[Treatment of cancer associated thrombosis. 2019 update of the French guidelines]

Incidence of venous thromboembolism and association with PD-L1 expression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with first-line chemo-immunotherapy

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The use of thromboprophylactic therapy is subject to an accurate assessment of the VTE risk depending on patients, tumor characteristics and type of systemic antineoplastic treatments. However, little is known concerning the risk of VTE in patients suffering from an advanced NSCLC treated with first-line chemo-immunotherapy and the impact of tumor biomarkers such as PD-L1 expression.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, observational, single-centre study in a cohort of advanced NSCLC patients treated with first-line chemo-immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was the incidence of VTE. Secondary endpoints were the cumulative incidence of VTE, the impact of PD-L1 on VTE occurrence, overall survival, the rate of VTE recurrence under anticoagulant treatment and the rate of bleeding complications.

Results

109 patients were included, of whom 21 (19.3%) presented a VTE event during a median follow-up of 13 months. VTE incidence at 3, 6 and 12 months was 12.1%, 15.1% and 17.5% respectively. 61% were pulmonary embolisms, 9.5% were isolated deep vein thrombosis and 14.3% were central venous catheter-related thrombosis. Our study did not show a significant impact of PD-L1 on VTE occurrence. Overall survival at 6, 12 and 24 months was 81.9%, 74.4% and 70.3% respectively. Four patients developed a recurrent VTE under anticoagulation therapy 3 to 5 months after the first VTE event. One patient suffered from a major bleeding complication while under anticoagulation therapy, leading to death.

Conclusion

VTE is a common complication in advanced NSCLC patients treated with concomitant chemo-immunotherapy. In our study, 19.3% of patients developed a VTE during a median follow-up of 13 months. PD-L1 did not appear to be associated with VTE occurrence. We recorded high VTE recurrence rates despite anticoagulant treatment. Further investigations are needed to determine if high PD-L1 expression is associated with VTE.

Adult breast, lung, pancreatic, upper and lower gastrointestinal cancer patients with hospitalized venous thromboembolism in the national French hospital discharge database

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer are strongly associated. In France, evidence on patients with pancreatic, upper GI [gastrointestinal], lower GI, lung, or breast cancer-associated VTE and their hospital management is limited. The aims of this study were to provide data on the number of hospitalized VTE events among cancer patients, the patients' characteristics, and their hospital management to estimate the burden of disease and the hospital burden of cancer-related VTE and to provide guidance on research.

METHODS

This longitudinal, observational, and retrospective study was based on the comprehensive hospital discharge database (PMSI). Adult patients (≥ 18 years old) hospitalized with a cancer of interest in 2016 and hospitalized (within 2 years with VTE (captured a as a principal, related, or significant associated diagnosis) were included in the study.

RESULTS

We identified 340,946 cancer patients, of which 7.2% (24,433 patients) were hospitalized with VTE. The proportions of hospitalized VTE were 14.6% (3,237) for patients with pancreatic cancer, 11.2% (8,339) for lung cancer, 9.9% (2,232) for upper GI cancer, 6.7% (7,011) for lower GI cancer, and 3.1% (3,614) for breast cancer. Around two thirds of cancer patients with a hospitalized VTE had active cancer (with metastases and/or receiving chemotherapy during the six months prior to the index date): from 62% of patients with pancreatic cancer to 72% with breast cancer. Around a third of patients were admitted to the hospital through the emergency room, up to 3% of patients stayed in an intensive care unit. The average length of stay ranged from 10 (breast cancer) to 15 days (upper GI cancer). Nine (lower GI cancer) to 18% (pancreatic cancer) of patients died during the VTE hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of cancer-associated VTE is substantial, both in terms of the number of patients affected and in the hospital use. These findings offer guidance on future research on VTE prophylaxis in a very high-risk population, particularly in patients with active cancer.

[Non-infectious respiratory emergencies in patients with cancer]

Patients with a solid tumor or hematologic malignancy are often addressed to emergency units for an acute respiratory complication associated with the underlying cancer or secondary to treatments. The current article is part of a thematic series: "Intensive care and emergencies in solid tumours and blood cancer patients" and will develop the following points: (1) malignant proximal airway obstruction and, more specifically, the role of therapeutic bronchoscopy; (2) superior vena cava syndrome by tumor compression and/or secondary to thrombosis (diagnosis, local and systemic treatments); (3) cancer-related pulmonary embolism (incidence, indications for low-molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants). Other respiratory emergencies will be dealt in the other articles of this series.

