Multivariable clinical-genetic risk model for predicting venous thromboembolic events in patients with cancer

Circulating Blood Biomarkers and Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Cancer patients have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Currently, the availability of highly discriminatory prediction models for VTE in cancer patients is limited. The implementation of biomarkers in prediction models might lead to refined VTE risk prediction. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate candidate biomarkers and their association with cancer-associated VTE.

METHODS

 We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for studies that evaluated biomarkers in adult cancer patients from inception to September 2022. We included studies reporting on VTE after a cancer diagnosis with biomarker measurements performed at a defined time point. Median/mean differences (for continuous measures) and odds ratios (for dichotomous measures) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated and pooled using random-effects models.

RESULTS

 We included 113 studies in the systematic review. Of these, 50 studies were included in the meta-analysis. We identified two biomarkers at cancer diagnosis (factor VIII and time to peak thrombin), three biomarkers pre-chemotherapy (D-dimer, fibrinogen, and mean platelet volume), and one biomarker preoperatively (platelet count) that had significant median or mean differences. Additionally, we found that hemoglobin <100 g/L and white blood count >11 × 109/L were significantly associated with future VTE risk only when measured at cancer diagnosis. Pre-chemotherapy neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥3 and preoperative platelet count ≥400 × 109/L were also found to be associated with future VTE risk.

CONCLUSION

 In conclusion, this study identified nine candidate blood biomarkers that may help in optimizing VTE prediction in cancer patients that should be further explored in future studies.

Comprehensive evaluation of genetic and acquired thrombophilia markers for an individualized prediction of clinical thrombosis in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma

Patients diagnosed with lymphoma or multiple myeloma are at elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Optimum risk stratification and effective thromboprophylaxis can only be achieved through the development of a multiple-specific risk score that successfully captures all aspects of the heterogeneous prothrombotic environment existing in these patients. Our aim was to identify risk factors for thrombosis and suggest an improved tool combining clinical data, thrombo-inflammatory biomarkers and genetic (Thrombo inCode® test) variables for predicting thrombotic risk in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma. A prospective longitudinal study was conducted on newly-diagnosed lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients who presented at our institution between February 2020 and January 2021. The study included 47 patients with lymphoma and 16 patients with multiple myeloma. We performed a follow-up of 1 year or until September 2021. The incidence of venous thrombosis and associated risk factors were analysed, including the genetic Thrombo inCode® test. Khorana and ThroLy scores for lymphoma patients and IMPEDE VTE score for myeloma patients were calculated. At a median follow-up of 9.1 months, VTE incidence was 9.5% (6/63), with 4 and 2 patients with lymphoma and myeloma who developed the events, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that the incidence of thrombosis was significantly higher in patients with ECOG ≥ 2 and prior immobility. Median factor VIII levels were significantly higher in patients with thrombosis (with increased values in all of them). Moreover, there was a trend in genetic variant rs5985 (factor XIII) as a protective factor, and a trend to higher thrombotic risk in patients with factor V Leiden, rs2232698 variant (serpinA10), low total protein S activity, elevated D-dimer, aggressive lymphoma and treatment with dexamethasone. The results of our study demonstrate promise for the potential use of widely accessible markers to increase precision in risk prediction for VTE in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma, particularly ECOG ≥ 2, immobility and higher factor VIII levels, as well as lymphoma aggressiveness, treatment with dexamethasone and the haemostatic biomarkers D-dimer and total protein S activity. Additionally, genetic variants factor V Leiden, serpinA10 rs2232698 and factor XIII-A Val34Leu warrant further investigation for use in the research setting.

Thrombosis Rates and Genetic Thrombophilia Risk Among Patients With Advanced Germ Cell Tumors Treated With Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Men with advanced germ cell tumors (GCT) treated with chemotherapy are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Predictors of VTE may identify patients who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men with advanced GCT (Stage IS, II, III) treated with chemotherapy were identified at 2 centers. High genomic risk was defined from a 5 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) germline panel. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of genomic risk on VTE within 6 months of chemotherapy initiation. Orthogonal Projection to Latent Structures Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) was used to build models to predict VTE based on clinical variables and an 86 SNP panel.

RESULTS

This 123-patient cohort experienced a VTE rate of 26% with an incidence of high genomic risk of 21%. Men with high genomic risk did not have a significantly higher VTE rate (31%, 8/26) than men with low genomic risk (25%, 24/97), unadjusted OR 1.4 (95% CI 0.5-3.5, P = .54). Incorporation of clinical variables (Khorana score, N3 status and elevated LDH) resulted in adjusted OR 2.1 (95% CI 0.7-6.5, P = .18). A combined model using clinical variables and 86 SNPs performed similarly (AUC 0.77) compared to clinical variables alone (AUC 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

A previously established 5-SNP panel was not associated with VTE among patients with GCT receiving chemotherapy. However, multivariable models based on clinical variables alone warrant further validation to inform prophylactic anticoagulation strategies.

Discovery of 5-Hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone (Juglone) Derivatives as Dual Effective Agents Targeting Platelet-Cancer Interplay through Protein Disulfide Isomerase Inhibition

In this study, a series of 2- and/or 3-substituted juglone derivatives were designed and synthesized. Among them, 9, 18, 22, 30, and 31 showed stronger inhibition activity against cell surface PDI or recombinant PDI and higher inhibitory effects on U46619- and/or collagen-induced platelet aggregation than juglone. The glycosylated derivatives 18 and 22 showed improved selectivity for inhibiting the proliferation of multiple myeloma RPMI 8226 cells, and the IC50 values reached 61 and 48 nM, respectively, in a 72 h cell viability test. In addition, 18 and 22 were able to prevent tumor cell-induced platelet aggregation and platelet-enhanced tumor cell proliferation. The molecular docking showed the amino acid residues Gln243, Phe440, and Leu443 are important for the compound-protein interaction. Our results reveal the potential of juglone derivatives to serve as novel antiplatelet and anticancer dual agents, which are available to interrupt platelet-cancer interplay through covalent binding to PDI catalytic active site.

Developing a risk assessment tool for cancer-related venous thrombosis in China: a modified Delphi-analytic hierarchy process study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Risk Assessment Tool for Cancer-related Venous Thrombosis in China.

METHODS

A modified two-round Delphi method was employed to establish consensus within a field to reach an agreement via a questionnaire or by interviewing a multidisciplinary panel of experts by collecting their feedback to inform the next round, exchanging their knowledge, experience, and opinions anonymously, and resolving uncertainties. Furthermore, The AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) was used to determine the final quality indicators' relative importance.

