Revisiting occult cancer screening in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism

Predictors of cancer in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) can occur as a manifestation of an underlying cancer and be of paraneoplastic aetiology. A previously unknown cancer is sometimes diagnosed after the acute PE diagnosis. The identification of a group of patients with elevated probability of having an occult cancer underlying PE was never performed. We aimed to determine predictors of occult cancer in acute PE. Our hypothesis was that the D-dimer levels would be a predictor of cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed a cohort of patients hospitalized with acute PE.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

<18 years, venous embolism only of veins other than pulmonary territory or when the embolism was considered chronic, and no image confirmation of acute PE. Patients were grouped according to the timing of cancer diagnosis: 1) known concomitant active cancer, 2) cancer diagnosed during acute PE admission or in the following 2 years and, 3) no known cancer during the 2-year follow-up since PE diagnosis. Predictors of concomitant cancer were determined using a logistic regression analysis. Multivariate models were built.

RESULTS

We studied 562 patients; median age was 72 years and 219 (39.0 %) were men. In 223 (39.7 %) of the patients the PE was of central arteries and 61.4 % presented with bilateral PE. PE was considered unprovoked at time of discharge in 47.7 %. Median (interquartile range) D-dimer level was 7.98 (3.30-14.99) μg/mL. A total of 126 (22.4 %) patients were in group 1, 47 in group 2 (cancer diagnosed after the diagnosis of acute PE and up to 2 years) and 389 patients were in group 3. Elevated D-dimer levels were independently associated with already known cancer. D-dimer were independent predictors of future cancer diagnosis: OR = 1.07 ((95 % CI: 1.01-1.14) per each 5 ng/mL increase; for patients with D-dimer >15.0 μg/mL the OR of future cancer was 2.10 (1.05-4.18). If only patients with unprovoked PE upon admission (n = 307) were to be considered results were similar considering D-dimer; anaemia also predicted unknown cancer [OR = 2.13 (1.08-4.16)].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with D-dimer >15 μg/mL presented a >2-fold higher risk of being diagnosed with a cancer condition in the upcoming 2 years. D-dimer may help clinicians in identifying which patients are at higher risk of occult cancer.

Prevention and treatment of thrombosis in cancer and oncohematological patients

The purpose of the review is to highlight the current possibilities for the prevention and treatment of venous thrombotic complications in patients with cancer.

The data of 52 scientific sources published in the Russian and foreign press in 1997–2020 are considered.

Cancer patients are at high risk of thrombotic complications, which worsen the outcome of anticancer treatment and are one of the leading causes of death. Thrombosis in an oncological patient increases the risk of death by 30 times, which is associated with fatal thromboembolism and a more aggressive course of the disease. The leading role in the pathogenesis of thrombotic complications is played by disorders in the hemostasis system caused both by the tumor itself and by therapy. Low molecular weight heparins are considered the basis for specific prophylaxis of thromboembolic complications in cancer patients. The use of low molecular weight heparins after surgery and during chemotherapy effectively reduces the incidence of venous thrombosis. Direct oral anticoagulants are promising drugs for oral administration and are indicated as one of the treatment options for patients with tumor-associated thrombosis with a low risk of bleeding and no drug interactions with ongoing systemic chemotherapy.

Cancer-Associated Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), which includes portal, mesenteric, and splenic vein thrombosis and the Budd-Chiari syndrome, is an infrequent manifestation of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Like typical site VTE, SVT is also frequently associated with cancer, particularly intra-abdominal solid malignancies and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). The clinical presentation of SVT is nonspecific. Symptoms may be related to the underlying malignancy, and thrombosis is incidentally diagnosed by imaging studies for cancer staging or follow-up in a substantial proportion of cases. The occurrence of SVT predicts worse prognosis in patients with liver or pancreatic cancer and, not uncommonly, SVT may precede the diagnosis of cancer. Therefore, the occurrence of an apparently unprovoked SVT should prompt careful patient evaluation for the presence of an underlying malignancy or MPN. Cancer patients carry a high risk of VTE extension and recurrence and long-term anticoagulant treatment is suggested in the absence of high risk of bleeding. Either LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are suggested for the treatment of patients with cancer-related SVT, although limited experience is available on the use of DOACs in these settings. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are suggested for the short and long-term treatment of SVT associated with MPN. This review outlines the epidemiological aspects, pathogenesis, risk factors, and diagnosis of cancer-associated SVT, and addresses questions regarding the management of this challenging condition.

