ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Hospital discharge diagnoses from administrative registries are frequently used in studies of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, but the validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for identifying such events is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using patient samples from the Danish National Patient Register, we calculated positive predictive values (PPV), i.e., the proportion of registered ICD codes, which could be confirmed after manual search of the electronic health record. Sensitivity was estimated in a sample of patients with imaging-verified venous thromboembolism but without prior knowledge about their ICD coding status. Sensitivity was calculated as the proportion of these patients, who were discharged with an ICD code for venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: The overall PPV of an ICD-10 diagnosis of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism was 75.9 % (95 % confidence interval 71.3-80.0). In subgroups, the PPV was particularly low for recurrent venous thromboembolism (44.2 %), diagnoses in a secondary position (55.7 %), outpatient diagnoses (65.3 %), and diagnoses given at surgical (66.7 %), emergency wards (48.4 %), or via hospices/palliative teams (0 %). The overall sensitivity was 68 %, meaning 32 % of patients with cancer diagnosed in hospital with venous thromboembolism were discharged without any registered ICD code for venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: The positive predictive value of an ICD diagnosis of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the Danish Patient Register was overall adequate for research purposes, but with notable variation across subgroups. Sensitivity was limited, as 1/3 of patients with venous thromboembolism were discharged without any relevant ICD code. Cautious interpretation of incidence of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism based on administrative register-based data is warranted.
ABSTRACT
Currently, bone marrow (BM) biopsy (BMB) is recommended in the initial staging of patients with the presumed primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma (PCNSL). However, the added value of BMB in the era of positron emission tomography (PET-CT) has been challenged in other lymphoma subtypes. We analyzed BM findings in patients with biopsy-proven CNS lymphoma and a negative PET-CT scan for disease outside CNS. A comprehensive Danish population-based registry search was performed to identify all patients with CNS lymphoma of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) histology with available BMB results and staging PET-CT without systemic lymphoma. A total of 300 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of them, 16% had a previous history of lymphoma, while 84% were diagnosed with PCNSL. None of the patients had DLBCL in the BM. A minority (8.3%) had discordant BMB findings, mainly low-grade histologies that did not influence treatment choice in any case. In conclusion, the risk of overlooking concordant BM infiltration in patients with CNS lymphoma of DLBCL histology and negative PET-CT scan is negligible. As we did not find any patient with DLBCL in the BMB, our results suggest that BMB can be safely omitted in the diagnostic workup in patients with CNS lymphoma and a negative PET-CT.