RESULTS

The expert's positive coefficient was 85.19% in the first round and 82.61% in the second round, with authoritative coefficients of 0.89 and 0.92 in the respective surveys. The P-value of Kendall's W test was all less than 0.001 for each round, and the W-value for concordance at the end of the two rounds was 0.115. The final Risk Assessment Tool for Cancer-related Venous Thrombosis consisted of three domains, ten subdomains, and 39 indicators, with patient factors weighing 0.1976, disease factors weighing 0.4905, and therapeutic factors weighing 0.3119.

CONCLUSION

The tool is significantly valid and reliable with a strong authority and coordination degree, and it can be used to assess the risk of cancer-related VTE and initiate appropriate thrombophylactic interventions in China.

Novel Insights in Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Methods in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: From the Guidelines to Clinical Practice

Many cancer patients will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE) at some stage, with the highest rate in the initial period following diagnosis. Novel cancer therapies may further enhance the risk. VTE in a cancer setting is associated with poor prognostic, a decreased quality of life, and high healthcare costs. If thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized cancer patients and perioperative settings is widely accepted in clinical practice and supported by the guidelines, it is not the same situation in ambulatory cancer patient settings. The guidelines do not recommend primary thromboprophylaxis, except in high-risk cases. However, nowadays, risk stratification is still challenging, although many tools have been developed. The Khrorana score remains the most used method, but it has many limits. This narrative review aims to present the current relevant knowledge of VTE risk assessment in ambulatory cancer patients, starting from the guideline recommendations and continuing with the specific risk assessment methods and machine learning models approaches. Biomarkers, genetic, and clinical features were tested alone or in groups. Old and new models used in VTE risk assessment are exposed, underlining their clinical utility. Imaging and biomolecular approaches to VTE screening of outpatients with cancer are also presented, which could help clinical decisions.

Thrombophilia gene mutations predict venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Inherited thrombophilia and cancer both independently increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, whether the increased VTE risk associated with inherited thrombophilia exists in cancer patients is less clear.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to determine the influence of inherited thrombophilia on VTE and bleeding risk in moderate-to-high-risk ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis using blood samples from patients enrolled in the AVERT trial to determine if previously recognized thrombophilia gene mutations (prothrombin factor [F] II G20210A, FXI, fibrinogen gamma, serpin family A member 10, FV K858R, FXIII, FV Leiden [FVL], and ABO blood) were associated with VTE or bleeding during the 7-months after starting chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to compare heterozygous and homozygous mutations (combined) to wild-type. VTE rates, bleeding rates, and risk differences for mutations stratified by prophylactic anticoagulation use were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 447 patients, there were 39 VTE and 39 bleeding events. The odds of VTE were significantly increased with FVL mutation and non-O blood type (odds ratio [OR]: 5.2; 95% CI: 1.9-14.7 and OR: 2.7; 95% CI: 1.2-6.1, respectively). The use of anticoagulation prophylaxis resulted in complete protection in FVL patients, whereas those not receiving anticoagulation had a VTE rate of 119 per 100 patient-years. Lower VTE rates were also observed in non-O blood type patients taking prophylactic anticoagulation. No other thrombophilia genes tested were significantly associated with VTE or bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that FVL mutation and ABO blood type may be important VTE predictors in cancer patients starting chemotherapy.

[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.

Early identification of lung cancer patients with venous thromboembolism: development and validation of a risk prediction model

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism(VTE) is a leading cause of death in patients with lung cancer. Furthermore, hospitalization of patients with advanced lung cancer for VTE treatment represents a major economic burden on the national public health resources. Therefore, we performed this prospective study to identify clinical biomarkers for the early identification of VTE in lung cancer patients.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 158 patients with confirmed lung cancer, including 27 who were diagnosed with VTE within six months of the follow-up after lung cancer diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performancese of all the relevant clinical features and laboratory indicators in identifying lung cancer patients with a higher risk of VTE. A novel risk prediction model was constructed consisting of five clinical variables with the best diagnostic performances and was validated using the receiver operation characteristic(ROC) curves. The diagnostic performances of the new risk prediction model was also compared with the Khorana risk score (KRS) and the Padua risk score (PRS).

RESULTS

The VTE group of lung cancer patients (n = 27) showed significantly higher serum levels of fibrin degradation products (FDP), D-dimer, thrombomodulin (TM), thrombin-antithrombin-complex (TAT), α2-plasmin inhibitor-plasmin Complex (PIC), and tissue plasminogen activator-plasminogen activator inhibitor complex (t-PAIC) compared to those in the non-VTE group (n = 131). ROC curve analyses showed that the diagnostic efficacy of the new VTE risk prediction model with TM ≥ 9.75 TU/ml, TAT ≥ 2.25ng/ml, t-PAIC ≥ 7.35ng/ml, history of VTE, and ECOG PS score ≥ 2 was superior than the KRS and the PRS in the early identification of lung cancer patients with a higher risk of VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

The new risk prediction model showed significantly high diagnostic efficacy in the early identification of lung cancer patients with a high risk of VTE. The diagnostic efficacy of the new risk prediction model was higher than the KRS and the PRS in this cohort of lung cancer patients.

Ambulatory cancer patients: who should definitely receive antithrombotic prophylaxis and who should never receive

Up to 15-20% of cancer patients experience one or more episodes of venous thromboembolism during cancer disease. Approximately 80% of all cancer-associated venous thromboembolic events occur in non-hospitalized patients. Routine thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with cancer who start new anticancer treatment is currently not recommended by the international guidelines due to the high heterogeneity of these patients in terms of VTE or bleeding risks, the difficulties in selecting patients at high risk, and the uncertainty of duration of prophylaxis. Although the international guidelines endorsed the Khorana score for estimating the thrombotic risk in ambulatory cancer patients, the discriminatory performance of this score is not completely convincing and varies according to the cancer type. Consequently, a minority of ambulatory patients with cancer receive an accurate screening for primary prophylaxis of VTE. The aim of this review is to provide support to physicians in identifying those ambulatory patients with cancer for whom thromboprophylaxis should be prescribed and those that should not be candidate to thromboprophylaxis. In absence of high bleeding risk, primary thromboprophylaxis should be recommended in patients with pancreatic cancer and, probably, in patients with lung cancer harboring ALK/ROS1 translocations. Patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers are at high risk of VTE, but a careful assessment of bleeding risk should be made before deciding on antithrombotic prophylaxis. Primary prevention of VTE is not recommended in cancer patients at increased risk of bleeding as patients with brain cancer, with moderate-to-severe thrombocytopenia or severe renal impairment.

Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer Using Machine Learning Approaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Recent studies have suggested that machine learning (ML) could be used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients with high accuracy.

