Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a randomized controlled study

Rivaroxaban versus low molecular weight heparin for managing lower extremity deep vein thrombosis following thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety profiles of rivaroxaban compared to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in managing lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) subsequent to thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery.

METHODS

Sixty patients diagnosed with lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) following thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery were randomly assigned to two groups: the experimental group comprising 30 patients treated with rivaroxaban, and the control group consisting of 30 patients treated with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The fundamental clinical characteristics of patients in both groups were documented, encompassing parameters, along with pre- and post-surgical lower limb vascular ultrasound findings. Additionally, variations in drainage volume over the initial three days following the procedure were also noted. Patients were subjected to a three-month follow-up period, during which data from one-month and three-month postoperative examinations were collected.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups exhibited satisfactory wound healing postoperatively. D-dimer levels remained stable, and lower extremity vascular ultrasound evaluations showed no signs of additional thrombus formation. Moreover, there were no reported cases of distant postoperative complications such as pleural effusion, gingival bleeding, or gastrointestinal bleeding. Nonetheless, subcutaneous bruising was observed in six patients from the control group, all localized at the sites of LMWH injections.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban demonstrates efficacy comparable to LMWH in patients with lower extremity deep vein thrombosis following thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery, while exhibiting a superior safety profile compared to LMWH.

2024 Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) recommendations for the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Vennous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication associated to greater mortality in patients with cancer. Its etiology is multifactorial and depends on the characteristics and co-morbidities of the patient, the tumor type and extension, and the oncological treatment. The management of VTE is more complex in patients with cancer due to an increased risk of recurrence and major bleeding complications during anticoagulation compared to the general non-oncological population. The above differences have led to the development of specific clinical trials to assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients with cancer. The present clinical guidelines are intended to provide general recommendations on the management of cancer-associated VTE according to updated according to the most recent scientific evidence.

Preventative and curative treatment of venous thromboembolic disease in cancer patients

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) is common in patients with cancer and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The incidence of CAT continues to rise, complicating patient care and burdening healthcare systems. Patients with cancer experiencing VTE face poorer prognoses, making prevention and effective management imperative. This narrative review synthesizes evidence on thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy and acute treatment strategies for CAT. Risk assessment models (e.g., Khorana score) aid in identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been shown to reduce the risk of CAT without significantly increasing the risk of bleeding complications. However, implementation of risk-based strategies remains limited in clinical practice. For acute CAT management, LMWHs have been the standard of care, but DOACs are increasingly favored due to their convenience and efficacy. However, challenges persist, including bleeding risks and drug interactions. Emerging therapies targeting Factor XI inhibitors present promising alternatives, potentially addressing current limitations in anticoagulation management for CAT.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Heparin for Cancer-Related Stroke: Augmented Meta-Analysis

Background

Ischemic stroke is common among patients with systemic malignancy, associated with increased risk of neurological deterioration and mortality compared to the general population. Optimal approach to secondary stroke prevention in cancer patients is unclear. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated available data on the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and heparin products for stroke prevention in this population.

Methods

Using the Nested Knowledge AutoLit software, we performed PubMed search in September 2023 for articles reporting the use of antithrombotics for cancer-associated stroke. We conducted systematic review and meta-analysis. We also used a novel computational augmentation method to amplify the sample size to predict the effect before and after sample size augmentation and predict the results of further trials.

Results

Among 253 potential studies screened, 7 were eligible for inclusion. 439 patients were treated with DOACs and 3968 with heparin products. Among patients treated with heparin, intracerebral hemorrhage (8.8 % vs 1.6, p=.02), overall hemorrhagic complications (17.9% vs 3.5%, p<.001), and mortality [28.1% vs 23.5%, p<.001] were respectively significantly higher than those reported among patients who received DOAC for cancer-associated ischemic stroke. No significant difference was observed in the rates of recurrent deep venous thrombosis, clinically significant hemorrhage, and clinical outcomes between the treatment groups. Similar results were shown with augmented meta-analysis.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis shows DOACs may have efficacy and safety profile similar to heparin products for recurrent stroke prevention in patients with cancer. Given the small number of studies and limited data, findings should be interpreted with caution.

Treating cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A practical approach

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with cancer. Both cancer and its treatments increase the risk of developing VTE. Specific cancer types and individual patient comorbidities increase the risk of developing cancer-associated VTE, and the risk of bleeding is increased with anticoagulation therapies. The aims of this article are to summarize the latest evidence for treating cancer-associated VTE, discuss the practical considerations involved, and share best practices for VTE treatment in patients with cancer. The article pays particular attention to challenging contexts including patients with brain, lung, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary tumors and those with hematological malignancies. Furthermore, the article summarizes specific clinical scenarios that require additional treatment considerations, including extremes of body weight, nausea and gastrointestinal disturbances, compromised renal function, and anemia, and touches upon the relevance of drug-drug interactions. Historically, vitamin K antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have been used as therapy for cancer-associated VTE. The development of direct oral anticoagulants has provided additional treatment options, which, in certain instances, offer advantages over LMWHs. There are numerous factors that need to be considered when treating cancer-associated VTE, and although various treatment guidelines are helpful, they do not reflect each unique scenario that may arise in clinical practice. This article provides a summary of the latest evidence and a practical approach for treating cancer-associated VTE.

Venous Thrombosis Recurrence After Catheter-Related Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis in Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Analysis

Long-term indwelling central venous catheters (CVC) are frequently used to secure vascular access to deliver injectable treatment. Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) occurs in approximately 2-6% of cancer patients. We conducted a single-center retrospective study to assess the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence in cancer patients; 200 patients were included. Mean age was 56 ± 15.15 years, median follow-up duration was 16.5 [range: 10-36] months. The incidence of recurrence was estimated using Gray's method for competing risk with death as the competing event of VTE. Recurrent VTE occurred in 25.5% of patients with a median occurrence time of 6.5 [range: 5-11.25] months. In case of recurrence, 94.6% of patients were treated for cancer and 80.4% of them received anticoagulants; 4 major bleeds and 17 non-major bleeds occurred during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, previous VTE (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.48 (95% CI 1.42-4.32) and presence of CVC (HR 5.56 (95% CI 1.96-15.75) were significant recurrence risk factors. After a first episode of CRT, 25.5% of patients experienced VTE recurrence as UEDVT in 30 cases (55.5%), PE in 17 cases (31.5%), and DVT in 7 cases (13%), mostly during anticoagulation therapy. Anticoagulation therapy does not avoid CRT in case of cancer and must be balanced with hemorrhagic risk.

