ABSTRACT Background Newly or already diagnosed cancer might significantly influence the clinical presentation, outcome, and therapy of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods Out of 1745 patients with acute PE, 66 patients were diagnosed with cancer during an initial hospitalization due to acute PE (where PE was the first clinical manifestation of cancer), 165 patients had known cancer treated in the last 6 months, and 1514 patients had acute PE without known or suspected cancer. The primary end‐point of the present study was all‐cause hospital death. The secondary end‐points were the proportion of patients treated with thrombolysis and who had severe disease, and the ocurrence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Results Patients with PE as the first presentation of cancer had the highest hospital mortality rate compared to the other two groups (HR for the mortality rate in patients without cancer as a reference, adjusted to four‐stratum mortality risk, and Charlson's comorbidity index was 3.440; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.795–6.591; p < 0.001). Patients with known cancer before PE had a significantly lower chance of being treated with thrombolysis than patients without cancer (OR, 0.523; 95% CI, 0.339–0.807; p = 0.003); additionally, this difference was attenuated but remained when the OR was adjusted to age (OR, 0.542; 95% CI, 0.351–0.838; p = 0.006). Patients with known cancer had a higher frequency of high‐risk PE compared with patients without cancer (18.2% vs. 12.8%; p < 0.001). Patients with PE as the first manifestation of cancer had a higher frequency of intermediate‐high‐risk PE than those without (36.4% vs. 30.9%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in bleeding during hospitalization between groups. Conclusion Patients with cancer had a more severe presentation of acute PE than patients without. Furthermore, patients with PE as the first manifestation of cancer had the highest hospital mortality rate, and patients with known cancer were least likely to be treated with thrombolysis.

Alcohol drinks, especially wine, have been described since 6,000 B.C. For many years in modern medicine, wine in moderation has been considered healthy for cardiovascular prevention, i.e., recommended by nutrition committees. Some regional guidelines still recommend one to two standard drinks per day. By the very recent (January 2023), World Health Organization and Canadian Guidance on alcohol emphasize that any alcoholic drink is hazardous to the health and the safe amount is zero. The risk starts with every single drop. It was also nicely summarized in the manuscript “Alcohol-dose question and the weakest link in a chemical interplay” (Explor Cardiol. 2023;1:15–25. doi: 10.37349/ec.2023.00003) especially from the standpoint of a researcher in the cardiovascular arena. The newest recommendations are based on observational studies and their meta-analysis, therefore establishing associations, pointing out that alcohol may somewhat prevent cardiovascular diseases and diabetes type 2, but with a significant increase in non-cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, especially cancers. Previous recommendations, therefore, may be obsolete as they were based on studies where abstainers from alcoholic beverages had inherent higher risks. The current controversy with conflicting guidelines for alcoholic beverage consumption in the era of precision medicine may stimulate more fundamental investigations up to genetic ones and find the cause-effect relations. In the era of precision medicine, it may come closer to discovering the causes of cancers and many other diseases, enabling predictions of reactions to alcoholic beverages by each person, not just in the population.