RESUMEN
As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for several different malignancies becomes more mainstream, their side-effect profile raises new challenges. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of advanced melanoma, and since then, checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in many other tumor types. Given the frequent use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in a wide range of cancers today, the diagnosis and management of their immune-mediated toxicities need special attention. One of the most common is immune-mediated colitis. Workup and management of immune-mediated colitis can be challenging and is the purpose of this review. KEY POINTS: Rate of immune mediated colitis differ from different kind of immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. To work up immune-mediated colitis, tests to rule out infectious etiologies of diarrhea, colonoscopy and abdominal image will help to differentiate immune mediated colitis from colitis from other etiology. Patients with mild colitis can be managed with supportive therapies alone, but more severe cases may require immunomodulators such as steroid. Refractory cases may require tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, such as infliximab in addition to steroid treatment.
Asunto(s)
Colitis , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Melanoma , Colitis/inducido químicamente , Colitis/diagnóstico , Colitis/terapia , Humanos , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico , Infliximab/efectos adversos , Melanoma/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
Background: Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Despite poor outcomes, there is an ongoing knowledge gap in epidemiologic data related to this association. Objectives: To compare venous thromboembolism (VTE) characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes between patients with and without active cancer in a racially diverse population. Methods: Our surveillance project occurred at the 3 hospitals in Durham County, North Carolina, from April 2012 through March 2014. Electronic and manual methods were used to identify unique Durham County residents with VTE. Results: We identified 987 patients with VTE during the surveillance period. Of these, 189 patients had active cancer at the time of their VTE event. Patients with CA-VTE were older (median age: 69 years vs 60 years, P < .0001) and had a lower body mass index (median body mass index: 26.0 kg/m2 vs 28.4 kg/m2, P = .0001) than noncancer patients. The most common cancers in our cohort were gastrointestinal, breast, genitourinary, and lung. The proportion of VTE cases with pulmonary embolism (PE) was greater in the cancer cohort compared with that in the noncancer cohort (58.2% vs 44.0%, P = .0004). Overall survival was lower in the CA-VTE group than in patients without cancer (P < .0001). Black patients with CA-VTE had lower proportion of PE (52.3% vs 67.1%, P = .05) but had decreased survival (P < .0003) in comparison with White patients. Conclusion: Future studies may be needed to continue to evaluate local and national VTE data to improve VTE prevention strategies and CA-VTE outcomes.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Systematic surveillance for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the United States has been recommended by several organizations. Despite adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) by most health care providers and facilities, however, systematic surveillance for VTE is not available. OBJECTIVES: This article develops a comprehensive, population-based surveillance strategy for VTE in a defined geographical region. METHODS: The primary surveillance strategy combined computerized searches of the EMR with a manual review of imaging data at the Duke University Health System in Durham County, North Carolina, United States. Different strategies of searching the EMR were explored. Consolidation of results with autopsy reports (nonsearchable in the EMR) and with results from the Durham Veterans' Administration Medical Center was performed to provide a comprehensive report of new VTE from the defined region over a 2-year timeframe. RESULTS: Monthly searches of the primary EMR missed a significant number of patients with new VTE who were identified by a separate manual search of radiology records, apparently related to delays in data entry and coding into the EMR. Comprehensive searches incorporating a location-restricted strategy were incomplete due to the assigned residence reflecting the current address and not the address at the time of event. The most comprehensive strategy omitted the geographic restriction step and identified all patients with VTE followed by manual review of individual records to remove incorrect entries (e.g., outside the surveillance time period or geographic location; no evidence for VTE). Consolidation of results from the EMR searches with results from autopsy reports and the separate facility identified additional patients not diagnosed within the Duke system. CONCLUSION: We identified several challenges with implementing a comprehensive VTE surveillance program that could limit accuracy of the results. Improved electronic strategies are needed to cross-reference patients across multiple health systems and to minimize the need for manual review and confirmation of results.