[Translation into French and republication of: "Management of cancer-associated thromboembolism in vulnerable population"]

Although all patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) have a high morbidity and mortality risk, certain groups of patients are particularly vulnerable. This may expose the patient to an increased risk of thrombotic recurrence or bleeding (or both), as the benefit-risk ratio of anticoagulant treatment may be modified. Treatment thus needs to be chosen with care. Such vulnerable groups include older patients, patients with renal impairment or thrombocytopenia, and underweight and obese patients. However, these patient groups are poorly represented in clinical trials, limiting the available data on which treatment decisions can be based. Meta-analysis of data from randomised clinical trials suggests that the relative treatment effect of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors (DXIs) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with respect to major bleeding could be affected by advanced age. No evidence was obtained for a change in the relative risk-benefit profile of DXIs compared to LMWH in patients with renal impairment or of low body weight. The available, albeit limited, data do not support restricting the use of DXIs in patients with TAC on the basis of renal impairment or low body weight. In older patients, age is not itself a critical factor for choice of treatment, but frailty is such a factor. Patients over 70 years of age with CAT should undergo a systematic frailty evaluation before choosing treatment and modifiable bleeding risk factors should be addressed. In patients with renal impairment, creatine clearance should be assessed and monitored regularly thereafter. In patients with an eGFR less than 30mL/min/1.72m2, the anticoagulant treatment may need to be adapted. Similarly, platelet count should be assessed prior to treatment and monitored regularly. In patients with grade 3-4, thrombocytopenia (less than 50,000platelets/μL) treatment with a LMWH at a reduced dose should be considered. For patients with CAT and low body weight, standard anticoagulant treatment recommendations are appropriate, whereas in obese patients, apixaban may be preferred.

Post-pulmonary embolism syndrome: A reminder for clinicians

Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is one of the leading causes of cardiovascular emergencies and the third leading cause of death. Although efforts focus on treating the acute event, patients who survive APE may develop long-term sequelae. Research reveals that approximately half of patients who have suffered an APE do not regain their previous level of function and experience a reduction in their quality of life for several years after the episode. Acute pulmonary embolism can be classified according to the risk of short-term mortality, with most mortality and morbidity concentrated in high-risk and intermediate-risk cases. The first-line treatment for APE is systemic anticoagulation. However, identifying and more aggressively treating people with intermediate to high risk, who have a more favorable risk profile for reperfusion treatments, could reduce short-term mortality and mitigate post-pulmonary embolism syndrome (PPES). Post-pulmonary embolism syndrome refers to a variety of persistent symptoms and functional limitations that occur after an APE. The presence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and/or decreased quality of life after an APE has been recently termed "PPES," although this entity encompasses different manifestations. The most severe cause of persistent dyspnea is chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, where increased pulmonary artery pressure is due to the fibrotic organization of unresolved APE. Post-PE Syndrome is not always systematically addressed in management guidelines, and its prevalence may be underestimated. More research is needed to fully understand its causes and risk factors. Interventions such as cardiopulmonary rehabilitation have been suggested to improve the quality of life of patients with PPES. A comprehensive, evidence-based approach is essential to effectively prevent and manage PPES and improve the long-term outcomes and well-being of affected patients.

Structured benefit-risk assessment for enoxaparin, in the context of its label extension, for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and prevention of its recurrence in patients with active cancer

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. However, until recently, only dalteparin and tinzaparin were approved in the European Economic Area (EEA) for these patients. This study compares the benefit-risk profile of enoxaparin with dalteparin and tinzaparin for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and prevention of recurrence in adult patients with active cancer.

METHODS

A semi-quantitative structured benefit-risk assessment was conducted for the label-extension application of enoxaparin based on the benefit-risk action team descriptive framework: define decision context; determine key benefit and risk outcomes; identify data sources; extract data; interpret results.

RESULTS

The key benefits were defined as reduced all-cause mortality and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence (including symptomatic DVT, fatal PE or non-fatal PE); the key risks were major and non-major bleeding of clinical significance, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Enoxaparin demonstrated comparable effects for the reduction of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality versus other EEA-approved LMWHs (dalteparin, tinzaparin). There was no evidence of a significant difference between enoxaparin and the comparator groups with regard to incidence of major and non-major bleeding. The data on HIT were too limited to assess the difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment demonstrated a favourable benefit-risk profile for enoxaparin similar to that of other EEA-approved LMWHs for the treatment of DVT and PE and the prevention of recurrence in patients with active cancer and thus supported the label-extension approval.

[Translation into French and republication of: "Management of venous thromboembolic disease in patients with malignant brain tumours"]

This article addresses the management of venous thromboembolism in patients with malignant brain tumours, including both primary and secondary (metastatic) tumours. The available data on patients on venous thromboembolism recurrence and bleeding risks in patients with brain tumours is limited, since these patients have been excluded from most randomised, interventional, head-to-head, clinical trials comparing low molecular weight heparins to vitamin K antagonists or to direct oral factor Xa inhibitors. More information is available from retrospective observational studies, which however were generally small, and carried a high risk of confounding. Their findings suggest that direct factor Xa inhibitor use is associated with lower rates of intracranial haemorrhage compared with low molecular weight heparins. Overall, the safety profile of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors when used to prevent venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with either primary or secondary brain tumours appears to be favourable. The available data are in favour of using an anticoagulant at a full therapeutic dose in patients with primary and secondary brain tumours experiencing a venous thromboembolism, although they are not yet sufficiently robust to permit recommending a direct factor Xa inhibitor over low-molecular weight heparin.

Cancer-associated thrombosis in hematologic malignancies

Patients with hematologic malignancies are often complicated not only by severe bleeding due to thrombocytopenia and disseminated intravascular coagulation but also by thromboembolic events, just like in patients with solid cancers, and these events can negatively impact patient outcomes. Nevertheless, the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in hematologic malignancies has not been adequately investigated due to the limited size, heterogeneity, and unique pathophysiology of the patient population. This article summarizes the current understanding, risk factors, prediction models, and optimal prevention and treatment strategies of CAT in hematologic malignancies on a disease-by-disease basis, including acute leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and myeloproliferative neoplasms. Specific considerations of novel molecular targeted therapeutics introduced in recent years, such as immunomodulatory drugs and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are also discussed based on the latest clinical trials.

The Role of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: Review by Middle East and North African Experts

Venous thromboembolism is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with active cancer who require anticoagulation treatment. Choice of anticoagulant is based on careful balancing of the risks and benefits of available classes of treatment: vitamin K antagonists, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Results from randomized controlled trials have shown the consistent efficacy of DOACs versus LMWH in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, increased major gastrointestinal bleeding was observed for edoxaban and rivaroxaban, but not apixaban, compared with LMWH dalteparin. Most guidelines recommend DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE in patients without gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancer, and with considerations for renal impairment and drug-drug interactions. These updates represent a major paradigm shift for clinicians in the Middle East and North Africa. The decision to prescribe a DOAC for a patient with cancer is not always straightforward, particularly in challenging subgroups of patients with an increased risk of bleeding. In patients with gastrointestinal malignancies who are at high risk of major gastrointestinal bleeds, apixaban may be the preferred DOAC; however, caution should be exercised if patients have upper or unresected lower gastrointestinal tumors. In patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and upper or unresected lower gastrointestinal tumors, LMWH may be preferred. Vitamin K antagonists should be used only when DOACs and LMWH are unavailable or unsuitable. In this review, we discuss the overall evidence for DOACs in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE and provide treatment suggestions for challenging subgroups of patients with cancer associated VTE.

