Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".