METHODS

We aimed to evaluate the performance of ML in predicting VTE events in patients with cancer. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE to identify studies were searched.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 12,249 patients with cancer were included. The combined results of the different ML models demonstrated good accuracy in the prediction of VTE. In the training set, the global pooled sensitivity was 0.87, the global pooled specificity was 0.87, and the AUC was 0.91, and in the test set 0.65, 0.84, and 0.80, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The prediction ML models showed good performance to predict VTE. External validation to determine the result's reproducibility is necessary.

Stratification of Risk Factors of Lung Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism and Determining the Critical Point for Preemptive Intervention: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Background

Several biomarkers or risk factors have been identified and several prediction models exist. The major limitations inherent in these models include cost-ineffectiveness and lack of systematic stratification of risk factors resulting in the inclusion of clinically insignificant biomarkers in the models. This review aimed to systematically stratify the risk factors of lung cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) and determine the critical point for preemptive intervention.

Methods

This systematic review was structured as per the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, and PsycINFO from the onset to June 2022. We included studies that reported the risk factors of lung cancer-associated VTE and corresponding risk estimates, irrespective of treatment status but studies were excluded if patients were on anti-VTE medications. We employed random effects models of meta-analysis and computed risk stability index and risk weight (Rw) to achieve the review objectives. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022336476).

Results

The clinically significant risk factors of VTE in lung cancer patients were D-dimer (odds ratio [OR] = 5.510, 95% CI = 2.6-11.7; Rw = 5.0), albumin (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.0-4.8; Rw = 1.79), leukocyte (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.9-3.2; Rw = 1.77), histological type (OR = 1.69 , 95% CI = 1.2-2.4; Rw = 1.3), age (OR = 1.56; Rw = 0.99), and hemoglobin (OR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.3-2.6; Rw = 0.92). Based on the distribution of Rw across risk factors, the critical point (upper third of the upper quartile class) was 4.5 and may mark the point at which preemptive intervention should be commenced.

Conclusions

Targeted screening for VTE in lung cancer patients could be patient-specific and should be based on a combination of the most significant risk factors required to meet the critical point, provided that such a combination is affordable as illustrated in the ALBAH model.

Registration

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022336476).

A Clinical-Genetic Risk Score for Predicting Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Development and Validation Study Involving Two Independent Prospective Cohorts

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. The Khorana score was developed for assessing the risk of VTE in outpatients with cancer receiving chemotherapy, but its accuracy in identifying patients at high risk has been questioned. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a clinical-genetic score that improves the assessment of VTE risk in oncology outpatients within 6 months of diagnosis.

METHODS

The new score was developed using the data of 364 outpatients belonging to the Spanish ONCOTHROMB 12-01 population. In this cohort, clinical data associated with the risk of VTE were collected at the time of diagnosis, including the Khorana score. These patients were also genotyped for the 51 genetic variants known to be associated with VTE. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the weight of each genetic and clinical variable in relation to VTE risk, allowing a clinical-genetic risk score (the ONCOTHROMB score) to be developed. The Khorana and the ONCOTHROMB scores were then compared via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and the number of patients needed to treat. The new score was then validated in a study of 263 patients in the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study population.

RESULTS

Nine genetic variants, tumor site, TNM stage, and a body mass index of > 25 kg/m2 were found to be associated with VTE and were used to build the ONCOTHROMB score, which better predicted the overall risk of VTE than did the Khorana score (AUC, 0.781 v 0.580; P < .001). Similar AUC results were recorded in the validation study the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study cohort involving patients with the same type of tumor (AUC for the ONCOTHROMB score v the Khorana score: 0.686 v 0.577; P < .001) and with all type of tumors (AUC for the ONCOTHROMB score v the Khorana score: 0.720 v 0.561; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The ONCOTHROMB score for VTE risk in outpatients with cancer, which takes into account both clinical and genetic variables, better identifies patients who might benefit from primary thromboprophylaxis than does the Khorana score.

Application of Machine Learning to the Prediction of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and impactful complication of cancer. Several clinical prediction rules have been devised to estimate the risk of a thrombotic event in this patient population, however they are associated with limitations. We aimed to develop a predictive model of cancer-associated VTE using machine learning as a means to better integrate all available data, improve prediction accuracy and allow applicability regardless of timing for systemic therapy administration. A retrospective cohort was used to fit and validate the models, consisting of adult patients who had next generation sequencing performed on their solid tumor for the years 2014 to 2019. A deep learning survival model limited to demographic, cancer-specific, laboratory and pharmacological predictors was selected based on results from training data for 23,800 individuals and was evaluated on an internal validation set including 5,951 individuals, yielding a time-dependent concordance index of 0.72 (95% CI = 0.70-0.74) for the first 6 months of observation. Adapted models also performed well overall compared to the Khorana Score (KS) in two external cohorts of individuals starting systemic therapy; in an external validation set of 1,250 patients, the C-index was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.65-0.77) for the deep learning model vs 0.66 (95% CI = 0.59-0.72) for the KS and in a smaller external cohort of 358 patients the C-index was 0.59 (95% CI = 0.50-0.69) for the deep learning model vs 0.56 (95% CI = 0.48-0.64) for the KS. The proportions of patients accurately reclassified by the deep learning model were 25% and 26% respectively. In this large cohort of patients with a broad range of solid malignancies and at different phases of systemic therapy, the use of deep learning resulted in improved accuracy for VTE incidence predictions. Additional studies are needed to further assess the validity of this model.

Derivation and External Validation of a Risk Assessment Model of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Chinese Patients

AIM

To develop and validate a risk assessment model (RAM) of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized Chinese patients.

METHODS

We reviewed data from 300 patients with VTE and 300 non-VTE patients at Beijing Shijitan Hospital. The risk factors related to VTE were analyzed, and the VTE RAM (Shijitan (SJT) version) was developed according to the weight of each risk factor. A total of 407 patients with VTE and 533 non-VTE patients were enrolled for external validation. The sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, receiver operating curve (ROC), and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of VTE RAM (SJT version) compared with Caprini RAM and Padua RAM.

RESULTS

The VTE RAM (SJT version) contained six risk factors (age >60 years, lower limb edema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), central venous catheterization (CVC), VTE history, and D dimer). In the external validation group, for medical patients, the AUC value of SJT RAM (0.82 ± 0.03) is significantly higher than Caprini RAM (0.76 ± 0.04; P < 0.05), SJT RAM has a higher sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index than Caprini RAM (P < 0.05), which means that the SJT RAM has a much better predictive value than Caprini RAM. While SJT RAM and Padua RAM have the similar predictive value for medical patients (P > 0.05). For surgical patients, the AUC value of SJT RAM (0.72 ± 0.04) is significantly higher than the value of Padua RAM (0.66 ± 0.04; P < 0.05), SJT RAM has a higher sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index than Padua RAM (P < 0.05), which shows that the VTE RAM has better predictive value than Padua RAM. While SJT RAM and Caprini RAM have the similar predictive value for surgical patients (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The SJT RAM derived from general hospitalized Chinese patients will be time-saving for physicians and has a better predictive ability for patients at risk of VTE.

