Barriers To Diagnosis In Myeloproliferative Neoplasms
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Timely diagnosis of patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) is important given the risks of thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications, disease progression and associated symptoms. Pts often present initially to primary care physicians, who may have limited previous experience with PV/ET given the low prevalence. Little is known about the timeliness of referral or diagnostic testing after identification of abnormal blood test results or if delays in diagnosis affect patient outcomes. Objectives To determine the time from initial lab abnormality to referral, diagnosis and treatment of pts with PV and ET. Methods Pts at a single Canadian academic institution newly diagnosed with PV or ET from Jan 2010 to May 2013 were identified. Retrospective data was collected including demographics, lab values, diagnostic testing and treatments. Results Demographics: 26 pts with PV and 34 with ET were identified. Median age was 67.5 (44-89) y for PV and 66.5 (34-92) y for ET. Delay in Referral and Diagnosis: 98% of pts were referred directly to a hematologist by their primary care physician. 69% of PV pts were referred within 30 days and 92% within 90 days of initial lab abnormality. Median time from referral to diagnosis was 98 (0-221) days. 41% of ET pts were referred within 30 days and 56% within 90 days of initial lab abnormality. Median time from referral to diagnosis was 121 (8-638) days. PV pts were referred sooner, median 20 (0-187) days, than ET pts, median 67 (0-3743) days (p=0.01). The median delay from referral until hematology assessment was 51 days for PV compared to 78 days for ET (p=0.08). After assessment by the hematologist, it required a median of 35 days to make a diagnosis of PV and 25 days for a diagnosis of ET (p=0.31). Referrals by platelet (plt) count: There was a trend to earlier referral of ET pts with higher platelet (plt) counts. 15/20 (75%) ET pts with plt count >600 were referred within 90 days of initial lab abnormality whereas only 4/14 (29%) of pts with plt count 450-600 were referred within 90 days (p=0.056). Treatment of PV pts: 22/26 (85%) pts received phlebotomy at or after referral at the direction of a hematologist. Average delay in referral (and phlebotomy initiation) for patients treated with phlebotomy was 32 days. 13/26 (50%) pts were initiated on treatment with hydroxyurea within 2 months of diagnosis. Average delay in diagnosis (and hydroxyurea initiation) in this subgroup was 142 days. 11/26 (42%) pts were receiving ASA prior to the initial hematological consultation. 12/26 (46%) were initiated on ASA at or shortly after hematological consultation. Average delay to hematology consultation (and ASA initiation) was 90 days in this subgroup. Treatment of ET pts: 8/34 (24%) pts were initiated on treatment with hydroxyurea within 2 months of diagnosis. Average delay in diagnosis (and hydroxyurea initiation) in this subgroup was 790 days. 17/34 (50%) pts were receiving ASA prior to the initial hematological consultation. 15/34 (44%) were initiated on ASA at or shortly after hematological consultation. Average delay to hematology consultation (and ASA initiation) was 355 days in this subgroup. No thrombotic or major hemorrhagic complications occurred in any PV/ET pts between the time of initial lab abnormality and diagnosis. Discussion This study demonstrates the marked variability in time from lab abnormality to referral and diagnosis for PV/ET pts. Primary care providers were more likely to promptly refer PV pts than ET pts, and particularly tended to overlook referral and investigation of pts with modestly elevated plt counts of 450-600. This is a concern, as risk of thrombosis in ET pts is independent of plt count. Delays were also apparent in wait times for hematology appointments and subsequent diagnostic tests. The delay in diagnosis led to a delay in initiation of therapy to reduce risk of thrombosis in both PV and ET pts. Possible strategies to expedite diagnosis include targeted education of primary care physicians focusing on identification of lab features of PV/ET. Directive comments on lab reports by community hematopathologists may also facilitate prompt referral and investigation. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».