Dilemmas in anticoagulation and use of inferior vena cava filters in venous thromboembolism; a survey of Respiratory Physicians, Haematologists and Medical Oncologists and a review of the literature

Twenty percent of patients with Cancer Associated Thrombosis receive an inferior vena cava filter annually. Insertion is guided by practice guidelines, which do not specify or discuss the use of inferior vena cava filters in malignancy. Adherence to these guidelines is known to be variable. We aimed to see if there was consistent management of venous thromboembolism among Medical Oncologists/Haematologists and Respiratory Physicians, with respect to inferior vena cava filter use in the setting of suspected and confirmed malignancy. Medical Oncologists, Haematologists and Respiratory Physicians were surveyed with four theoretical cases. Case 1 concerns a patient who develops a pulmonary embolism following spinal surgery. Cases 2 and 4 explore the use of inferior vena cava filters in the setting of malignancy. Case 3 covers the role of inferior vena cava filters in recurrent thrombosis despite systemic anticoagulation. There were 56 responses, 32 (57%) Respiratory Physicians and 24 (43%) Haematologists/Oncologists. Respiratory Physicians were significantly more likely to insert an inferior vena cava filter in case 1 (p = 0.04) whilst Haematologists/Medical Oncologists were more likely to insert an inferior vena cava filter in case 3 (p = 0.03). No significant differences were found in cases 2 and 4. There were significant disparities in terms of type and timing of anticoagulation. Consistency of recommendations with guidelines was variable likely in part because guidelines are themselves inconsistent. The heterogeneity in responses highlights the variations in venous thromboembolism management, especially in Cancer Associated Thrombosis. International Societies should consider addressing inferior vena cava filter use specifically in the setting of Cancer Associated Thrombosis. Collaboration between interested specialities would assist in developing consistent, evidence-based guidelines for the use of inferior vena cava filters in the management of venous thromboembolism.

Cancer Screening in Patients with Unprovoked Thromboembolism: How to do it and Who Benefits?

Introduction: Unprovoked venous thromboembolism (uVTE) may be the first manifestation of cancer. The main objectives of this study were to compare limited screening (LS) and extended screening (ES) and to make a protocol to approach these patients.

Methods: This is a retrospective, unicentric observational study that included 245 patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) admitted to an Internal Medicine Service for five years. The incidence of cancer and mortality during hospitalization, and at one and three years after admission were calculated in both LS and ES groups and compared.

Results: Of the 245 patients with VTE, 59 (24.1%) had uVTE: 35 (59.3%) were submitted to LS and 24 (40.7%) to ES, with 10 (4.1%) diagnosis of cancer. In the following three years, 10 more patients were diagnosed. There were no statistically significant differences in inpatient diagnosis rates (8.6% vs. 4.2%; p=0.51) or in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs. 4.2%; p=0.79) or mortality at one year (8.6% vs. 8.3%; p=0.97) and three years (20.0% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.94) between LS and ES groups respectively. The Computerized Registry of Patients with Venous Thromboembolism (RIETE) score was equal or superior to 3 in 69.5% (N=41) of the population with uVTE.

Discussion: The results of our study are consistent with the literature; there are no differences between screenings, as the difference in the number of diagnoses does not reflect on mortality.

Conclusion: There were no statistically significant differences between the two types of screening in this population. We suggest a protocol that includes the RIETE score to better select the patients who might benefit the most from an ES.