ABSTRACT
Malignant pleural effusions (MPE) are most frequently (50-65%) noted from lung and breast cancers. They are commonly unilateral and are reflective of poorer prognosis. Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) account for 4-5% of all invasive cancers. These are metastatic tumors in which the primary is unknown despite an extensive medical evaluation. About 11% of MPE are from CUP. These MPEs present a clinical dilemma to physicians as there is a paucity of literature on their management and no consensus or guideline statement. This paper provides an overview of MPE from CUP in regard to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options. A selective search was performed in Medline and PubMed, with the keywords "Malignant pleural effusion" and "Cancer of unknown primary" up to December 2018. A review of literature would suggest that a thoracentesis is the first step in all cases but additional work up such as thoracoscopy & pleural biopsies is frequently warranted. With advances in immunohistochemical staining and biomarker development, MPE with CUP maybe profiled in a similar manner as lung cancer. Similarly, liquid biopsy or identification of circulating tumor cell free DNA may have a role in the work up of CUP in the future. There is some experience in managing these patients with gene directed therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, however, with mixed results. Given the poor prognosis associated with MPE from CUP, symptom alleviating measures such as indwelling pleural catheters should be part of the management strategy.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To study the inter-physician reliability using the universal classification (UC) of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to the ST-segment classification (STC). The UC is based on clinical, electrocardiographic (ECG), and pathophysiologic characteristics compared to the STC, which is mainly ECG based. METHODS: In this registry of consecutive patients with AMI presenting to a tertiary hospital, we studied the inter-physician reliability [weighted kappa (wK)] using the UC and the STC. Two physician investigators independently classified each patient with AMI according to the UC and STC, and a third senior physician investigator resolved any disagreement. RESULTS: The study included Type 1=226 (89.7%), Type 2=16 (6.3%), Type 3=3 (1.2%), Type 4a=1 (0.4%), Type 4b=4 (1.6%), Type 5=2 (0.8%), ST-segment-elevation AMI (STEMI)=140 (55.6%), and non-ST-segment-elevation AMI (NSTEMI)=112 (44.4%). Inter-physician reliability using the UC was very good (wK=0.84, 95% CI 0.68-0.99) and using the STC was good (wK=0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.86). Of patients with Type 1 AMI, 57.1% were STEMI and 42.9% were NSTEMI. In contrast, of patients with Type 2 AMI, 18.8% were STEMI and 81.2% were NSTEMI. CONCLUSION: The UC is a reliable method to classify patients with AMI and performs better than the STC in this study. Validation of the two classifications should be performed in large prospective studies.