Three-Month Outcomes in Cancer Patients with Superficial or Deep Vein Thrombosis in the Lower Limbs: Results from the RIETE Registry

Background: The clinical characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients with lower-limb isolated superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) have not been consistently evaluated. Methods: We used data in the RIETE registry to compare the clinical characteristics and 90-day outcomes for patients with: (1) active cancer and lower-limb SVT; (2) active cancer and lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT); (3) lower-limb SVT without cancer. The primary outcomes included subsequent symptomatic SVT, DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding and death. Results: From March 2015 to April 2021, there were 110 patients with cancer and SVT, 1695 with cancer and DVT, and 1030 with SVT but no cancer. Most patients in all subgroups (93%, 99% and 96%, respectively) received anticoagulants, while those with SVT received lower daily doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (114 ± 58, 163 ± 44, and 106 ± 50 IU/kg, respectively). During the first 90 days, 101 patients (3.6%) developed subsequent VTE (PE 47, DVT 41, SVT 13), whereas 72 (2.5%) had major bleeding and 282 (9.9%) died. Among the three groups, 90-day events were, respectively: VTE at rates of 7.3%, 4.0% and 2.4%; major bleeding at rates of 2.7%, 3.9% and 0.3%; mortality at rates of 8.2%, 16% and 0.3%. Between D90 and D180, only one SVT recurrence and one death occurred in SVT cancer patients. In multivariable analysis, cancer was associated with subsequent VTE (HR = 2.04; 1.15–3.62), while initial presentation as SVT or DVT were not associated with a different risk. Conclusions: The risk for subsequent VTE (including symptomatic SVT, DVT or PE) was similar in cancer patients with isolated SVT than in those with isolated DVT.

[Prophylaxis and management of cancer-associated thrombosis: Practical issues about anticoagulant use]

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication resulting from various vascular mechanisms related to cancer, antitumoral therapy and patient status, and is associated with a poor prognosis. Anticoagulants recommended for CAT treatment or prevention mainly include low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Regarding thromboprophylaxis, a situation for which LMWH is a preferred option due to a lower risk of hemorrhage especially in patients with unresected gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary malignancies, the identification of patients at risk is a major issue. For patients with established CAT, the main issue is the choice of the most appropriate anticoagulant therapy. Because of the convenience of oral formulation, DOACs are an attractive option, and their efficacy has been shown in randomized trials. However, such studies are limited by selection biases, which make the analyzed population not representative of the real-life setting, as for instance cancers associated with a high risk of hemorrhage, or antitumoral therapies (e.g., tyrosine kinase inhibitors) known to interact with DOACs and then modifying their bioavailability. Caution associated with DOAC use is highlighted by most updated guidelines that recommend a case-by-case-based approach. The aim of the present paper is to help the oncologists make the most appropriate decision regarding the choice of anticoagulant therapy in a context of thromboprophylaxis or established CAT management in a patient with a solid tumor. The main issues are addressed through key practical questions, the answers of which are based on the current guidelines and additional published data or expert opinions.

Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in France: A National Survey among Vascular Disease and Supportive Care Specialists

Simple Summary

Patients with venous thromboembolism events in the context of cancer should receive anticoagulants for at least 6 months. Both low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are considered in international guidelines, with a different approach. To investigate the determinants of decision, at thrombosis diagnosis and after 6 months, and the practices when facing special situations, such as venous thromboembolic recurrence or thrombocytopenia, we designed a survey among specialists of cancer-associated thromboembolism, including vignettes about patients with different cancer sites and questions. We considered points related to cancer disease, anticancer treatments and characteristics of patients.

Abstract

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are recommended by international guidelines for at least 6 months in patients with cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been proposed as an alternative to LMWH. In clinical practice, the specialists in charge of CAT have to decide which anticoagulant to prescribe. An electronic survey tool, including vignettes and questions, was sent to members of the French Society of Vascular Medicine, the French-speaking association for supportive care in oncology and the Investigation Network On Venous Thrombo-Embolism. Among the 376 respondents, LMWHs were reported as the first choice by most specialists. The prescription of DOACs within the first 3 weeks of CAT diagnosis was highly dependent on the cancer site: 5.9%, 18.6% and 24.5% in patients with locally advanced colorectal, lung and breast cancer, respectively. The determinants were mostly related to cancer (site and stage or evolution) and to anticancer treatments. For 61% of physicians, some anticancer treatments were contraindications to DOACs. However, almost 90% of physicians considered switching to DOAC after a median 3-month period of LMWHs. In daily practice, LMWHs and DOACs are now considered by specialists of CAT; the decision is mostly driven by the site of cancer. The role of anticancer treatments in the decision remains to be investigated.