Fibrin Clot Properties in Cancer: Impact on Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Cancer is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its recurrence. There is evidence that the prothrombotic fibrin clot phenotype, involving the formation of denser and stiffer clots relatively resistant to lysis, occurs in cancer patients, which is in part related to enhanced inflammation, oxidative stress, and coagulation activation, along with the release of neutrophil extracellular traps, indicating that fibrin-related mechanisms might contribute to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Multiple myeloma and its therapy have been most widely explored in terms of altered fibrin characteristics, but prothrombotic fibrin clot features have also been reported in patients with active solid cancer, including lung cancer and gastrointestinal cancer. Patient-related factors such as advanced age, smoking, and comorbidities might also affect fibrin clot characteristics and the risk of CAT. Prothrombotic fibrin clot features have been shown to predict the detection of cancer in patients following VTE during follow-up. Cancer-specific therapies and anticoagulation can favorably modify the phenotype of a fibrin clot, which may alter the course of CAT. It is unclear whether the fibrin clot phenotype might help identify patients with CAT who are more likely to experience recurrent events. This narrative review summarizes the current knowledge on the role of fibrin clot structure and function in cancer patients in the context of CAT.

Comparing Anticoagulation Strategies for Venous Thromboembolism Associated With Active Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Current guidelines recommend several direct oral anticoagulant agents (DOACs) equally for managing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with active cancer.

Methods

Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central in November 2022. Randomized controlled trials investigating anticoagulation strategies (vitamin K antagonists, parenteral anticoagulation [eg, low-molecular weight heparin], and DOACs) for VTE in patients with active cancer were identified for network meta-analysis. The outcomes included recurrent VTE, recurrent pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep venous thrombosis, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and a composite outcome of major bleeding or CRNMB. Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using either the HR or relative risk provided from each study. Random-effects models were used for all the analyses.

Results

Seventeen randomized controlled trials involving 6,623 patients with active cancer were included. No significant differences were found among the DOACs for efficacy outcomes (recurrent VTE, pulmonary embolism, and deep venous thrombosis). In terms of major bleeding, apixaban was similarly safe compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban but was associated with a decreased risk compared with edoxaban (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.15-0.93). Regarding CRNMB, edoxaban was similarly safe compared with apixaban but was associated with a decreased risk compared with rivaroxaban (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.10-0.91). Compared with parenteral anticoagulation, apixaban was associated with a reduced risk for recurrent VTE (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.38-0.93) without increasing bleeding, edoxaban was associated with an increased risk for major bleeding or CRNMB (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.02-1.79), and rivaroxaban was associated with an increased risk for CRNMB (HR: 3.76; 95% CI: 1.43-9.88).

Conclusions

DOACs demonstrate comparable efficacy but exhibit different safety profiles. Apixaban may confer an antithrombotic benefit without an increased risk for bleeding, distinguishing it from other contemporary anticoagulation strategies in patients with active cancer and VTE.

Comparison of Edoxaban and Warfarin for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism - A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Because anticoagulant drugs for ambulatory patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) are limited to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Japan, it is important to assess the outcomes of both drugs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively assessed the outcomes of CAT patients who were treated with warfarin or edoxaban between 2011 and 2017. The assessment was limited to the duration of anticoagulant administration. CAT patients who did not receive anticoagulation therapy were also compared with the warfarin and edoxaban groups. We enrolled 111 CAT patients treated with warfarin (n=58, mean age 62.6 years, mean time in therapeutic range [TTR] % 61.1) or edoxaban (n=53, mean age 64.6 years). Although venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurred in 2 warfarin-treated patients, the 2 treatment groups were not significantly different (P=0.18). Bleeding during anticoagulation therapy occurred in 6 warfarin-treated patients (2 with major bleeding) and in 5 edoxaban-treated patients (no major bleeding) (P=1.0). The non-anticoagulation group (n=37) showed a high recurrence rate (P<0.01) compared with the anticoagulant group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that warfarin and edoxaban are equally effective in preventing VTE recurrence and bleeding. However, warfarin control in CAT patients presented some difficulties. This study also demonstrated the efficacy of anticoagulant drugs, compared with no anticoagulation, for CAT patients to prevent VTE recurrence.

Lung Cancer Related Thrombosis (LCART): Focus on Immune Checkpoint Blockade

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in lung cancer patients. Lung cancer confers an increased risk of thrombosis compared to other solid malignancies across all stages of the disease. Newer treatment agents, including checkpoint immunotherapy and targeted agents, may further increase the risk of CAT. Different risk-assessment models, such as the Khorana Risk Score, and newer approaches that incorporate genetic risk factors have been used in lung cancer patients to evaluate the risk of thrombosis. The management of CAT is based on the results of large prospective trials, which show similar benefits to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory patients. The anticoagulation agent and duration of therapy should be personalized according to lung cancer stage and histology, the presence of driver mutations and use of antineoplastic therapy, including recent curative lung surgery, chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Treatment options should be evaluated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been shown to impact the thrombotic risk in cancer patients. This review focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, novel predictive scores and management of CAT in patients with active lung cancer, with a focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Management of cancer-associated thromboembolism in vulnerable population

Although all patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) have a high morbidity and mortality risk, certain groups of patients are particularly vulnerable. This may expose the patient to an increased risk of thrombotic recurrence or bleeding (or both), as the benefit-risk ratio of anticoagulant treatment may be modified. Treatment thus needs to be chosen with care. Such vulnerable groups include older patients, patients with renal impairment or thrombocytopenia, and underweight and obese patients. However, these patient groups are poorly represented in clinical trials, limiting the available data, on which treatment decisions can be based. Meta-analysis of data from randomised clinical trials suggests that the relative treatment effect of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors (DXIs) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with respect to major bleeding could be affected by advanced age. No evidence was obtained for a change in the relative risk-benefit profile of DXIs compared to LMWH in patients with renal impairment or of low body weight. The available, albeit limited, data do not support restricting the use of DXIs in patients with CAT on the basis of renal impairment or low body weight. In older patients, age is not itself a critical factor for choice of treatment, but frailty is such a factor. Patients over 70 years of age with CAT should undergo a systematic frailty evaluation before choosing treatment and modifiable bleeding risk factors should be addressed. In patients with renal impairment, creatine clearance should be assessed and monitored regularly thereafter. In patients with an eGFR<30mL/min/1.72m2, the anticoagulant treatment may need to be adapted. Similarly, platelet count should be assessed prior to treatment and monitored regularly. In patients with grade 3-4, thrombocytopenia (<50,000 platelets/μL) treatment with a LMWH at a reduced dose should be considered. For patients with CAT and low body weight, standard anticoagulant treatment recommendations are appropriate, whereas in obese patients, apixaban may be preferred.

