Consensus on prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in controversial clinical situations with low levels of evidence

SEOM clinical guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer (2023)

The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) last published clinical guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer in 2019, with a partial update in 2020. In this new update to the guidelines, SEOM seeks to incorporate recent evidence, based on a critical review of the literature, to provide practical current recommendations for the prophylactic and therapeutic management of VTE in patients with cancer. Special clinical situations whose management and/or choice of currently recommended therapeutic options (low-molecular-weight heparins [LMWHs] or direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) is controversial are included.

[Translation into French and republication of: "Recurrent venous thromboembolism in anticoagulated cancer patients: diagnosis and treatment"]

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), due both to the impact of malignant disease itself and to the impact of certain anticancer drugs on haemostasis. This is true both for first episode venous thromboembolism and recurrence. The diagnosis and management of VTE recurrence in patients with cancer poses particular challenges, and these are reviewed in the present article, based on a systematic review of the relevant scientific literature published over the last decade. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolism, validated principally in untreated non-cancer patients, are also valid in anticoagulated cancer patients: the available data suggests that clinical decision rules and D-dimer testing perform less well in this clinical setting. In patients with cancer, computed tomography pulmonary angiography and venous ultrasound appear to be the most reliable diagnostic tools for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis respectively. Options for treatment of venous thromboembolism include low molecular weight heparins (at a therapeutic dose or an increased dose), fondaparinux or oral direct factor Xa inhibitors. The choice of treatment should take into account the nature (pulmonary embolism or VTE) and severity of the recurrent event, the associated bleeding risk, the current anticoagulant treatment (type, dose, adherence and possible drug-drug interactions) and cancer progression.

Oral Anticoagulants Beyond Warfarin

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists, mostly warfarin, for the main indications for oral anticoagulation, prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism, and prevention of embolic stroke in atrial fibrillation. While DOACs offer practical, fixed-dose anticoagulation in many patients, specific restrictions or contraindications may apply. DOACs are not sufficiently effective in high-thrombotic risk conditions such as antiphospholipid syndrome and mechanical heart valves. Patients with cancer-associated thrombosis may benefit from DOACs, but the bleeding risk, particularly in those with gastrointestinal or urogenital tumors, must be carefully weighed. In patients with frailty, excess body weight, and/or moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, DOACs must be cautiously administered and may require laboratory monitoring. Reversal agents have been developed and approved for life-threatening bleeding. In addition, the clinical testing of potentially safer anticoagulants such as factor XI(a) inhibitors is important to further optimize anticoagulant therapy in an increasingly elderly and frail population worldwide.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism in anticoagulated cancer patients: Diagnosis and treatment

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), due both to the impact of malignant disease itself and to the impact of certain anticancer drugs on haemostasis. This is true both for first episode venous thromboembolism and recurrence. The diagnosis and management of VTE recurrence in patients with cancer poses particular challenges, and these are reviewed in the present article, based on a systematic review of the relevant scientific literature published over the last decade. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolism, validated principally in untreated non-cancer patients, are also valid in anticoagulated cancer patients: the available data suggests that clinical decision rules and D-dimer testing perform less well in this clinical setting. In patients with cancer, computed tomography pulmonary angiography and venous ultrasound appear to be the most reliable diagnostic tools for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis respectively. Options for treatment of venous thromboembolism include low molecular weight heparins (at a therapeutic dose or an increased dose), fondaparinux or oral direct factor Xa inhibitors. The choice of treatment should take into account the nature (pulmonary embolism or VTE) and severity of the recurrent event, the associated bleeding risk, the current anticoagulant treatment (type, dose, adherence and possible drug-drug interactions) and cancer progression.

[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.

Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Cancer Patients-A Review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important aspect in cancer patients. There are various pharmacological methods used for thrombotic event treatment. DOACs (direct-acting oral anticoagulants) are gaining popularity among both physicians and researchers and are slowly starting to replace VKAs (vitamin K antagonists), thus becoming a substitute or alternative option for LMWHs (low-molecular-weight heparins). In this article, we present DOACs' main therapeutic advantages and disadvantages in patients with cancer. The only major concern with using DOACs is the higher risk of bleeding; however, there are discrepancies in this matter. There are still some types of cancer for which DOACs are not recommended. Specific cancer types may influence the efficacy of DOAC therapy. Additionally, race and ethnicity may affect therapy in cancer patients with DOACs. A sizeable number of clinical trials are focused on comparing DOACs with other anticoagulants. The current guidelines of different scientific associations are not unanimous in their DOAC assessments. There is still a need for more evidence of DOACs' potential advantages over other methods of anticoagulation in cancer patients to facilitate their position in this recommendation. This literature review presents the current state of knowledge about the use of DOACs in patients with neoplastic growth.

Angiojet pharmacomechanical thrombectomy versus anticoagulant therapy alone in massive cancer-associated thrombosis: a single centre retrospective cohort study

The therapeutic regimen option for the cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) patients is still a major clinical challenge. The present study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) with AngioJet treatment compared with the conventional anticoagulation alone therapy in the patients with CAT. We retrospectively reviewed the patients who underwent PCDT and/or anticoagulation for the treatment of CAT between August 1, 2016 and March 1, 2022. Each patient was divided into the PCDT group or the anticoagulation alone group. The baseline demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, treatment details, course data were reviewed. A total of 51 eligible patients were included, of whom 21 were in PCDT group (mean age, 60.1 ± 13.0 years; 52.4% male) and 30 in anticoagulation alone group (mean age, 66.6 ± 11.1 years; 50.0% male). No significant differences regarding age, sex, onset time, limb characteristics, cancer conditions or risk factors were detected (p > .05). After PCDT, grade III lysis was achieved in 8 and grade II lysis in 11 patients. Clinical success was achieved in 90.5% (19/21) patients. The symptoms of leg pain and swelling were significantly improved in both groups. Except for transient macroscopic hemoglobinuria occurring in PCDT group, none of all patients suffered from procedure-related and major complications. Minor complications such as bleeding events occurred in 23.8% (5/21) of patients in PCDT group compared with 10.0% (3/30) in anticoagulation alone group (p > .05). At the 6-month follow-up, iliofemoral patency was found an absolute risk reduction of 37.9% (70.0 vs. 32.1%) (95% CI: 1.183-4.008%; P = 0.010). The incidence of mild PTS was 5.0% (1/20) in PCDT group compared with 10.7% (3/28) in anticoagulation alone group (p > .05). The PCDT is a safe and effective modality in managing patients with CAT, leading to improved clinical outcomes with a low complication. The PCDT was more effective than anticoagulation alone in massive symptom relief and venous patency.