Pulmonary embolism in oncologic patients: frequency and embolus burden of symptomatic and unsuspected events

Bach, Andreas; Schmoll, Hans‐Joachim; Beckel, Christoph; Behrmann, Curd; Spielmann, R. P.; Wienke, Andreas; Abbas, Jasmin; Surov, Alexey

doi:10.1177/0284185113491569

Cited by 45 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the PE frequency per patient is different as described earlier. 1 The thrombus mass was significantly lower in oncologic patients compared with non-oncologic patients. The difference might be due to a speculative number of cases with tumour Figure 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The frequency of incidental pulmonary embolism in different CT examinations

Bach¹,

Meyer²,

Taute³

et al. 2016

BJR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is commonly found in patients with oncologic and non-oncologic disease. The aim of the present study is to assess how frequently suspected, incidental and unreported PE occurs in particular CT examinations. In addition, differences in embolus distribution are to be considered. Methods: In a retrospective, single-centre study that covered a 5.5-year period, every contrast-enhanced CT examination was reviewed. The study group included 7238 patients with 11,747 CT examinations. A detailed pulmonary artery obstruction index (Mastora score) was used to assess thrombus mass and distribution. Results: PE frequency was 3.9% in oncologic patients and 6.6% in non-oncologic patients. PE was unsuspected in 54% of all PE events. Incidental PE was mostly often found in the following CT examinations: evaluation of acute pulmonary disease and follow-up staging. The thrombus mass was higher in non-oncologic patients than in oncologic patients. Furthermore, the thrombus mass was significantly lower in unsuspected PE than in suspected PE. In addition, the thrombus mass was significantly lower in unreported PE than in incidental PE. Conclusion: The radiologist should pay special attention to pulmonary vessels, even when not asked for PE, in the following CT examinations: evaluation of acute pulmonary disease and follow-up staging. Advances in knowledge: Particular CT indications are associated with a high frequency of PE. Whether PE is suspected or not and found or not highly depends on thrombus mass.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The use of the Mastora score also allowed for detailed analysis of thrombus distribution. 1,3 The two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test was used to calculate statistical differences between groups. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The frequency of incidental pulmonary embolism in different CT examinations

Bach¹,

Meyer²,

Taute³

et al. 2016

BJR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3,9 Most frequently, different malignant lesions and cardiovascular findings incidentally detected on CT have been reported. 2,5,6,[8][9][10] Although skeletal muscles represent approximately 50% of total body mass, IFs on imaging investigations have been not reported previously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…7 Most studies that analyzed incidental findings on imaging, especially on CT, focused on the prevalence of several incidentally detected malignancies or clinically relevant findings. [2][3][4][5][6][8][9][10] To the best of our knowledge, there were no previous reports regarding incidental findings in the skeletal musculature. However, it is the largest region of the body and may contain different findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…4 Other examples were urgent cardiovascular findings such as massive pulmonary embolism or aortic dissection incidentally identified in staging investigations in patients with oncological dieseases. 5,6 Previously, several incidental findings were categorized according their clinical relevance as follows: Group "1", normal findings or anatomic variant; Group "2", clinically unimportant findings; Group "3", likely unimportant findings; and Group "4", potentially important findings. 7 Most studies that analyzed incidental findings on imaging, especially on CT, focused on the prevalence of several incidentally detected malignancies or clinically relevant findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incidental findings in the skeletal musculature on computed tomography

Schramm¹,

Justus²,

Bach³

et al. 2017

The British Journal of Radiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze intramuscular incidental findings identified on CT in a large patient cohort. Methods: In the time period from 2010 to 2015, a total of 44,794 patients with several diagnoses were investigated by CT. Only those patients who underwent body CT including the neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvic regions after the i.v. application of a contrast medium were involved in the study. There were 4085 patients. On further analysis, only patients with intramuscular findings (IFs) incidentally detected on CT were included. Osseous or soft-tissue lesions with invasion into the musculature were excluded from the study. Patients with known or clinically suspicious muscle disorders were also excluded. Overall, 639 (15.64% of the 4085 analyzed cases) patients, 253 females and 386 males, with mean age 72.43 6 12.02 years, were identified. Collected data were evaluated by means of descriptive statistics.

show abstract