Abstract
Background Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) developed to predict adverse outcomes of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and facilitate outpatient management have limitations in discriminating outcomes for ambulatory cancer patients with unsuspected PE (UPE). The HULL Score CPR uses a 5-point scoring system incorporating performance status (PS) and self-reported new or recently evolving symptoms at UPE diagnosis. It stratifies patients into low, intermediate and high risk for proximate mortality.
Aim This study aimed validation of the HULL Score CPR in ambulatory cancer patients with UPE.
Patients and methods 282 consecutive patients managed under the UPE-acute oncology service in Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust were included from January 2015 to March 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and outcome measures were proximate mortality for the three risk categories of the Hull Score CPR.
Results 30-day, 90-day and 180-day mortality for the whole cohort was 3.4% (n=7), 21.1% (n=43) and 39.2% (n= 80), respectively. The HULL Score CPR stratified patients into low 35.5% (100), intermediate 33.7% (95) and high 28.7% (81) risk groups. Correlation of the risk categories with 30-day, 90-day, 180-day mortality and OS was consistent with the derivation cohort (area under the curve [AUC] 0.717 [95% CI 0.522, 0.912], AUC 0.772 [95% CI 0.707, 0.838], AUC 0.751 [95% CI 0.692, 0.809], AUC 0.749 [95% CI 0.686, 0.811], respectively).
Conclusion This study validates the capacity of the HULL Score CPR to stratify proximate mortality risk in ambulatory cancer patients with UPE. The score uses immediately available clinical parameters and is easy to integrate into an acute outpatient oncology setting.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of Interest: All authors declared that they have no competing financial or personal interests relevant to this manuscript.
This is a PDF-only article. Please click on the PDF link above to read it.
- Received November 27, 2022.
- Accepted January 25, 2023.
- Copyright ©The authors 2023
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org