Management of venous thromboembolic disease in patients with malignant brain tumours

This article addresses the management of venous thromboembolism in patients with malignant brain tumours, including both primary and secondary (metastatic) tumours. The available data on patients on venous thromboembolism recurrence and bleeding risks in patients with brain tumours is limited, since these patients have been excluded from most randomised, interventional, head-to-head, clinical trials comparing low molecular weight heparins to vitamin K antagonists or to direct oral Factor Xa inhibitors. More information is available from retrospective observational studies, which however were generally small, and carried a high risk of confounding. Their findings suggest that direct Factor Xa inhibitor use is associated with lower rates of intracranial haemorrhage compared with low molecular weight heparins. Overall, the safety profile of direct oral Factor Xa inhibitors when used to prevent venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with either primary or secondary brain tumours appears to be favourable. The available data are in favour of using an anticoagulant at a full therapeutic dose in patients with primary and secondary brain tumours experiencing a venous thromboembolism, although they are not yet sufficiently robust to permit recommending a direct Factor Xa inhibitor over low-molecular weight heparin.

Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Patients with gastrointestinal cancer (GICA) are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Data from randomized clinical trials in cancer-associated VTE suggest that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) conferred similar or superior efficacy but a heterogeneous safety profile in patients with GICA. We compared the safety and effectiveness of DOACs in patients with GICA and VTE at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of patients with GICA and VTE receiving treatment with DOACs for a minimum of 6 months. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and recurrent VTE. Secondary outcomes were time to bleeding and recurrent VTE.

RESULTS

A cohort of 433 patients with GICA who were prescribed apixaban (n = 300), or rivaroxaban (n = 133) were included. MB occurred in 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-5.9), CRNMB in 5.3% (95% CI 3.4-7.9), and recurrent VTE in 7.4% (95% CI 5.1-10.3). The cumulative incidence rates of CRNMB and recurrent VTE were not significantly different when comparing apixaban to rivaroxaban.

CONCLUSION

Apixaban and rivaroxaban had a similar risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding and could be considered as anticoagulant options in selected patients with GICA and VTE.

French guidelines for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism - 2023 update

BACKGROUND

In recent years, knowledge about cancer associated thrombosis has evolved considerably.

METHODS

Practical guidelines were drafted on the initiative of the INNOVTE FCRIN Network, led by the French Speaking Society of Respiratory Diseases (SPLF), by a coordinating group, a writing group, and a review group, with the involvement of different scientific societies practicing in various settings. The method followed the "Clinical Practice Guidelines" process of the French National Authority for Health (HAS).

RESULTS

After a literature review, guidelines were formulated, improved, and then validated by the working groups. These guidelines addressed multiple aspects of the disease and management from the data of available clinical trials and observational studies : epidemiology, initial treatment, treatment duration, extended treatment, recurrent thrombosis, central venous catheter thrombosis, incidental thrombosis, treatment in case of thrombocytopenia.

CONCLUSION

These evidence-based guidelines are intended to guide the practical management of patients with cancer associated thrombosis.

[Recommendations for thromboembolic disease in oncological processes. A view from primary care]

Venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients diagnosed with cancer and a cause of morbidity and mortality. Approximately 20% of thromboembolic episodes develop in association with active cancer. On the other hand, it is estimated that about 2-12% of cases, the thromboembolic episode is the first manifestation of an occult cancer, diagnosed at that time or subsequently, which offers an opportunity for early diagnosis and treatment. There are multiple factors that contribute to increase the risk of VTE in oncological patients in relation to specific characteristics of the patient, the tumor and the treatments. Knowledge of these risk factors will contribute to early diagnosis when signs of VTE appear, as well as the assessment of thromboprophylaxis if indicated. The diagnosis of VTE in patients with cancer does not differ of those who do not suffer from it. Regarding the treatment of VTE in these patients, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), direct acting anticoagulants (DACs) and antivitamin K (VKA) are the most commonly used, although the dosing regimen and length are not clear yet. The management of these patients should be interdisciplinary and early, so the primary care physician plays a key role in this process as he/she is liaise with his/her patients. It is also necessary to update knowledge in order to improve the care of these patients. For these reasons, this document has been prepared by the Working Group on Vasculopathies of the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMERGEN) whose objective is to present the available information regarding the management of VTE that may appear in oncological patients, as well as the assessment of thromboprophylaxis and treatment, if appropriate, from an approach focused on a primary care field.

The Role of Injectables in the Treatment and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. CAT can manifest itself as venous thromboembolism (VTE), in the form of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, or arterial thromboembolism. The pathophysiology of CAT is complex and depends on cancer-, patient-, treatment- and biomarkers-related factors. Treatment of VTE in patients with cancer is complex and includes three major classes of anticoagulant agents: heparin and its derivatives, e.g., low molecular weight heparins, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and vitamin K inhibitors. Given the tremendous heterogeneity of clinical situations in patients with cancer and the challenges of CAT, there is no single universal treatment option for patients suffering from or at risk of CAT. Initial studies suggested that patients seemed to prefer an anticoagulant that would not interfere with their cancer treatment, suggesting the primacy of cancer over VTE, and favoring efficacy and safety over convenience of route of administration. Recent studies show that when the efficacy and safety aspects are similar, patients prefer the oral route of administration. Despite this, injectables are a valid option for many patients with cancer.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present the randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence and highlight the areas of uncertainty regarding direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT).

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last years, four RCTs have shown that rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and apixaban are at least as effective as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of both incidental and symptomatic CAT. On the other hand, these drugs increase the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cancer at this site. Another two RCTs have demonstrated that apixaban and rivaroxaban also prevent CAT in subjects at intermediate-to-high risk commencing chemotherapy, albeit at the price of higher likelihood of bleeding. By contrast, data are limited about the use DOAC in individuals with intracranial tumors or concomitant thrombocytopenia. It is also possible that some anticancer agents heighten the effects of DOAC via pharmacokinetic interactions, up to making their effectiveness-safety profile unfavorable. Leveraging the results of the aforementioned RCTS, current guidelines recommend DOAC as the anticoagulants of choice for CAT treatment and, in selected cases, prevention. However, the benefit of DOAC is less defined in specific patient subgroups, in which the choice of DOAC over LMWH should be carefully pondered.

Treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A focus on special populations

Current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of both low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (apixapan, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) as first-line options for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. However, most of these guidelines refer to the general cancer patient population and provide limited guidance for specific subgroups of patients at particularly high risk of bleeding, such as those with gastrointestinal cancers, primary or metastatic brain tumors, thrombocytopenia, or renal impairment. In these complex populations, the management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) poses unique challenges and requires a nuanced approach based on the primum non nocere principle. This comprehensive review critically examines the relevant literature and discusses the therapeutic options currently available for the management of CAT in these special situations.

Anticoagulation for the Prevention of Arterial Thrombosis in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The risk of arterial thrombotic events (ATEs) is high among patients on systemic anticancer therapies. Despite the efficacy of anticoagulants in the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, it is unknown whether anticoagulation is effective to prevent ATEs.

Objectives

This study sought to examine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in ATE prevention among ambulatory cancer patients.

Methods

We performed a systematic review using Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to May 21, 2022, and included studies comparing oral or parenteral anticoagulation with no anticoagulation among ambulatory patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy with no other indication for anticoagulation. The primary outcome was ATE (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intra-abdominal arterial embolism, or peripheral artery occlusion). The secondary outcomes were major and nonmajor bleeding and all-cause mortality.

Results

Fourteen randomized trials involving low-molecular-weight heparins, direct oral anticoagulants, and warfarin were included. ATEs were captured as coefficacy endpoints or adverse events. Anticoagulant use was not associated with a reduction in ATEs compared with placebo or standard treatment (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.50-1.04; P = 0.08; I2 = 0%). RRs of major and minor bleeding were 1.56 (95% CI: 1.12-2.17) and 2.25 (95% CI: 1.45-3.48) with anticoagulant use. In 13 trials that reported all-cause mortality, risk of death was not reduced with anticoagulants (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95-1.02; P = 0.38; I2 = 0%).

Conclusions

Anticoagulants did not reduce ATE risk among ambulatory patients on systemic anticancer therapy and were associated with increased bleeding. Based on the current data, anticoagulants have a limited role in ATE prevention in this population as a whole.

Comparative Effectiveness of Anticoagulants in Patients With Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Importance

Patterns of clinical utilization and comparative effectiveness of anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) remain largely unexplored.

Objectives

To assess patterns of and factors associated with anticoagulant use and to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of contemporary anticoagulants in patients with active cancer in a clinical setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study obtained deidentified OptumLabs electronic health record claims data from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a primary cancer diagnosis (except skin cancer) during at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient visits within 6 months before the venous thromboembolism (VTE) date were included. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to September 2021.

Exposures

The patients were grouped according to the anticoagulant prescribed: (1) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), (2) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and (3) warfarin.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Odds ratios (ORs) were used to present the association between factors of interest and utilization of anticoagulants. Main efficacy outcomes included risk of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality. Main safety outcomes included the risk of hospitalization due to major bleeding. Relative treatment effect estimates were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs.

Results

This study included 5100 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [12.3] years; 2670 [52.4%] women; 799 [15.7%] Black, 389 [7.6%] Hispanic, and 3559 [69.8%] White individuals). Overall, 2512 (49.3%), 1488 (29.2%), and 1460 (28.6%) filled prescriptions for DOACs, LMWH, and warfarin, respectively. The median (IQR) treatment duration was 3.2 (1.0-6.5) months for DOACs, 3.1 (1.0-6.8) months for warfarin, and 1.8 (0.9-3.8) months for LWMH. Patients with lung (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.12-3.65), urological (OR, 1.94; 95% CI,1.08-3.49), gynecological (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.31-7.82), and colorectal (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.20-4.32) cancer were associated with increased prescriptions for LMWH compared with DOACs. LMWH (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14-1.90) and warfarin (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87) were associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrences compared with DOACs. LMWH was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.62-3.20) and higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25) compared with DOACs.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness study of claims-based data, patients with CAT received anticoagulation for a remarkably short duration in clinical settings. DOACs was associated with a lower risk of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and mortality. Warfarin may still be considered for patients with contraindications to DOACs and those with poor persistence on LMWH.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Versus Warfarin in Adult Cancer Patients as a Precision Medicine for Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a condition often seen in patients diagnosed with cancer and is recognized as a predictor of poor outcomes in these patients. The probability of VTE recurring is generally higher in people with cancer than in those without; hence, addressing this issue is essential when making healthcare decisions. Therefore, our systematic review was primarily designed to compare low-weight- molecular heparin (LMWH) to warfarin in reducing recurrent VTE among cancer patients. However, other outcomes were also evaluated, such as mortality and bleeding events observed more in cancer patients. The selection of relevant articles was carried out using a database search and a manual search, which involved reviewing reference lists of articles eligible for inclusion in the current review. The methodological quality of each included study was then assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool in the Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). Additionally, pooled results were examined using the Review Manager software and presented as forest plots. Our search of electronic databases elicited a total of 2163 articles, of which only six were deemed eligible for inclusion and analysis. Data pooled from the six studies demonstrated the effectiveness of LMWH in minimizing the reoccurrence of VTE over warfarin [risk ratio (RR): 0.67; 95% CI: 0.47 - 0.95; p = 0.03]. However, LMWH had a similar effect statistically as warfarin on the major bleeding events (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.62 - 1.77; p = 0.85), minor bleeding events (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54 - 1.20; p = 0.28), and all-cause mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.88 - 1.13; p = 0.99). While LMWH demonstrated its effectiveness in minimizing the incidence of VTE recurrence over warfarin in cancer patients, it had no statistical difference in terms of mortality or bleeding events when compared to warfarin. Based on our findings, we recommend that LMWH continues to be used as a first-line treatment regimen to mitigate recurrent VTE in cancer patients.

Bridging the Gap in Cancer-Related Stroke Management: Update on Therapeutic and Preventive Approaches

The underlying aetiopathophysiology of cancer-related strokes and thromboembolisms differs from that of noncancer-related strokes, which makes treating cancer-related strokes and thromboembolisms a distinct clinical challenge. This necessitates the development of novel, individualised diagnostic and treatment strategies. However, limited guidelines are available for the management of cancer-related strokes and the prevention of acute strokes or other thromboembolic events in this patient population. In this article, we present an updated overview of the therapeutic and preventive strategies for strokes in cancer settings. These strategies include acute reperfusion therapy, anticoagulant therapy, antiplatelet therapy, and lifestyle management options. We also outline comprehensive pathways and highlight gaps in the evidence-based clinical management of cancer-related strokes or thromboembolisms. Additionally, future recommendations for the management of strokes in cancer patients are provided.

