Dalteparin Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) in ovarian cancer: A phase II randomized study

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the third update of a review first published in February 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or an active control intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 3 August 2020. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies and contacted content experts and trialists for relevant references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on risk of bias, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six additional randomised controlled trials (3326 participants) for this update, bringing the included study total to 32 (15,678 participants), all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The certainty of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. Thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (direct factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban) may decrease the incidence of symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.06; 3 studies, 1526 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably increases the risk of major bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.68; 3 studies, 1494 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.83; 11 studies, 3931 participants; high-certainty evidence); and probably increased the risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.35; 15 studies, 7282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH resulted in lower symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83; 1 study, 439 participants; high-certainty evidence), while LMWH probably lowers symptomatic VTE more than aspirin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 781 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants with multiple myeloma treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis, but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, warfarin may importantly reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20; 1 study, 311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in major bleeding (RR 3.82, 95% CI 0.97 to 15.04; 4 studies, 994 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study evaluated antithrombin versus no antithrombin in children. This study did not report on symptomatic VTE but did report any VTE (symptomatic and incidental VTE). The effect of antithrombin on any VTE and major bleeding is uncertain (any VTE: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.73; major bleeding: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.03 to 18.57; 1 study, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In ambulatory cancer patients, primary thromboprophylaxis with direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE (low-certainty evidence) and probably increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo. LMWH decreases the incidence of symptomatic VTE (high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. Evidence for the use of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants other than direct factor Xa inhibitors and LMWH is limited. More studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary prophylaxis in specific types of chemotherapeutic agents and types of cancer, such as gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancer.

What's new in the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Current clinical guidelines recommend against the use of routine primary thromboprophylaxis in unselected ambulatory cancer patients. The Khorana score is a risk assessment tool derived and prospectively validated for the identification of cancer patients at high risk of thrombotic complications. Recently, 2 randomized, controlled trials have assessed the use of low-dose direct oral Xa inhibitors, apixaban and rivaroxaban, for the prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis in ambulatory patients at intermediate to high risk of VTE (Khorana score ≥2). Taken together, these trials have shown that low-dose direct oral Xa inhibitors reduce the risk of VTE in this patient population without a significant increase in major bleeding. These results should encourage clinicians to consider the use of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients at intermediate to high risk of VTE who do not have any apparent risk factors for bleeding. The direct oral Xa inhibitors have also been assessed in the acute management of cancer-associated thrombosis. Current evidence suggests that these drugs are a convenient, effective, and safe option for the management of acute VTE in many cancer patients. Low-molecular weight heparin, however, may continue to be the treatment of choice depending on the presence of bleeding risk factors, the type of cancer, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.

The role of anticoagulation in venous thromboembolism primary prophylaxis in patients with malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer. As such, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated anticoagulants as primary prophylaxis against VTE in cancer patients.

METHODS

Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened for all RCTs that used anticoagulation therapy in cancer patients for primary prevention of VTE. The primary outcomes were VTE events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, VTE-related mortality and major bleeding. A random effects model was used to report the risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and odds ratios (ORs) with Bayesian 95% credible intervals for both direct and network meta-analyses, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs were included totaling 13,338 patients (7197 received anticoagulation and 6141 received placebo). The mean age ranged between 54.6 and 68.1 years, with 50.5% male. Compared with placebo, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or direct Xa inhibitors were associated with lower VTE events (RR 0.58; 95%CI 0.48-0.69, P < 0.001) and (RR 0.39; 95%CI 0.24-0.63, p < 0.001), respectively. LMWH was associated with decreased VTE and all-cause mortality when compared with placebo (P < 0.05). Regarding safety outcomes, LMWH and direct Xa inhibitors were not associated with increased risks of major bleeding (P > 0.05) when compared with placebo. Results regarding VTE events and major bleeding were consistent in both lung and pancreatic cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LMWH and direct Xa inhibitors were associated with a lower VTE events compared with placebo. However, this potentially protective effect must be balanced against the possible increased risk of bleeding for some patients.