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.

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Venous Thrombus Embolism (VTE) in Patients With Colorectal Cancer

Cancer patients are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk of VTE could be mitigated with the administration of prophylactic anticoagulants. Therefore, risk assessment models would be a useful tool in order to identify those patients who are at higher risk and will be benefited more by prophylactic anticoagulants. This study retrospectively examined 528 newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients from January 2019 to January 2021. Specified logistic regression models were employed to screen the factors and establish prediction tools based on nomograms according to the final included variables. Discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability were used to assess the performance of screening tools. In addition, internal verifications were conducted through 10-fold cross-verification, leave-one-out cross-validation, and Bootstrap verification. Four risk factors, closely related to the occurrence of VTE in colorectal cancer patients, were identified after univariate and multivariate logistic regression, including age, body mass index, activated partial thromboplastin time, and D-Dimer value. Besides, the risk assessment model named ABAD was built on the basis, displaying good discriminations and calibrations. The area under the curve was 0.705 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.644 to 0.766). According to Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, a good agreement between the predicted and observed VTE events in patients with newly-diagnosed gastrointestinal cancer was observed for χ2 = 6.864, P = .551. Internal validation was applied with a C-index of 0.669 in the 10-fold cross-verification, 0.658 in the leave-one-out cross verification and 0.684 in the bootstrap verification. We developed a prediction model called ABAD for newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients, which can be used to predict the risk of VTE. After evaluation and internal verification, we believe that ABAD exhibited high predictive performance and availability and could be recommended.

Biomarkers of Venous Thromboembolism Recurrence after Discontinuation of Low Molecular Weight Heparin Treatment for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (HISPALIS-Study)

The most appropriate duration of anticoagulant treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) remains unclear. We have conducted a prospective multicenter study in CAT patients with more than 6 months of anticoagulant treatment to predict the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence after anticoagulation discontinuation. Blood samples were obtained when patients stopped the anticoagulation, at 21 days and at 90 days. In each sample we assessed different coagulation-related biomarkers: D-dimer (DD), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), P-selectin (PS), phospholipids, soluble tissue factor, factor VIII and the thrombin generation test. It was evaluated 325 CAT patients and 166 patients were included in the study, mean age 64 ± 17 years. VTE recurrence until 6 months after stopping anticoagulation treatment was 9.87% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6−15]. The biomarkers sub-distribution hazard ratios were 6.32 for ratio DD basal/DD 21 days > 2 (95% CI: 1.82−21.90), 6.36 for hs-CRP > 4.5 (95% CI: 1.73−23.40) and 5.58 for PS > 40 (95% CI: 1.46−21.30) after 21 days of stopping anticoagulation. This is the first study that has identified the DD ratio, hs-CRP and PS as potential biomarkers of VTE recurrence in cancer patients after the discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment. A risk-adapted strategy may allow the identification of the optimal time to withdraw the anticoagulation in each CAT patient.

Cancer‐associated venous thromboembolism in Israel: Incidence, risk factors, treatment, and health care utilization in a population based cohort study

Background

Recent international guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer at intermediate‐high venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk.

Objectives

We aimed to assess the current incidence, risk factors and management of cancer‐associated VTE and associated health care resource utilization in a 2.5‐million‐member state‐mandated health service in Israel.

Methods

Patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed cancer, initiating systemic anticancer treatment from 2010 through 2018 were identified from the Israel National Cancer Registry. The index date was fixed as the first day of systemic anticancer treatment. The cumulative VTE incidence from the first day of systemic anticancer treatment and the respective hazard ratios for VTE risk factors were calculated at 12 months of follow‐up. Health care resource utilization (primary care physician, emergency room, and hospital visits) during the study period was compared between patients with and without VTE.

Results

A total of 15 388 patients were included, and 338 had VTE with a 12‐month cumulative incidence of 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.96%‐2.43%). In a multivariable model, older age, higher comorbidity index, intermediate‐high‐risk Khorana score, certain malignancy types, and chemotherapy were significantly associated with an increased VTE risk in the year after initiating anticancer treatment. Compared with matched controls, the VTE subcohort were more likely to be hospitalized (81.4% vs 35.2%), have longer hospital stays (20.1 days vs 13.1 days), have an emergency room visit (41.5% vs 19.3%), and have a larger number of primary care physician visits (17.6 vs 12.5).

Conclusion

Several risk factors, including the Khorana score, were associated with VTE incidence. VTE was associated with long‐term use of anticoagulation. Health care utilization was higher in patients with VTE.

Can thromboprophylaxis build a link for cancer patients undergoing surgical and/or chemotherapy treatment? The MeTHOS cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with active cancer have a 4-sevenfold increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) especially during systematic anticancer treatment. Simultaneously, surgery is an additional risk factor.

METHODS

The Metaxas's Hospital THromboprophylaxis program in Oncological & Surgical Patients (MeTHOS) is a prospective, phase IV, observational, non-interventional cohort study, aiming to record the thromboprophylaxis practice patterns in high-risk active cancer patients undergoing surgical and/or chemotherapy treatment.

RESULTS

We are reporting results from 291 ambulatory patients (median age: 67 years, Q1-Q3: 59-73 years, 54.6% males) who received anti-neoplastic treatment and administered thromboprophylaxis. 59.8% had cardiovascular disease (mostly hypertension), 76.6% were reported as having at least one comorbidity, while 27.5% and 15.8% accumulated two and three comorbidities, respectively. 94.9% of the patients were receiving highly thrombogenic agents such as platinum-based agents, 5-FU, immunotherapy, antiangiogenics/anti-VEGF, or erythropoietin. 26.5% of the patients were initially surgically treated. In terms of anticoagulation, all patients were treated with tinzaparin (fixed dose, 10,000 Anti-Xa IU, OD). The median anticoagulation duration was 6.2 months. Six thrombotic events were observed (2.06%, 95% CI: 0.76-4.43%): 5 were DVT, and one PE. With respect to safety, 7 bleeding events occurred (2.6%, 95% CI: 1.0-5.3%); 6 of them were minor.

