Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremities can be associated with significant morbidity and may progress to pulmonary embolism and postthrombotic syndrome. Early diagnosis and treatment are important to minimize the risk of these complications. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of diagnostic tests for first-episode and recurrent DVT of the lower extremities, including proximal compression ultrasonography (US), whole leg US, serial US, and high-sensitivity quantitative D-dimer assays. We searched Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. Two investigators screened and abstracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 43 studies. For any suspected DVT, the pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity of proximal compression US were 90.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.5-92.8) and 98.5% (95% CI, 97.6-99.1), respectively. For whole-leg US, pooled estimates were 94.0% (95% CI, 91.3-95.9) and 97.3% (95% CI, 94.8-98.6); for serial US pooled estimates were 97.9% (95% CI, 96.0-98.9) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.3-99.9). For D-dimer, pooled estimates were 96.1% (95% CI, 92.6-98.0) and 35.7% (95% CI, 29.5-42.4). Recurrent DVT studies were not pooled. Certainty of evidence varied from low to high. This systematic review of current diagnostic tests for DVT of the lower extremities provides accuracy estimates. The tests are evaluated when performed in a stand-alone fashion, and in a diagnostic pathway. The pretest probability of DVT often assessed by a clinical decision rule will influence how, together with sensitivity and specificity estimates, patients will be managed.

Tumor heterogeneity, especially intratumoral heterogeneity, is a primary reason for treatment failure. A single biopsy may not reflect the complete genomic architecture of the tumor needed to make therapeutic decisions. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is believed to overcome these limitations. We analyzed concordance between ctDNA and whole-exome sequencing/whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS) of tumor samples from patients with breast (n = 12), gastrointestinal (n = 20), lung (n = 19), and other tumor types (n = 13). Correlation in the driver, hotspot, and actionable alterations was studied. Three cases in which more-in-depth genomic analysis was required have been presented. A total 58% (37/64) of patients had at least one concordant mutation. Patients who had received systemic therapy before tissue next-generation sequencing (NGS) and ctDNA analysis showed high concordance (78% (21/27) vs. 43% (12/28) p = 0.01, respectively). Obtaining both NGS and ctDNA increased actionable alterations from 28% (18/64) to 52% (33/64) in our patients. Twenty-one patients had mutually exclusive actionable alterations seen only in either tissue NGS or ctDNA samples. Somatic hotspot mutation analysis showed significant discordance between tissue NGS and ctDNA analysis, denoting significant tumor heterogeneity in these malignancies. Increased tissue tumor mutation burden (TMB) positively correlated with the number of ctDNA mutations in patients who had received systemic therapy, but not in treatment-naïve patients. Prior systemic therapy and TMB may affect concordance and should be taken into consideration in future studies. Incorporating driver, actionable, and hotspot analysis may help to further refine the correlation between these two platforms. Tissue NGS and ctDNA are complimentary, and if done in conjunction, may increase the detection rate of actionable alterations and potentially therapeutic targets.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common, potentially life-threatening yet treatable condition. Prompt diagnosis and expeditious therapeutic intervention is of paramount importance for optimal patient management. Our objective was to systematically review the accuracy of D-dimer assay, compression ultrasonography (CUS), computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), and ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning for the diagnosis of suspected first and recurrent PE. We searched Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. 2 investigators screened and abstracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 61 studies. The pooled estimates for D-dimer sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-0.98) and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.36-0.46) respectively, whereas CTPA sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), respectively, and CUS sensitivity and specificity were 0.49 (95% CI, 0.31-0.66) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), respectively. Three variations of pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity of V/Q scan were carried out, based on interpretation of test results. D-dimer had the highest sensitivity when compared with imaging. CTPA and V/Q scans (high probability scan as a positive and low/non-diagnostic/normal scan as negative) both had the highest specificity. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42018084669.

Anemia is a common finding in alcoholics. It is often multifactorial and caused by a combination of liver dysfunction, ineffective erythropoiesis, and poor nutrition. Zieve’s syndrome (ZS) is a clinical syndrome that presents with a triad of jaundice, hemolytic anemia, and hyperlipidemia secondary to alcohol use. Herein, we present a case of a 58-year-old male with a history of liver cirrhosis who presented after a fall due to binge drinking and was found to have severe anemia. Workup was consistent with hemolytic anemia with no source of active bleeding. The patient was managed with supportive treatment and blood transfusions which improved his anemia. However, given his advanced liver disease, he developed encephalopathy and subsequently severe aspiration pneumonia. He died 18 days after admission.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for ≤10% of DVT and can be associated with morbidity and mortality. Accurate diagnosis and treatment are necessary for safe and effective patient management. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of D-dimer and duplex ultrasonography (US) for the evaluation of suspected first-episode UEDVT. We searched the Cochrane Central Register, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. We included prospective cross-sectional and cohort studies that evaluated test accuracy. Two investigators independently screened and collected data. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 9 studies. The pooled estimates for D-dimer sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52), respectively. The pooled estimates for duplex US sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-0.94) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93), respectively. Certainty of evidence was moderate. In this review, we summarized the test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of D-dimer and duplex US for this indication. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests found in the present review should be considered in the context of whether they are used alone or in combination, which is dependent on the prevalence of disease in the population, the clinical setting in which the patient is being evaluated, cost, potential harms, and patient outcomes. This study was registered at PROSPERO as Systematic Review Registration Number CRD42018098488.