Updated meta-analysis on prevention of venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients

Randomized clinical trials have evaluated the role of anticoagulants in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. This meta-analysis is aimed at providing an updated evaluation of the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant prophylaxis in this clinical setting. Medline and Scopus were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials on the prevention of VTE in ambulatory cancer patients. Two groups of trials were identified with VTE or death as the primary outcome, respectively. VTE was the primary outcome of this analysis. Anticoagulant prophylaxis reduced the incidence of VTE in studies in which the primary outcome was VTE [14 studies, 8,226 patients; odds ratio (OR)=0.45; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.36-0.56] or death (8 studies, 3,727 patients; OR=0.61; 95% CI: 0.47-0.81). When these studies were pooled together, VTE was reduced by 49% (95% CI: 0.43-0.61) with no significant increase in major bleeding (OR=1.30, 95% CI: 0.98-1.73). The risk of major bleeding was increased in studies with VTE as the primary outcome (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.01-2.04). Similar reductions of VTE were observed in studies with parenteral (OR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.56) or oral anticoagulants (OR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.33-0.74). The reduction in VTE was confirmed in patients with lung (OR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.26-0.67) or pancreatic cancer (OR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.14-0.48), in estimated high-risk patients, in high-quality studies and with respect to symptomatic VTE. In conclusion, prophylaxis with oral or parenteral anticoagulants reduces the risk of VTE in ambulatory cancer patients, with an acceptable increase in major bleeding.

Apixaban for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: Rational and design of the AVERT trial

Patients with active cancer have a heightened risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This risk is further increased by the initiation of chemotherapy. Although previous studies have suggested that the use of parenteral thromboprophylaxis in all ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy significantly decreases the rate of VTE, current clinical practice guidelines do not recommend routine use of thromboprophylaxis in this patient population. A major criticism of these studies has been the inclusion of patients at lower risk for VTE, which may have diluted the potential beneficial effect of the parenteral thromboprophylaxis. It is therefore imperative to appropriately risk stratify ambulatory cancer patients using a validated scoring system (e.g. Khorana risk score) in order to identify those most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Direct oral anticoagulants, such as apixaban, may offer a convenient and safe option for thromboprophylaxis. As such, AVERT will randomize 574 ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy who are at high-risk for VTE (as defined by a Khorana score of ≥2) to Apixaban 2.5 mg BID versus placebo. The primary study outcome will be the first episode of objectively documented symptomatic or incidental VTE (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) within the first 6 months (180 days ± 3) following initiation of the blinded study drug for both intervention and placebo groups. The secondary safety outcomes include major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and overall survival rates. This study will hopefully offer evidence regarding the benefit of apixaban in ambulatory patients at high risk for VTE receiving chemotherapy.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through a speculated anti-tumour effect, in addition to the antithrombotic effect, although may increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included (1) a major electronic search (February 2016) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2016; accessed via OVID) and Embase (1980 to February 2016; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running searches continually and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August, 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 6947 identified citations, 18 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 9575 participants. Trial registries' searches identified nine registered but unpublished trials, two of which were labeled as 'ongoing trials'. In all included RCTs, the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 10 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 35 fewer to 15 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and mortality at 24 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; RD 8 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 31 fewer to 8 more; moderate certainty of evidence). Heparin therapy reduces the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; RD 30 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 36 fewer to 22 fewer; high certainty of evidence), while it increases in the risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% 0.94 to 1.79; RD 4 more per 1000; 95% CI 1 fewer to 11 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.70; 95% 1.13 to 2.55; RD 17 more per 1000; 95% CI 3 more to 37 more; high certainty of evidence). Results failed to confirm or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on thrombocytopenia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; RD 33 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 66 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty of evidence); quality of life (moderate certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It reduces symptomatic VTE and likely increases major and minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.Editorial note:This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Reciprocal links between venous thromboembolism, coagulation factors and ovarian cancer progression

