Malignancy screening in autoimmune myositis among Australian rheumatologists

Abstract

Malignancy screening in autoimmune myositis was variable among this small cohort of Australian rheumatologists. The observed differences were driven by patient factors and clinician preferences. The group identified several challenges in the cancer screening process. Further research is warranted to address these challenges, close the evidence gap and develop workable guidelines.

Early radiological intervention and haematology screening is associated with excellent outcomes in Budd–Chiari syndrome

“…We have based this policy, however, on reported observations that splenomegaly is associated with platelet pooling in the splenic circulation, such that resulting peripheral platelet counts may not be representative of the total available circulating platelet mass. 17 The median Rotterdam score of our cohort was 1.16 (range: 0.07-2.11), which is comparable with published BCS cohort studies. 4 Twelve patients were classified as class I, 10 as class II and 5 as class III, with predicted 5-year survival of 89% (confidence interval (CI): 79-99%), 74% (CI: 65-83%) and 42% (CI: 28-56%) respectively.…”

“…Given its accuracy in predicting short-term mortality in cirrhotic patients, it has become the most commonly used predictive tool in cirrhosis and forms the basis by which organs are allocated for liver transplantation. In this setting, a higher MELD score is associated with poorer 3-month survival: 1.9% mortality scores <11, 6% mortality scores [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]19.6% mortality scores 20-29, 52.6% mortality 30-39, 71.3% mortality scores 40+ 10 and high mortality post-TIPS. 11 The Rotterdam score, demonstrated to predict survival in BCS, 12 was calculated for all patients using the following equation: 1.27 × encephalopathy + 1.04 × ascites + 0.72 × prothrombin time + 0.004 × bilirubin.…”

Cancer Screening for Dermatomyositis: A Survey of Indirect Costs, Burden, and Patient Willingness to Pay

“…13,14 However, consensus guidelines for screening modalities and frequency currently do not exist, resulting in widely varying practice patterns. 15 Some experts advocate for a conventional cancer screening panel (CSP), as summarized in Table 1. [15][16][17][18] These tests may be repeated annually for 3 to 5 years following the diagnosis of DM.…”

Review of Cancer Screening Investigations in New Diagnoses of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies at a Single Tertiary Hospital

“…Despite this, there are no consensus guidelines regarding recommended investigations or duration of ongoing surveillance. A recent survey of Australian rheumatologists revealed that a lack of current guidelines and the perceived potential for harm were significant barriers in screening IIM patients for cancer 5 …”

“…A recent survey of Australian rheumatologists revealed that a lack of current guidelines and the perceived potential for harm were significant barriers in screening IIM patients for cancer. 5 The current study aimed to identify the frequency and range of cancer screening investigations performed in the context of IIM diagnosis at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia.…”