Bleeding Risk in Elderly Patients with Venous Thromboembolism Who Would Have Been Excluded from Anticoagulation Trials

Older patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are underrepresented in clinical anticoagulation trials. We examined to which extent elderly patients with VTE would be excluded from such trials and compared the bleeding risk between hypothetically excluded and enrolled patients. We studied 991 patients aged ≥65 years with acute VTE in a prospective multicenter cohort. We identified 12 landmark VTE oral anticoagulation trials from the eighth and updated ninth American College of Chest Physician Guidelines. For each trial, we abstracted the exclusion criteria and calculated the proportion of our study patients who would have been excluded from trial participation. We examined the association between five common exclusion criteria (hemodynamic instability, high bleeding risk, comorbidity, co-medication, and invasive treatments) and major bleeding (MB) within 36 months using competing risk regression, adjusting for age, sex, and periods of anticoagulation. A median of 31% (range: 20-52%) of our patients would have been excluded from participation in the landmark trials. Hemodynamic instability (sub-hazard ratio [SHR]: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1-4.7), comorbidity (SHR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.2), and co-medication (SHR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.3) were associated with MB. Compared to eligible patients, those with ≥2 exclusion criteria had a twofold (SHR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.38-3.39) increased risk of MB. Overall, about one-third of older patients would not be eligible for participation in guideline-defining VTE anticoagulation trials. The bleeding risk increases significantly with the number of exclusion criteria present. Thus, results from such trials may not be generalizable to older, multimorbid, and co-medicated patients.

The Saudi Consensus for the Management of Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism: A Modified Delphi-Based Study

Background  Cancer is a well-known risk factor of preventable thromboembolic disease. This study aims to provide guidance on the prevention and management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) that tailors prophylactic and therapeutic options for medical and surgical oncology patients presenting to health care settings in Saudi Arabia. Methods  The present consensus was developed in concordance with the modified Delphi-based approach, which incorporates a face-to-face meeting between two voting rounds to gain experts' feedback on the proposed statements. All experts were either oncologists, hematologists, or hemato-oncologist with an active clinical and research profile in hemato-oncology. Results  The experts highlighted that the comparatively high incidence of inherited thrombophilia among the Saudi population may account for a higher CT burden in the Kingdom than in other parts of the world. However, due to the lack of literature that assesses CT in Saudi Arabia, primary venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should be tailored according to a valid risk assessment of cancer patients and should be implemented in routine practice. For hospitalized medical oncology patients, the experts agreed that prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) should be offered, regardless of the presence of acute illness. For ambulatory medical oncology patients, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) prophylaxis should be offered for high-risk patients. Concerning surgical patients, they agreed that all oncology patients undergoing surgery should be offered thromboprophylaxis. In terms of secondary prophylaxis, the experts recommended continuing a prophylactic dose of anticoagulant (LMWH or DOAC), for an appropriate period depending on the cancer type and stage. Finally, they also provided a set of statements on management of CT in Saudi Arabia. Conclusion  The present modified Delphi-based study combined the best available evidence and clinical experience with the current health care policies and settings in Saudi Arabia to build a consensus statement on the epidemiology, prevention, and management of CT.

Ovarian clear cell cancer associated with Trousseau syndrome: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Trousseau syndrome is known as patients with tumors have a combination of multiple thrombi with systemic organ infarction. The incidence of ovarian clear cell cancer associated with Trousseau syndrome is relatively low. We report the case of a 41-year-old woman diagnosed with ovarian clear cell cancer with deep vein thrombosis and cerebral infarction who had a poor prognosis.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 41-year-old woman was brought to our hospital with abdominal pain. Abdominal computerized tomography scan suggested large mass of ovarian origin which was considered an ovarian tumor with pelvic metastasis and peritoneal metastasis. Laboratory analyses indicated an elevated levels of serum tumor marker carbohydrate antigen 125 was 321.9 U/mL and the level of D-dimer was 16.71 mg/L.

DIAGNOSIS

The patient underwent pelvic mass aspiration was diagnosed with ovarian clear cell cancer. B-ultrasound revealed thrombosis of the lower limbs.

INTERVENTIONS

She underwent 2 neoadjuvant chemotherapies, along with anticoagulation therapy. However, it had a poor therapeutic effect, and the patient suffered from acute cerebral infarction that worsened.

OUTCOMES

Chemotherapy and anticoagulation failed to stop the tumor and blood clot progression. The patient died 2 months after cerebral infarction without surgical treatment.

LESSONS

Gynecologists should be aware of the need for clinical suspicion of the risk of thrombosis during the treatment period of ovarian cancer and make careful decisions.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention and Acute Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Cancer is a major risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) constitutes approximately 15-25% of all VTE cases. For decades, the standard treatment for CAT used to be daily subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Data on the safety and efficacy of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this population emerged only in recent years and specific DOACs were included into recent guidelines recommendations. In this narrative review of the literature, we reported the results of the phase III randomized controlled trials that evaluated the DOACs for the prevention and the acute treatment of CAT. For the acute phase treatment, the anti-Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) showed better efficacy than LMWH in preventing VTE recurrence; however, rivaroxaban and edoxaban were also associated with an increased risk of bleeding events. For primary prevention of CAT in ambulatory cancer patients starting chemotherapy, apixaban and rivaroxaban showed better efficacy than placebo but a trend towards higher bleeding rates. Recent guidelines suggest the DOACs for the treatment of CAT in selected cancer patients (eg, low bleeding risk, no luminal gastrointestinal or genitourinary malignancies, no interfering medications). The DOACs are also suggested for primary thromboprophylaxis in selected ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of VTE (eg, Khorana score ≥2 prior to starting new chemotherapy, low bleeding risk, no interfering medications).

Long-Term Management of Pulmonary Embolism: A Review of Consequences, Treatment, and Rehabilitation

The concept of pulmonary embolism is evolving. Recent and emerging evidence on the treatment of specific patient populations, its secondary prevention, long-term complications, and the unmet need for rehabilitation has the potential to change clinical practice for the benefit of the patients. This review discusses the recent evidence from clinical trials, observational studies, and guidelines focusing on anticoagulation treatment, rehabilitation, emotional stress, quality of life, and the associated outcomes for patients with pulmonary embolism. Guidelines suggest that the type and duration of treatment with anticoagulation should be based on prevalent risk factors. Recent studies demonstrate that an anticoagulant treatment that is longer than two years may be effective and safe for some patients. The evidence for extended treatment in cancer patients is limited. Careful consideration is particularly necessary for pulmonary embolisms in pregnancy, cancer, and at the end of life. The rehabilitation and prevention of unnecessary deconditioning, emotional distress, and a reduced quality of life is an important, but currently they are unmet priorities for many patients with a pulmonary embolism. Future research could demonstrate optimal anticoagulant therapy durations, follow-ups, and rehabilitation, and effective patient-centered decision making at the end of life. A patient preferences and shared decision making should be incorporated in their routine care when weighing the benefits and risks with primary treatment and secondary prevention.