CONCLUSIONS

Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in patients with active cancer and high thrombotic burden was safe and effective. Intermediate dose of tinzaparin seems to be an appropriate agent for cancer-associated thromboprophylaxis management.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04248348.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Cancer-associated thrombosis (including venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial events) is highly consequential for patients with cancer and is associated with worsened survival. Despite substantial improvements in cancer treatment, the risk of VTE has increased in recent years; VTE rates additionally depend on the type of cancer (with pancreas, stomach and primary brain tumours having the highest risk) as well as on individual patient's and cancer treatment factors. Multiple cancer-specific mechanisms of VTE have been identified and can be classified as mechanisms in which the tumour expresses proteins that alter host systems, such as levels of platelets and leukocytes, and in which the tumour expresses procoagulant proteins released into the circulation that directly activate the coagulation cascade or platelets, such as tissue factor and podoplanin, respectively. As signs and symptoms of VTE may be non-specific, diagnosis requires clinical assessment, evaluation of pre-test probability, and objective diagnostic testing with ultrasonography or CT. Risk assessment tools have been validated to identify patients at risk of VTE. Primary prevention of VTE (thromboprophylaxis) has long been recommended in the inpatient and post-surgical settings, and is now an option in the outpatient setting for individuals with high-risk cancer. Anticoagulant therapy is the cornerstone of therapy, with low molecular weight heparin or newer options such as direct oral anticoagulants. Personalized treatment incorporating risk of bleeding and patient preferences is essential, especially as a diagnosis of VTE is often considered by patients even more distressing than their cancer diagnosis, and can severely affect the quality of life. Future research should focus on current knowledge gaps including optimizing risk assessment tools, biomarker discovery, next-generation anticoagulant development and implementation science.

Venous Thromboembolism In Cancer Patients: "From Evidence to Care"

This article seeks to review the current status of treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) in cancer patients after the addition of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) to the therapeutic arsenal available. The suitability of DOAC use in complex clinical situations, poorly represented in clinical trials, is controversial and difficult for care activity, making the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines the focus of special attention in this area. Recently, several randomized trials have compared low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to DOAC for the management of CAT. Potential drug interactions with DOACs or the increased risk of bleeding in intraluminal tumors require special precautions, as do metastatic or primary brain disease and comorbid conditions, such as renal or liver failure, which are not suitably represented in pivotal studies. Furthermore, few data are available for situations involving elevated bleeding risk, with thrombocytopenia levels below the inclusion criterion of clinical trials, or recurrence during active anticoagulant therapy. Similarly, it is less clear that patients and physicians accept the presumption that oral DOAC administration is more convenient than subcutaneous LMWH, particularly when drug absorption may be compromised. The non-inclusion or under-representation of patients at higher risk for complications with anticoagulation in randomized clinical trials, makes their use complex in certain situations in health care. This paper provides a practical review of current clinical guideline recommendations regarding LMWH and/ or DOAC to treat and prevent CAT, as well as the most controversial clinical conditions for their use.

The association between two genetic polymorphisms in ITGB3 and increase risk of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients in Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the major complications in most cancer patients leading to poor prognosis and short survival. Several common clinical risk factors coexist in cancer patients are used as risk predictive biomarkers to help in the management and prevention of VTE. These include cancer site and stage, chemotherapy regimen and elevated biological markers. However, Genetic polymorphisms in genes controlling coagulation and fibrinolysis are significantly associated with VTE if detected, then they might be more sensitive individual predictive biomarkers for VTE risk assessment. This study was conducted to evaluate the association between ITGB3 rs3809865 and rs5918 with VTE risk as well as monitor the effect of VTE on overall survival of these cancer patients. In this retrospective case-control study, 195 cancer patients' formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue (FFPE) samples were collected (controls n = 157, case n = 38) using the stored data through Jan 2010 to Sep 2018 from King Fahad Specialist Hospital in Dammam. Samples were genotyped using TaqMan genotyping assay, then logistic regression analysis and Chi-square were used to predict the association between risk factors and VTE. Survival Comparison was tested by the log-rank test. Genetic polymorphisms in ITGB3 (rs3809865 and rs5918) found not to be associated with VTE increasing risk in cancer patients (p>0.05). While the advanced stage was potentially increasing the risk of VTE events (OR 5.1 CI 2.01-12.9p = 0.001). Patients with VTE showed a poor overall survival reflected by the median survival rate of only three years compared to seven years for cancer patients without VTE. This study highlighted the potential influence of VTE on prognosis and survival of cancer patients and raised the importance of exploring risk predictive biomarkers in our population. This will improve the risk prediction biomarkers leading to implementing safe and effective thrombosis prophylaxis strategies.

Optimal authoritative risk assessment score of Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism for hospitalized medical patients with lung Cancer

Background

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with primary lung cancer. It has been understudied which authoritative risk assessment score of cancer-associated VTE is optimal for the assessment of VTE development in hospitalized medical patients with lung cancer.

Methods

Patients with lung cancer who had undergone computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), compression ultrasonography (CUS) of lower and upper extremities, and/or planar ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan to confirm the presence or absence of VTE during a medical hospitalization were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the actual prevalence of VTE among all patients, the possibility of VTE were reassessed with the Khorana score, the PROTECHT score, the CONKO score, the ONKOTEV score, the COMPASS-CAT score, and the CATS/MICA score, to compare their assessment accuracy for VTE development.

Results

A total of 1263 patients with lung cancer were incorporated into the final analysis. With respect to assessment efficiency for VTE occurrence, the scores with adjusted agreement from highest to lowest were the ONKOTEV score (78.6%), the PROTECHT score (73.4%), the CONKO score (72.1%), the COMPASS-CAT score (71.7%), the Khorana score (70.9%), and the CATS/MICA score (60.3%). The ONKOTEV score had the highest Youden index which was 0.68, followed by the PROTECHT score (0.58), the COMPASS-CAT score (0.56), the CONKO score (0.55), the Khorana score (0.53), and the CATS/MICA score (0.23).

Conclusions

Among the Khorana score, the PROTECHT score, the CONKO score, the ONKOTEV score, the COMPASS-CAT score, and the CATS/MICA score which are approved by authoritative guidelines, the ONKOTEV score is optimal for the assessment of VTE development in hospitalized medical patients with lung cancer.

F. L. de Vos F, ten Tije AJ, Beerepoot LV, Tjan‐Heijnen VCG, van Laarhoven HWM, Hamberg P, Vulink AJE, Los M, Zwinderman AH, Ferwerda B, Lolkema MPJK, Steeghs N, Büller HR, Kamphuisen PW, van Es N. Evaluation of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores for prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

The Khorana score is a validated tool to identify cancer patients at higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

We compared its predictive performance to that of the clinical PROTECHT and the polygenic 5-SNP scores in patients who participated in the Dutch CPCT-02 study.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Data on VTE and its risk factors were retrospectively collected for 2729 patients with advanced stage solid tumors planned for systemic cancer treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months. Overall discriminatory performance of the scores was evaluated by time-dependent c-indices. The scores were additionally evaluated dichotomously in competing risk models.

