Full Length ArticleExtensive screening for occult malignancy in unprovoked venous thromboembolism: A meta-analysis

- There was no significant difference in the risk of missed diagnosis between the extensive and limited groups.
- There was also no significant difference in all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality between the two groups.
- The sensitivity and proportion of false-positive findings of PET/CT was 95% and 33%, respectively.
- Considering the high cost and extra harm, current evidence did not support extensive screening for each patient.

BackgroundThe present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and sensitivity of an extensive screening strategy for occult malignant diseases in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE).MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and relevant article references. Meta-analysis was used to pool weighted relative risks (RR) for the rate of missed diagnosis, all-cause mortality, and cancer-related mortality. Heterogeneity test was performed using the inconsistency index. Furthermore, pooled analysis of the sensitivity and the proportion of false-positive findings of PET/CT were conducted.ResultsA total of 5 controlled studies were included with 1,115 and 1,159 unprovoked VTE patients receiving limited or extensive screening strategy, respectively. The risk of missed diagnosis (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20-1.28; P = 0.15) was not significantly different between the limited and extensive screening group. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58-1.27; P = 0.44) and cancer-related mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.46-1.62; P = 0.65) between the two groups. The pooled sensitivity and proportion of false-positive findings of PET/CT as a screening tool for occult malignancy in patients with unprovoked VTE was 95% (95% CI, 38%-100%) and 33% (95% CI, 20%-47%), respectively.ConclusionsExtensive screening strategy did not show a clinically significant benefit over limited screening strategy. Considering the high cost and the additional physical and emotional harm, current evidence did not support extensive screening for each patient in the setting.