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological malignancy, which is due to late presentation. Treating advanced stage ovarian cancer is difficult, and tumor recurrence and chemoresistance frequently occur. In addition, early detection remains a major challenge as there are no early warning signs and no appropriate biomarkers. To reduce mortality rates of ovarian cancer patients, novel drug targets and biomarkers are needed. We postulate that hemostatic keyplayers are of importance when combatting ovarian cancer. The majority of ovarian cancer patients have abnormal hemostatic blood serum marker levels, which indicate an activated coagulation system. This makes patients more prone to experiencing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and the occurrence of VTE in ovarian cancer patients adversely affects survival. Coagulation activation also promotes tumor progression as it influences tumor biology at several stages and the decreased survival rates associated with ovarian cancer-associated thrombosis are more likely due to cancer metastasis rather than to fatal thromboembolic events. In this review, we will discuss; (1) Population studies that address the bidirectional relationship between VTE and ovarian cancer, and the most important risk factors involved; (2) The mechanisms of coagulation factors and platelets that are critically involved in the development of VTE, and the progression of ovarian cancer; (3) Roles and future directions of coagulation factors in ovarian cancer therapy, and in diagnosis and prognosis of ovarian cancer as biomarkers.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the second update of a review first published in February 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Group Specialised Register (June 2016). In addition, the Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 5). Clinical trials registries were searched up to June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five additional randomised controlled trials (2491 participants) in the updated search, considering in this update 26 trials with a total of 12,352 participants, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. One large trial of 3212 participants found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau² = 0.00%) with a non-statistically significant 44% higher risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.11). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a non-statistically significant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE or on major bleeding when compared with no antithrombin. The direct oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase II dose-finding study that suggested a low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.4%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 13.8%) in comparison with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this second update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin, which is not commercially available, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. The risk of major bleeding associated with LMWH, while not reaching statistical significance, suggest caution and mandate additional studies to determine the risk-to-benefit ratio of LMWH in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed. We need additional studies investigating targeted primary prophylaxis in people with specific types or stages of cancer associated with a higher risk of VTE.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to the perceived antithrombotic effect.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included (1) an electronic search (February 2013) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2013; accessed via OVID) and EMBASE(1980 to February 2013; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form we extracted data in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), arterial thrombosis (e.g. stroke, myocardial infarction), major bleeding, minor bleeding and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 9559 identified citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 7622 participants for whom follow-up data were available. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin may have a small effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.01 and RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00, respectively). Heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically important reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74) and a clinically important increase in the risk of minor bleeding (RR 1.32; 95% 1.02 to 1.71). Results failed to show or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on major bleeding (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85) or quality of life. Our confidence in the effect estimates (i.e. quality of evidence) was high for symptomatic venous thromboembolism, moderate for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding, and low for quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin may have a small effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It is associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism and a likely increase in minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy for survival benefit should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.

Platelet effects on ovarian cancer

Growing understanding of the role of thrombocytosis, high platelet turnover, and the presence of activated platelets in the circulation in cancer progression and metastasis has brought megakaryocytes into focus. Platelet biology is essential to hemostasis, vascular integrity, angiogenesis, inflammation, innate immunity, wound healing, and cancer biology. However, before megakaryocyte/platelet-directed therapies can be considered for clinical use, understanding of the mechanism and biology of paraneoplastic thrombocytosis in malignancy is required. Here, we provide an overview of the clinical implications, biological significance, and mechanisms of paraneoplastic thrombocytosis in the context of ovarian cancer.

Adjuvant therapy with bemiparin in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer: results from the ABEL study

INTRODUCTION

The haemostatic system plays an important role in the process of cancer development and spread. Anticoagulants, mainly low molecular weight heparins, could prolong survival in cancer patients, particularly in patients with lung cancer, beyond prevention of thromboembolic events.

METHODS

In a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, sequential study, 38 patients with newly-diagnosed, limited-stage small-cell lung cancer were randomized to receive standard chemoradiotherapy or the same therapy plus 3,500 IU daily of bemiparin for a maximum of 26 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival.

RESULTS

The study was terminated early due to slow recruitment. Median progression-free survival was 272 days with chemoradiotherapy alone and 410 days in the bemiparin group; hazard ratio, 2.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.80); p=0.022. Median overall survival was 345 days with chemoradiotherapy alone and 1133 days in the bemiparin group; hazard ratio, 2.96 (95% CI, 1.22-7.21); p=0.017. The rate of tumor response was similar in both study arms. There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of major bleeding. Toxicity related with the experimental treatment was minimal.

CONCLUSION

The addition of bemiparin to first line therapy with chemoradiotherapy significantly increases survival in patients with newly-diagnosed, limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. (Funded by the Instituto Científico y Tecnológico, University of Navarra. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00324558).