RESULTS

A total of 160 (5.9%) patients developed VTE during follow-up. Time-dependent c-indices at 6 months for the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.60), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.57-0.62), and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.51-0.57), respectively. The dichotomous scores classified 9.6%, 16.8%, and 9.5% as high-risk, respectively. VTE risk was about 2-fold higher among high-risk patients than low-risk patients for the Khorana (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-3.0), PROTECHT (SHR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.0), and 5-SNP scores (SHR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.03-2.8). The sensitivity at 6 months was 16.6% (95% CI: 10.5-22.7), 28.9% (95% CI: 21.5-36.3), and 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Performance of the PROTECHT or 5-SNP score was not superior to that of the Khorana score. The majority of cancer patients who developed VTE during 6-month follow-up were not identified by these scores. Future directions for studies on cancer-associated VTE prediction may include combined clinical-genetic scores.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hematologic neoplasms: an expert consensus from SEHH-SETH

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication in hematologic neoplasms, so finding adequate prevention strategies is an urgent requirement. However, prospective studies with large enough cohorts are scarce, limiting the development of evidence-based thromboprophylaxis guidelines. The present position paper is addressed to all hematologists treating patients affected by hematologic neoplasms with the aim to provide clinicians with a useful tool for the prevention of VTE.

Advances in the Prediction and Risk Assessment of Lung Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

According to the most recent data from the National Cancer Center, venous thromboembolism (VTE) has unsurprisingly become one of the most common complications in lung cancer. VTE not only interferes with the equilibrium of the clotting system but it also affects tumor progression and prognosis. For the identification of high-risk patients, many clinical risk assessment models have been developed and validated based on the risk factors found in previous studies. In this review, we will summarize advances in prediction and risk assessment of VTE, with a focus on early diagnosis and therapy, reduction of mortality, and the burden of medical costs in lung cancer patients.

Development and validation of a predictive score for venous thromboembolism in newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies among tumour types, and different cancer type-specific risks for VTE prediction remain undefined. We aimed to establish a prediction model for non-small lung cancer (NSCLC)-associated VTE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed data from a prospective cohort of patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC. We then developed a VTE risk prediction model using data of patients who were recruited from 2013 to 2017 (n = 602, development cohort) and validated this model using date of patients recruited from 2018 to 2019 (n = 412, validation cohort). The cumulative 6 months VTE incidence observed in both cohorts was calculated.

RESULTS

The parameters in this new model included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2 (1 point), EGFR mutation (-1 point), neutrophil count ≥7.5 × 10⁹/L (2 points), hemoglobin <115 g/L (1 point), CEA ≥5.0 ng/mL (2 points), and D-dimer level ≥1400 ng/mL (4 points). The cross-validated concordance indices of the model in the development and validation cohorts were 0.779 and 0.853, respectively. Furthermore, the areas under the curve in the two cohorts were 0.7563 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6856-0.8129, P < 0.001) and 0.8211 (95% CI: 0.7451-0.8765, P < 0.001) for development and validation cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The new VTE risk prediction model incorporated patient characteristics, laboratory values, and oncogenic status, and was able to stratify patients at high risk of VTE in newly diagnosed NSCLC within 6 months of diagnosis.

Incorporating genetic and clinical data into the prediction of thromboembolism risk in patients with lymphoma

Background

The incorporation of genetic variables into risk scores for predicting venous thromboembolic events (VTE) could improve their capacity to identify those patients for whom thromboprophylaxis would be most beneficial. Proof‐of‐concept of this is provided by the TiC‐ONCO score for predicting the risk of VTE in patients with solid tumours. Our aim was to develop a similarly improved tool—the TiC‐LYMPHO score—for predicting VTE in patients with lymphoma.

Methods

In a retrospective observational study of 208 patients with lymphoma, 31 (14.9%) were found to have experienced an episode of VTE either at the time of diagnosis or over the next 6 months. Clinical variables associated with VTE, determined via logistic regression analysis, plus the same genetic variables included in the TiC‐ONCO score, were used to build the TiC‐LYMPHO score algorithm. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and AUC of the TiC‐LYMPHO, the Khorana and ThroLy scores were compared in the same population.

Results

The TiC‐LYMPHO score showed a significantly higher AUC, sensitivity and NPV (0.783, 95.35% and 97.98% respectively) than the other scores. The ThroLy score showed a significantly higher specificity (96.43% vs. 54.49%; p < 0.0001) and PPV (37.50% vs. 26.36%; p = 0.0147) than the TiC‐LYMPHO score, whereas its AUC, sensitivity and NPV were significantly lower (0.579, 19.35% and 86.48%, respectively).

Conclusion

These results show that by incorporating genetic and clinical data into VTE risk assessment, the TiC‐LYMPHO score can categorize patients with lymphoma better in terms of their risk of VTE and allow individualized thromboprophylaxis to be prescribed.

Impact of the mutation profile on thrombotic risk in cancer patients

Patients with cancer present with an elevated risk of thrombosis, which entails high morbidity and mortality. Various predictive scales that incorporate clinical and biological data have been developed to identify those at high risk of thrombosis, but, in general, they do not allow for the optimal selection of subjects who are candidates for thromboprophylaxis. Recent studies have demonstrated that the mutation profile has a high impact on the risk of thrombosis; this will facilitate developing new predictive models of thrombosis in patients with cancer.

A comprehensive review of DOACs for cancer associated VTE prophylaxis or treatment

Cancer is a leading cause of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which contributes to significant morbidity and mortality in these patients. Increased thrombotic risk in cancer patients is modified by tumor-specific biology, disease-directed interventions, and individual comorbidities. Risk stratification for prophylaxis and treatment requires regular reevaluation of these factors, which can be facilitated by validated prediction tools. This review also discusses large clinical trial data (SELECT-D, HOKUSAI-VTE, ADAM VTE, CARAVAGGIO) demonstrating that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, with comparable efficacy to the traditional choice of low molecular weight heparin. In the prophylactic setting derived from patients with cancer with increased VTE risk, DOACs also reduced the incidence of VTE with only modest increases in bleeding risk. The ease of DOAC administration and acceptable risk profile in the carefully selected patient make them an appealing choice for anticoagulation. In instances where the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is of concern, apixaban, in particular, may still be a suitable option in place of LMWH. These improvements in our anticoagulation approach to cancer-associated VTE are well-timed to accompany the recent advances in disease-directed therapies that are enabling patients to live longer with cancer and therefore at increased risk of complications such as VTE.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Clinical Scoping Review of the Risk Assessment Models Across Solid Tumours and Haematological Malignancies

