External validation of the RIETE and SOME scores for occult cancer in patients with venous thromboembolism: a multicentre cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) may be the first sign of an undiagnosed cancer. The RIETE and SOME scores aim to identify patients with acute VTE at high risk of occult cancer. In the present study, we evaluated the performance of both scores. METHODS: The scores were evaluated in a retrospective cohort from two centers. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) evaluated the discriminatory performance. RESULTS: The RIETE score was applied to 815 patients with provoked and unprovoked VTE, of whom 56 (6.9%) were diagnosed with cancer. Of the 203 patients classified as high-risk, 18 were diagnosed with cancer, representing 32.1% (18/56) of the total cancer diagnoses. In the group of 612 low-risk patients, 67.9% of the cancer cases were diagnosed (38/56). Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and AUC were 32%, 76%, 94%, 9%, and 0.430 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38‒0.47), respectively. The SOME score could be calculated in 418 patients with unprovoked VTE, of whom 33 (7.9%) were diagnosed with cancer. Of the 45 patients classified as high-risk, three were diagnosed with cancer, representing 9.1% (3/33) of the total cancer diagnoses. In the group of 373 low-risk patients, 90.9% of the cancer cases were diagnosed (30/33). Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and AUC were 33%, 88%, 94%, 20%, and 0.351 (95% CI, 0.27‒0.43), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of both scores was poor. Our results highlight the need to develop new models to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from an extensive cancer screening strategy.

External validation of the CHEDDAR score for suspected pulmonary embolism in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in an independent cohort.

The accuracy of the classic scores that help stratify the pretest clinical probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) in SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is low. Therefore, to estimate the risk of PE in these patients, a new set of guidelines must be established. The recently published CHEDDAR score proposes a new diagnostic strategy to reduce the use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in non-critically ill SARS-COV-2 patients with suspected PE. According to the nomogram, patients are segregated into low-risk (< 182 points) or high-risk (≥ 182 points) based on the best cut-off value to discard PE in the original cohort. We aimed to externally validate this diagnostic strategy in an independent cohort. We analyzed data from two retrospective cohorts of hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients who underwent a CTPA due to suspicion for PE. CHEDDAR score was applied. As per the CHEDDAR nomogram, patients were classified as having a low or high clinical pre-test probability. Of the 270 patients included, 69 (25.5%) had PE. Applying the CHEDDAR score, 182 (67.4%) patients could have had PE excluded without imaging. Among 58 patients classified as having high clinical pre-test probability, 39 (67.2%) had PE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and AUC were 56%, 90%, 67%, 85%, and 0.783 (95% CI 0.71-0.85), respectively. We provide external validation of the CHEDDAR score in an independent cohort. Even though the CHEDDAR score showed good discrimination capacity, caution is required in patients classified as having low clinical pre-test probability with a D-dimer value > 3000 ng/mL, and a RALE score ≥ 4.

Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer Using Machine Learning Approaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Recent studies have suggested that machine learning (ML) could be used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients with high accuracy. METHODS: We aimed to evaluate the performance of ML in predicting VTE events in patients with cancer. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE to identify studies were searched. RESULTS: Seven studies involving 12,249 patients with cancer were included. The combined results of the different ML models demonstrated good accuracy in the prediction of VTE. In the training set, the global pooled sensitivity was 0.87, the global pooled specificity was 0.87, and the AUC was 0.91, and in the test set 0.65, 0.84, and 0.80, respectively. CONCLUSION: The prediction ML models showed good performance to predict VTE. External validation to determine the result's reproducibility is necessary.

Baricitinib or imatinib in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Results from COVINIB, an exploratory randomized clinical trial.

Baricitinib and imatinib are considered therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their ultimate clinical impact remains to be elucidated, so our objective is to determine whether these kinase inhibitors provide benefit when added to standard care in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Phase-2, open-label, randomized trial with a pick-the-winner design conducted from September 2020 to June 2021 in a single Spanish center. Hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia and a symptom duration ≤10 days were assigned to 3 arms: imatinib (400 mg qd, 7 days) plus standard-care, baricitinib (4 mg qd, 7 days) plus standard-care, or standard-care alone. Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement (discharge alive or a reduction of 2 points in an ordinal scale of clinical status) compared on a day-by-day basis to identify differences ≥15% between the most and least favorable groups. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation and ventilatory support requirements, additional therapies administered, all-cause mortality, and safety. One hundred and sixty-five patients analyzed. Predefined criteria for selection of the most advantageous arm were met for baricitinib, but not for imatinib. However, no statistically significant differences were observed in formal analysis, but a trend toward better results in patients receiving baricitinib was found compared to standard care alone (hazard ratio [HR] for clinical improvement: 1.41, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.96-2.06; HR for discontinuing oxygen: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.94-2.28). No differences were found regarding additional therapies administered or safety. Baricitinib plus standard care showed better results for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, being the most advantageous therapeutic strategy among those proposed in this exploratory clinical trial.