Venous Thromboembolism in Women with Cancer with an Additional Focus on Breast and Gynecological Cancers

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in women with cancer. Many clinical practice guidelines provide guidance for prevention and treatment; however, there are no specific recommendations for women. This is unfortunate because the proportion of women with breast- and gynecological cancers is high among patients with cancer-associated VTE. Thromboembolism often heralds cancer progression and poor prognosis and should—besides adequate anticoagulant management—also prompt reassessment and, if necessary, changes in cancer treatment. Recently, the new class of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has started to replace low-molecular-weight heparin as standard thromboprophylaxis and therapy in cancer patients. They are very effective, but they also carry a relevant risk of bleeding. Therefore, despite their ease of use, not every tumor patient qualifies for a DOAC, and this is especially true for gynecological tumor patients. Each prescription must be weighed individually. This review addresses specific aspects of VTE prophylaxis and management in women with cancer. Every physician who treats breast and gynecological cancers should be familiar with prophylaxis, diagnosis, and therapy of cancer-associated VTE. At the same time, patients should be informed by their physician what symptoms to look for and whom to contact if these symptoms occur, even outside of office hours and on weekends.

Cancer and stroke: What do we know and where do we go?

Cancer is an increasingly recognized cause for ischemic stroke, with recent acknowledgement of cancer-related stroke as an emerging stroke subtype with unique pathophysiologic mechanisms. In addition, cancer-related stroke may differ from stroke in the general population as cancer patients may not receive guideline-recommended stroke care, and the occurrence of stroke may also preclude patients from receiving optimal cancer treatments. Due to the high degree of morbidity and mortality associated with both conditions, understanding the relationship between stroke and cancer is crucial. In this narrative review, we discuss the association between cancer and stroke, the unique pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, treatment options including acute reperfusion therapies and secondary prevention strategies, compare outcomes between cancer-related stroke and stroke in the general population, and review new and emerging evidence in this field.

A Review of the Past, Present and Future of Cancer-associated Thrombosis Management

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can have a significant impact on the management, quality of life and mortality of patients with cancer. VTE occurs in 5-20% of patients with cancer, and malignancy is associated with up to 25% of all VTE. It is the second leading cause of death in ambulatory patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy. Increased rates of cancer-associated thrombosis are attributed to improved patient survival, increased awareness, surgery, antineoplastic treatments and the use of central venous access devices. Many factors influence cancer-associated thrombosis risk and are broadly categorized into patient-related, cancer-related and treatment-related risks. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants have shown themselves to be at least as effective in preventing recurrent VTE in patients with cancer with symptomatic and incidental VTE. This has led to a change in treatment paradigms so that direct-acting oral anticoagulants are now considered first-line agents in appropriately selected patients. In this article, we review the prior and recent landmark studies that have directed the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis, and discuss specific factors that affect management as well as future treatment considerations.

New Oral Anticoagulants Open New Horizons for Cancer Patients with Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, decreased quality of life, and higher economic burden in patients with cancer. Currently, the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer is particularly challenging. For many years, low molecular weight heparin (LMWHs) has been the standard for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Recently, the introduction of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) may offer an oral anticoagulant option for some patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) as a growing body of literature supports the use of NOACs in the setting of CAT. With the use of NOAC as a new option in the management of CAT, clinicians now face several choices for the individual cancer patient with VTE. We need a more in-depth understanding of the drug properties, efficacy and safety, economic analysis that allows us to choose the most appropriate treatment for each patient. In the review, we will present an overview of CAT management, discuss the available evidence, economic costs for NOACs in the treatment of CAT, and seek to provide the best range of treatments for cancer patients.

2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19

The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group of experts aimed at establishing global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. The 2013, 2016, and 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines have been made available through a free, web-based mobile phone application. The 2022 clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a literature review up to Jan 1, 2022, include guidance for patients with cancer and with COVID-19. Key recommendations (grade 1A or 1B) include: (1) low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the initial (first 10 days) treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis; (2) direct oral anticoagulants for the initial treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in patients who are not at high risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, in the absence of strong drug-drug interactions or of gastrointestinal absorption impairment; (3) LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants for a minimum of 6 months to treat cancer-associated thrombosis; (4) extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWHs to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism after major abdominopelvic surgery in patients not at high risk of bleeding; and (5) primary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism with LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban or apixaban) in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are treated with anticancer therapy and have a low risk of bleeding.

Enoxaparin versus dalteparin or tinzaparin in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism: The RIETECAT study

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients with cancer and a leading cause of morbidity and death.

Objectives

The objective of the RIETECAT study was to compare the long‐term effectiveness and safety of enoxaparin versus dalteparin or tinzaparin for the secondary prevention of VTE in adults with active cancer.

Methods

We used the data from the multicenter, multinational RIETE registry to compare the rates of VTE recurrences, major bleeding, or death over 6 months in patients with active cancer and acute VTE using full doses of enoxaparin versus dalteparin or tinzaparin, and a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze the primary end point.

Results

From January 2009 to June 2018, 4451 patients with active cancer received full doses of the study drugs: enoxaparin, 3526 patients; and dalteparin or tinzaparin, 925 (754 + 171) patients. There was limited difference in VTE recurrences (2.0% vs 2.5%) and mortality rate (19% vs 17%) between the enoxaparin and dalteparin or tinzaparin subgroups. However, there was a slight numerical increase in major bleeding (3.1% vs 1.9%). Propensity score matching confirmed that there were no differences in the risk for VTE recurrences (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48‐1.38), major bleeding (aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.80‐2.46), or death (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88‐1.30) between subgroups.

Conclusions

In RIETECAT, in patients with cancer and VTE receiving full‐dose enoxaparin or dalteparin or tinzaparin, no statistically significant differences were observed regarding effectiveness and safety outcomes over a 6‐month period.

Unanswered questions in cancer-associated thrombosis

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Treatment of cancer-associated VTE comes with a heightened risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding that differs by choice of anticoagulant as well as by patient- and disease-specific risk factors. Available data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies in cancer-associated VTE suggest that direct oral anticoagulants are effective, continuing anticoagulation beyond six months is indicated in those with active cancer and that patients who develop 'breakthrough' thrombotic events can be effectively treated. We review the evidence that addresses these key clinical questions and offer pragmatic approaches in individualizing care. While significant investigative efforts over the past decade have made impactful advances, future research is needed to better define the factors that contribute to anticoagulant-related bleeding and VTE recurrence, in order to aid clinical decision-making that improves the care of patients with cancer-associated VTE.