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a leading cause of death in cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. The latest guidelines emphasize stratifying the patients in terms of CAT risks periodically. Multiple risk assessment models (RAMs) were developed to classify patients and guide thromboprophylaxis to high-risk patients. This study aimed to discuss and highlight different RAMs across various malignancy types with their related advantages and disadvantages. A scoping review was conducted using predefined search terms in three scientific databases, including Google Scholar, Science Direct, and PubMed. The search for studies was restricted to original research articles that reported risk assessment models published in the last thirteen years (between 2008 and 2021) to cover the most recently published evidence following the development of the principal risk assessment score in 2008. Data charting of the relevant trials, scores, advantages, and disadvantages were done iteratively considering the malignancy type. Of the initially identified 1115 studies, 39 studies with over 67,680 patients were included in the review. In solid organ malignancy, nine risk assessment scores were generated. The first and most known Khorana risk score still offers the best available risk assessment model when used for high-risk populations with a threshold of 2 and above. However, KRS has a limitation of failure to stratify low-risk patients. The COMPASS-CAT score showed the best performance in the lung carcinoma patients who have a higher prevalence of thrombosis than other malignancy subtypes. In testicular germ cell tumours, Bezan et al RAM is a validated good discriminatory RAM for this malignancy subtype. CAT in haematological malignancy seems to be under-investigated and has multiple disease-related, and treatment-related confounding factors. AL-Ani et al score performed efficiently in acute leukemia. In multiple myeloma, both SAVED and IMPEDED VTE scores showed good performance. Despite the availability of different disease-specific scores in lymphoma-related thrombosis, the standard of care needs to be redefined.

Current Recommendations for the Management of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of death in oncological patients. The mechanisms of thrombogenesis in cancer patients are not fully established, and it seems to be multifactorial in origin. Also, several risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are present in these patients such as tumor site, stage, histology of cancer, chemotherapy, surgery, and immobilization. Anticoagulant treatment in CAT is challenging because of high bleeding risk during treatment and recurrence of VTE. Current major guidelines recommend low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) for early and long-term treatment of VTE in cancer patients. In the past years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as potential treatment option for VTE and have recently been proposed as a new option for treating CAT. This manuscript will give a short overview of risk factors involved in the development of CAT and a summary on the recent recommendations and guidelines for treatment of VTE in patients with malignancies, discussing also some special clinical situations (e.g. renal impairment, catheter-related thrombosis, and thrombocytopenia).

Platelet-Cancer Interplay: Molecular Mechanisms and New Therapeutic Avenues

Although platelets are critically involved in thrombosis and hemostasis, experimental and clinical evidence indicate that platelets promote tumor progression and metastasis through a wide range of physical and functional interactions between platelets and cancer cells. Thrombotic and thromboembolic events are frequent complications in patients with solid tumors. Hence, cancer modulates platelet function by directly inducing platelet-tumor aggregates and triggering platelet granule release and altering platelet turnover. Also, platelets enhance tumor cell dissemination by activating endothelial cell function and recruiting immune cells to primary and metastatic tumor sites. In this review, we summarize current knowledge on the complex interactions between platelets and tumor cells and the host microenvironment. We also critically discuss the potential of anti-platelet agents for cancer prevention and treatment.

Predictive Ability of a Clinical-Genetic Risk Score for Venous Thromboembolism in Northern and Southern European Populations

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a complex, multifactorial problem, the development of which depends on a combination of genetic and acqfiguired risk factors. In a Spanish population, the Thrombo inCode score (or TiC score), which combines clinical and genetic risk components, was recently proven better at determining the risk of VTE than the commonly used model involving the analysis of two genetic variants associated with thrombophilia: the Factor V Leiden (F5 rs6025) and the G20210A prothrombin (F2 rs1799963). The aim of the present case-control study was to validate the VTE risk predictive capacity of the TiC score in a Northern European population (from Sweden). The study included 173 subjects with VTE and 196 controls. All were analyzed for the genetic risk variants included in the TiC gene panel. Standard measures -receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratio (OR)-were calculated. The TiC score returned an AUC value of 0.673, a sensitivity of 72.25%, a specificity of 60.62%, and an OR of 4.11. These AUC, sensitivity, and OR values are all greater than those associated with the currently used combination of genetic variants. A TiC version adjusted for the allelic frequencies of the Swedish population significantly improved its AUC value (0.783). In summary, the TiC score returned more reliable risk estimates for the studied Northern European population than did the analysis of the Factor V Leiden and the G20210A genetic variations in combination. Thus, the TiC score can be reliably used with European populations, despite differences in allelic frequencies.

Overview of risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with cancer

A B S T R A C T Important progress has been made in the development of risk assessment models (RAM) for the identification of outpatients on anticancer treatment at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Since the breakthrough publication of the original Khorana risk score (KRS) more than 10 years ago, a new generation of KRS-based scores have been developed, including the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study, PROTECHT, CONKO, ONCOTEV, TicOnco and the CATS/MICA score. Among these the CATS/MICA score showed that a simplified score composed of only two calibrated predictors, the type of cancer and the D-dimer levels, offers a user-friendly tool for the evaluation of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) risk. The COMPASS-CAT score is the first that introduced a more synthetic approach of risk evaluation by combining cancer-related predictors with patient comorbidity in a score which is designed for the types of cancer frequently seen in the community (i.e. breast, lung colon or ovarian cancers) and has been externally validated in independent studies. The Throly score is registered as part of the same group as it has a similar structure to the COMPASS-CAT score and is applicable in patients with lymphoma. The incorporation of specific biomarkers of hypercoagulability to the RAM for CAT offers the possibility to perform a precision medicine approach in the prevention of CAT. The improvement of RAM for CAT with artificial intelligence methodologies and deep learning techniques is the challenge in the near future.

Risk Assessment Models for Thrombosis and Anticoagulant-Related Bleeding in Ambulatory Cancer Patients

Cancer patients have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism and arterial thrombosis, along with an increased risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding with primary and secondary prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. Decisions on initiation, dosing, and duration of anticoagulant therapy for prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis are challenging, as clinicians have to balance patients' individual risk of (recurrent) thrombosis against the risk of bleeding complications. For this purpose, several dedicated risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients have been suggested. However, most of these scores perform poorly and have received limited to no validation. For bleeding and arterial thrombosis, no risk scores have been developed specifically for cancer patients, and treatment decisions remain based on clinical gestalt and rough and unstructured estimation of the risks. The aims of this review are to summarize the characteristics and performance of risk assessment scores for (recurrent) venous thromboembolism and discuss available data on risk assessment for bleeding and arterial thrombosis in the cancer population. This summary can help clinicians in daily practice to make a balanced decision when considering the use of risk assessment models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Future research attempts should aim at improving risk assessment for arterial thrombosis and anticoagulant-related bleeding in cancer patients.

