs to be improved through identification of additional clinical and molecular markers.

Symptoms Have Modest Accuracy in Detecting Endoscopic and Histologic Remission in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether symptoms alone can be used to estimate the biologic activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate whether symptoms can be used to identify patients with endoscopic and histologic features of remission. METHODS: Between April 2011 and June 2014, we performed a prospective, observational study and recruited 269 consecutive adults with EoE (67% male; median age, 39 years old) in Switzerland and the United States. Patients first completed the validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsy collection. Endoscopic and histologic findings were evaluated with a validated grading system and standardized instrument, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as symptom score <20 (range, 0-100); histologic remission was defined as a peak count of <20 eosinophils/mm(2) in a high-power field (corresponds to approximately <5 eosinophils/median high-power field); and endoscopic remission as absence of white exudates, moderate or severe rings, strictures, or combination of furrows and edema. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine the best symptom score cutoff values for detection of remission. RESULTS: Of the study subjects, 111 were in clinical remission (41.3%), 79 were in endoscopic remission (29.7%), and 75 were in histologic remission (27.9%). When the symptom score was used as a continuous variable, patients in endoscopic, histologic, and combined (endoscopic and histologic remission) remission were detected with area under the curve values of 0.67, 0.60, and 0.67, respectively. A symptom score of 20 identified patients in endoscopic remission with 65.1% accuracy and histologic remission with 62.1% accuracy; a symptom score of 15 identified patients with both types of remission with 67.7% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with EoE, endoscopic or histologic remission can be identified with only modest accuracy based on symptoms alone. At any given time, physicians cannot rely on lack of symptoms to make assumptions about lack of biologic disease activity in adults with EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT00939263.