The impact of warfarin on overall survival in cancer patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer. Warfarin has largely been replaced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the standard of care in cancer-associated VTE. The survival benefit of these anticoagulants over warfarin in the cancer population was not demonstrated in clinical trials, possibly due to insufficient sample size and limited follow-up duration. There are emerging population-based studies suggesting that warfarin may be associated with improved overall survival in cancers and may have a protective effect against certain types of cancers. Warfarin may exert its anti-neoplastic properties through both coagulation pathway -dependent and -independent mechanisms, the latter of which are mediated by inhibition of the Gas6-AXL signaling pathway. Further research should emphasize on identifying clinical and laboratory predictors of beneficial effects of warfarin. In this review article, we summarize and update the current evidence regarding the potential impact of warfarin on the overall survival of cancer patients and incidence of cancer, as well as review the potential mechanism of such effect and future perspectives.

Long-term use of tinzaparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in clinical practice: Insights from the prospective TROPIQUE study

BACKGROUND

Real word data on the efficacy and safety of long-term use of tinzaparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) are scarce.

METHODS

We performed a post-hoc analysis of all cancer patients included in the prospective multicenter observational TROPIQUE study who received long-term treatment with tinzaparin for a first venous thromboembolism (VTE) event. We evaluated the patterns of anticoagulant prescription, the adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of CAT, and the clinical outcomes within a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 301 patients were included in this post-hoc analysis. At study entry, their mean age was 64.6±11.9years and 143 (47.5%) patients were men. The most frequent cancer type was gastrointestinal (23.9%), followed by breast (17.9%) and lung (15.3%) cancer. At time of VTE diagnosis, 164 (57.8%) patients had metastatic disease and 245 (81.42%) were receiving chemotherapy. Based on the aggregation of all study pre-defined criteria, tinzaparin prescription was fully compliant with CPGs in 219 (72.8%) patients. The mean effective treatment duration with tinzaparin was 6.07±0.17months. At 6-month follow-up, the cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE was 5.4% (95% CI: 3.2-9.2%) and the cumulative incidence of major bleeding was 5.8% (95% CI: 3.6-9.6%). Clinical outcomes tended to differ across different types of cancer. Death from any cause occurred in 102 (33.9%) patients, mainly related to cancer progression.

CONCLUSIONS

This post-hoc analysis of TROPIQUE confirms the favorable benefit-risk ratio of tinzaparin for the long-term treatment of CAT.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Dalteparin for Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To maintain living, interactive evidence (LIvE) on the benefits and harms of different treatment options in adults with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

METHODS

We have used a novel LIvE synthesis framework to maintain this living, interactive systematic review since September 19, 2018. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for CAT are included in this analysis. Details of LIvE synthesis framework are available at the website https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com.

RESULTS

The results are constantly updated as new information becomes available (https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com/CAT.html). The living, interactive systematic review currently includes 4 randomized controlled trials (N=2894). Direct comparisons show that DOACs significantly decrease recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) events compared with dalteparin (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.86; I², 25%) without significantly increasing major bleeding (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.18; I², 28%). Mixed treatment comparisons show that apixaban (OR, 0.41; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.16 to 0.95) and rivaroxaban (OR, 0.58; 95% CrI, 0.37 to 0.90) significantly decrease VTE recurrent events compared with dalteparin. Edoxaban significantly increases major bleeding compared with dalteparin (OR, 1.73; 95% CrI, 1.04 to 3.16), and rivaroxaban significantly increases clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding compared with dalteparin and other DOACs. There are no significant differences between DOACs in terms of VTE recurrences and major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

DOACs should be considered a standard of care for the treatment of CAT except in patients with a high risk of bleeding. Current evidence favors the use of apixaban for the treatment of CAT among other DOACs.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dth86).

A Phase II Study to Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulants versus Subcutaneous Dalteparin for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Advanced Upper Gastrointestinal, Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Cancer: PRIORITY

Simple Summary

This prospective phase II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus subcutaneous dalteparin for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) in patients with high-risk cancer types and currently active advanced cancers. The clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) as the primary endpoint and major bleeding (MB) more occurred in the DOAC group than in the dalteparin group, and the hazard ratio for CRB and MB was approximately three and four times more in the DOAC group than in the dalteparin group. Cancer involvement at the GI mucosa was also a significant risk factor for CRB. The extra caution is necessary when using DOAC therapy for CA-VTE in patients with advanced upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, hepatobiliary, or pancreatic cancer.

Abstract

Background: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus subcutaneous dalteparin for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) in patients with advanced upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, hepatobiliary, or pancreatic cancer. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial in five centers. Patients randomly received rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, then 20 mg once daily)/apixaban (10 mg twice daily for the first 7 days, then 5 mg twice daily) or dalteparin (200 IU/kg once daily for the first month, then 150 IU/kg once daily). Randomization was stratified by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, primary cancer type, active chemotherapy, and participating centers. The primary endpoint was the rates of clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) in the full analysis set (FAS). Results: A total of 90 patients were randomly assigned to the DOAC (n = 44) and dalteparin groups (n = 46) in FAS. CRB and major bleeding (MB) rates were 34.1% and 13.0% (p = 0.018) and 18.2% and 4.3% (p = 0.047) for the DOAC and dalteparin groups, respectively. Time to CRB and MB was higher in the DOAC group than in the dalteparin group (hazard ratio [HR] 2.83; p = 0.031 and HR 4.32; p = 0.064). Cancer involvement at the GI mucosa was also a significant risk factor for CRB. Recurrent CA-VTE occurred in 2.3% and 2.2% of patients given DOAC and dalteparin, respectively (p = 1.000). Conclusion: DOAC therapy further increased the risk of bleeding compared with dalteparin in patients with active advanced upper GI tract, hepatobiliary, or pancreatic cancer, suggesting that extra caution should be taken when selecting anticoagulants for CA-VTE.

Cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants compared to low-molecular-weight-heparins for treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism in Spain

AIM

Recent studies have compared the efficacy and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, there is no available cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DOAC and LMWH. The study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of DOAC (apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) vs. LMWH for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE in Spain from the Spanish healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model with a 12-month time horizon. The states included pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major and non-major bleeding, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, post-thrombotic syndrome, and death. The use of medical resources and drug costs were obtained from the 2021 Spanish Ministry of Health database, and the main references for obtaining the outcomes were derived from Caravaggio, Hokusai VTE Cancer, ADAM VTE, and SELECT-D trials. We performed a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to validate the robustness. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) scores cost per life-year (€/LY) gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (€/QALY) gained.

RESULTS

The 12-month cost of DOAC was 1,994€ (apixaban 1,944€, edoxaban 1,968€, rivaroxaban 2,122€) and 2,152€ for LMWH. The amount of QALY for DOAC was 0.54 (apixaban 0.55, rivaroxaban 0.53, and edoxaban 0.52) and 0.53 for LMWH. We observed similar results for LYs. ICER scores in terms both of €/LY and €/QALY show that DOAC is dominant over LMWH and apixaban showed the best profile.

LIMITATIONS

Our research is based on an indirect comparison of a short-term clinical trial.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that DOAC is cost-effective and cost-saving compared to LMWH in treating VTE.