Burden of venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a devastating malignancy with fewer than 10% of patients being alive at 5 years after diagnosis. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in approximatively 20% of patients with PC, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality and significant health care costs. The management of VTE is particularly challenging in these frail patients. Adequate selection of the most appropriate anticoagulant for each individual patient according to the current international guidelines is warranted for overcoming treatment challenges. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer multi-language web-based mobile application (downloadable for free at www.itaccme.com) has been developed to help clinicians in decision making in the most complex situations. In this narrative review, we will discuss the contemporary epidemiology and burden of VTE in PC patients, the performances and limitations of current risk assessment models to predict the risk of VTE, as well as evidence from recent clinical trials for the primary prophylaxis and treatment of cancer-associated VTE that support up-dated clinical practice guidelines.

Cancer-Related Venous Thromboembolism: From Pathogenesis to Risk Assessment

Cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a major health problem, accounting for at least 18% of all cases of VTE. Cancer patients with VTE have worse prognosis than those without VTE. Prophylaxis reduces VTE risk, but it is not feasible for all outpatients with cancer due to an increased bleeding risk. The factors involved in the pathogenesis of cancer-related VTE are direct coagulation activation, platelet activation, induction of inflammatory responses, and inhibition of fibrinolysis. Direct coagulation activation can be due to cancer procoagulant (a cysteine protease), microvesicles, or other prothrombotic abnormalities. Risk factors for developing VTE in cancer patients can be divided into four groups: tumor-related risk factors, patient-related risk factors, treatment-related risk factors, and biomarkers. Cancers of the pancreas, kidney, ovary, lung, and stomach have the highest rates of VTE. Patient-related risk factors such as age, obesity, or the presence of medical comorbidities can contribute to VTE. Platinum-based chemotherapies and antiangiogenesis treatments have also been associated with VTE. Biomarkers identified as risk factors include high platelet count, high leukocyte count, P-selectin, prothrombin fragments, D-dimer, and C-reactive protein. Based on the known risk factors, risk assessment models were developed to stratify patients who would benefit from thromboprophylaxis. The Khorana model was the first and is still the most widely used model. Because of its low sensitivity for certain tumor types, four new models have been developed in recent years. In this review, we describe the current knowledge about the pathogenesis and risk factors for cancer-related VTE, hoping to contribute to further research on the still many obscure aspects of this topic.

The risk of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a meta-analysis with systematic review

Background

The Khorana score was developed to predict the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. However, the utility of the Khorana score remains controversial since different studies report varying results. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the incidence of VTE with different risk stratifications using the Khorana score for overall follow-up time, incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and bleeding in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Methods

A systemic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies describing VTE incidence in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The incidence of VTE was calculated using R computing software.

Results

We included 13 studies in this meta-analysis, with a total of 5,852 cancer patients and 424 VTE cases. Results revealed that overall incidence of low, intermediate and high-risk groups were 2% (95% CI: 1–6%), 11% (95% CI: 6–18%) and 14% (95% CI: 9–20%), respectively. The overall incidence of DVT and PE were 6% (95% CI: 4–10%) and 4% (95% CI: 2–7%), respectively. Lastly, bleeding rate was 4% (95% CI: 2–8%).

Conclusions

According to this meta-analysis, the Khorana score is suitable for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in a 3–6-month timeframe rather than “forever”. The incidence of PE in this population was significantly greater than what was observed for non-cancer patients. More than half of VTE events occurred within 6 months of commencing chemotherapy.

Cancer and thrombosis: new insights to an old problem

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer and portends a poor prognosis. Our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of VTE in cancer has advanced since Trousseau first described hypercoagulability in patients with malignancy and Virchow described his famous triad of thrombosis formation. Malignancy itself induces a thrombophilic state by increasing the risk of venous stasis, endothelial injury and an imbalance of pro and anti-thrombotic factors leading to a hypercoaguable state. Additional insults to this thrombotic balance are introduced by patient-specific, treatment related and tumor-specific factors. The importance of understanding the factors associated with increased thrombosis in cancer is paramount in order to adequately identify patients who will benefit from thromboprophylaxis.

Prediction and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism

Venous and arterial thromboembolism are prevalent, highly burdensome, and associated with risk of worse outcomes for patients with cancer. Risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies widely across specific cancer subpopulations. The ability to predict risk of cancer-associated VTE is critical because an optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy is best achieved by targeting high-risk patients with cancer and avoiding prophylaxis in patients with cancer at low risk for VTE. A validated risk tool for solid tumors has been available for a decade. Newer tools have focused on specific populations, such as patients with multiple myeloma. Emerging studies continue to optimize risk prediction approaches in patients with cancer. Recent randomized trials have specifically addressed risk-adapted thromboprophylaxis using direct oral anticoagulants, and revised guidelines have included these new data to formulate recommendations for outpatient thromboprophylaxis. Implementation science approaches to enhance use of outpatient prophylaxis in the context of these guideline changes are under way. However, major knowledge gaps remain, including a lack of data for inpatient thromboprophylaxis in the cancer setting and a lack of formal tools for identifying risk of bleeding. This review describes optimal approaches to risk prediction and patient selection for primary pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis of cancer-associated VTE, addresses barriers to implementing these practices, and highlights strategies to overcome them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies widely among patients with cancer. Individual risk can be determined using validated approaches. Inpatient and postsurgical thromboprophylaxis is more widely accepted. However, most patients with cancer develop VTE in the outpatient setting. Recent randomized trials have demonstrated benefit to risk-adapted outpatient thromboprophylaxis. High-risk patients may therefore be considered for outpatient thromboprophylaxis as recommended by recently updated guidelines. System-wide implementation approaches are necessary to improve compliance with prophylaxis.

Direct oral anticoagulant use in gynecologic oncology: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Practice Statement

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in women with gynecologic malignancies. This practice statement provides clinical data and overall quality of evidence regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this patient population. Specifically, it reviews patient selection, safety measures, and nuances of perioperative use of these medications. The scope of this document is limited to DOAC use in gynecologic oncology rather than a broad discussion of VTE prophylaxis and management in general. The following recommendations and examination of extant data are based on DOAC trials conducted primarily in mixed populations with different cancer subtypes. Many of these trials include few, or no, women with gynecologic cancer. However, because there is very limited data in gynecologic cancer-specific populations, the results of these studies represent the best available evidence to support treatment recommendations in our patients. The members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee believe that the results of these studies may be extrapolated, with caution, to VTE treatment and prophylaxis for patients with gynecologic cancer.