Low-dose Radiation Therapy in the Management of COVID-19 Pneumonia (LOWRAD-Cov19). Final results of a prospective phase I-II trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of low-dose radiation therapy (LD-RT) to lungs in the management of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective phase I-II trial enrolling COVID-19 patients ≥50 years-old, with bilateral lung involvement at imaging study and oxygen requirement (oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air). Patients received 1 Gy to whole lungs in a single fraction. Primary outcome was a radiological response assessed as severity and extension scores at days +3 and +7. Secondary outcomes were toxicity (CTCAE v5.0), days of hospitalization, changes in inflammatory blood parameters (ferritin, lymphocytes, C-reactive protein, d-dimer and LDH) and SatO2/FiO2 index (SAFI), at day +3 and +7. Descriptive analyses were summarized as means with standard deviation (SD) and/or medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). A Wilcoxon sign rank test for paired data was used to assess the CT scores and Chi Square was used to assess for comparison of categorical variables. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included. Median age was 71 (IQR 60-84). Eighteen patients (44%) previously received an anti-COVID treatment (tocilizumab, lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir) and thirty-two patients (84%) received steroids during LD-RT. The extension score improved significantly (p = 0.02) on day +7. Mean baseline extension score was 13.7 (SD ± 4.9) with a score of 12.2 (±5.2) at day 3, and 12.4 ± 4.7 at day 7. No differences were found in the severity score. SAFI improved significantly on day +3 and +7 (p < 0.01). Median SAFI on day 0 was 147 (IQR 118-264), 230 (IQR 120-343) on day +3 and 293 (IQR 121-353) on day +7. Significant decrease was found in C-reactive protein on day +7 (p = 0.02) and in lymphocytes counts on day +3 and +7 (p = 0.02). The median number of days in hospital after RT was 11 (range 4-78). With a median follow-up of 60 days after LD-RT, 26 (63%) patients were discharged, 11 (27%) died because of COVID respiratory failure and 4 (10%) died of other causes. CONCLUSIONS: LD-RT is a feasible and well-tolerated treatment that could lead to rapid clinical improvement. Large randomized trials would be required to establish the efficacy of LD-RT to treat COVID-19 pneumonia.

Low-Dose Radiation Therapy in the Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pneumonia (LOWRAD-Cov19): Preliminary Report.

PURPOSE: Low-dose radiation therapy (LD-RT) has been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect, and preliminary results suggest it is feasible to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-arm, phase 1/2 clinical trial enrolling patients aged ≥50 years, who were coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive, at phase 2 or 3 with lung involvement at imaging study and oxygen requirement. Patients received 100 cGy to total lungs in a single fraction. Primary outcome was radiologic response using severity and extension score on baseline computed tomography (CT), at days 3 and 7 after LD-RT. Secondary outcomes were toxicity using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0, duration of hospitalization, blood work evolution, and oxygen requirements using SatO2/FiO2 index (SAFI), at days 3 and 7 after LD-RT. RESULTS: Nine patients were included. Median age was 66 (interquartile range, 57-77). Severity score was stable or decreased in the third CT but was not statistically significant (P = .28); however, there were statistically significant changes in the extension score (P = .03). SAFI index significantly improved 72 hours and 1 week after LD-RT (P = .01). Inflammatory blood parameters decreased 1 week after RT compared with baseline; only lactate dehydrogenase decreased significantly (P = .04). Two patients presented grade 2 lymphopenia after RT and another (with baseline grade 3) worsened to grade 4. Overall, the median number of days of hospitalization was 59 (range, 26-151). After RT the median number of days in the hospital was 13 (range, 4-77). With a median follow-up after RT of 112 days (range, 105-150), 7 patients were discharged and 2 patients died, 1 due to sepsis and the other with severe baseline chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from COVID-19 pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results show that LD-RT was a feasible and well-tolerated treatment, with potential clinical improvement. Randomized trials are needed to establish whether LD-RT improves severe pneumonia.