[Primary pharmacological prevention of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with chemotherapy?]

The association of tumor-expressed REG4, SPINK4 and alpha-1 antitrypsin with cancer-associated thrombosis in colorectal cancer

Novel biomarkers are needed to improve current imperfect risk prediction models for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). We recently identified an RNA-sequencing profile that associates with CAT in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, with REG4, SPINK4, and SERPINA1 as the top-3 upregulated genes at mRNA level. In the current study, we investigated whether protein expression of REG4, SPINK4 and alpha-1 antitrypsin (A1AT, encoded by SERPINA1) in the tumor associated with CAT in an independent cohort of CRC patients. From 418 patients with resected CRC, 18 patients who developed CAT were age, sex, and tumor stage-matched to 18 CRC patients without CAT. Protein expression was detected by immunohistochemical staining and scored blindly by assessing the H-score (percentage positive cells*scoring intensity). The association with CAT was assessed by means of logistic regression, using patients with an H-score below 33 as reference group. The odds ratios (ORs) for developing CAT for patients with A1AThigh, REG4high, SPINK4high tumors were 3.5 (95%CI 0.8-14.5), 2.0 (95%CI 0.5-7.6) and 2.0 (95%CI 0.5-7.4) when compared to A1ATlow, REG4low, SPINK4low, respectively. The OR was increased to 24.0 (95%CI 1.1-505.1) when two proteins were combined (A1AThigh/REG4high). This nested case-control study shows that combined protein expression of A1AT and REG4 associate with CAT in patients with colorectal cancer. Therefore, REG4/A1AT are potential biomarkers to improve the identification of patients with CRC who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis.

Unmet clinical needs in the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Based on accumulating evidence, the prophylaxis and treatment of cancer-associated VTE have been changed over the years. Recently, the introduction in clinical practice of the direct oral anticoagulants has radically changed the management of cancer-associated VTE for their easier use and non-inferior efficacy-safety profile compared to low-molecular-weight heparins. However, the heterogeneity of the cancer population in terms of site, type and stage of the malignancy, the presence of comorbidities, and the variability in cancer treatment and prognosis represent major challenges in the management of VTE in patients with cancer. In the present review, we will discuss clinical questions that represent unsolved issues in the setting of cancer-associated VTE and provide an overview on recent evidence on this topic: primary prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy and in cancer surgical patients, need of long-term anticoagulation in cancer patients, treatment of VTE in cancer patients at increased bleeding risk and in special categories such as incidental VTE, splanchnic vein thrombosis or catheter-related thrombosis.

Utility of the Khorana and the new-Vienna CATS prediction scores in cancer patients of the HYPERCAN cohort

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment models (RAMs) are relevant approaches to identify cancer outpatients at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Among the proposed RAMs, the Khorana (KRS) and the new-Vienna CATS risk scores have been externally validated in ambulatory patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To test KRS and new-Vienna CATS scores in 6-month VTE prediction and mortality in a large prospective cohort of metastatic cancer outpatients during chemotherapy.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Newly diagnosed patients with metastatic non-small cell lung, colorectal, gastric, or breast cancers were analyzed (n = 1286). The cumulative incidence of objectively confirmed VTE was estimated with death as a competing risk and multivariate Fine and Gray regression.

RESULTS

Within 6 months, 120 VTE events (9.7%) occurred. The KRS and the new-Vienna CATS scores showed comparable c-stat. Stratification by KRS provided VTE cumulative incidences of 6.2%, 11.4%, and 11.5% in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (p = ns), and of 8.5% vs. 11.8% (p = ns) in the low- vs. high-risk group by the single 2-point cut-off value stratification. Using a pre-defined 60-point cut-off by the new-Vienna CATS score, 6.6% and 12.2% cumulative incidences were obtained in the low- and high-risk groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Furthermore, having a KRS ≥2 = or a new-Vienna CATS score >60 points was also an independent risk factor for mortality.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, the 2 RAMs showed a comparable discriminating potential; however, after the application of cut-off values, the new-Vienna CATS score provided statistically significant stratification for VTE. Both RAMs proved to be effective in identifying patients at increased risk of mortality.

Estimating Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Inpatients: Validation of Existing Risk Scores and Development of New Risk Scores

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients are predisposed to venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study aimed to (1) evaluate the efficacy of 4 existing cancer-specific VTE models in predicting VTE incidence among hospitalized mCRC patients, and (2) examine the influence of incorporating mCRC molecular subtypes into these models. We conducted an evaluation of 4 cancer-specific VTE models, including Khorana, Vienna CATS, Protecht, and CONKO in a dataset involving 1392 mCRC patients. To evaluate the predictive performance, we utilized receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both the original models and the modified models that incorporated microsatellite instability status or KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations. Moreover, we computed the net reclassification improvement (NRI) to quantify the enhancements made to the modified VTE risk models. All models demonstrated a moderate area under the ROC curve (ROC-AUC) when predicting the occurrence of VTE: Khorana (0.550), Vienna CATS (0.671), Protecht (0.652), and CONKO (0.578). The incorporation of KRAS and BRAF mutations significantly improved the ROC-AUC of all 4 existing models (modified Khorana: 0.796, modified Vienna CATS: 0.832, modified Protecht: 0.834, and modified CONKO: 0.809). After dichotomizing the risk using a threshold of 3 points and comparing them with the original models, NRI values for the 4 modified models were 0.97, 0.95, 1.11, and 0.98, respectively. All 4 cancer-specific VTE models exhibit moderate performance when identifying mCRC patients at high risk of VTE. Incorporating KRAS and BRAF mutations may enhance the prediction of VTE in hospitalized mCRC patients.

Primary ambulatory thromboprophylaxis in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy: hope or hype?

Thrombosis is the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. Patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) have a very high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Even though primary ambulatory thromboprophylaxis (PATP) could decrease this risk, there are uncertain issues with regard to the choice and dose of anticoagulants, duration of anticoagulant therapy, and patient selection criteria. In addition, the current practice guidelines on PATP in PC patients are equivocal. This review critically appraises the evidence on the use of PATP in PC patients receiving chemotherapy.

Thromboembolic Events Burden in Patients With Solid Tumors and Their Predisposing Factors

Introduction: The relationship between cancers and thromboembolic events is well established. In our study, we aim to determine the burden of thromboembolic events in patients with solid tumors and identify the risk factors related to their development.

Materials & Methods: Data on patients with solid tumors and thromboembolism between January 2013 and September 2014 were collected and analyzed.

Results: During the study period 174 patients were identified. Of which, 172 (98.9%) had venous thrombus embolism, 137 (79%) were diagnosed with deep vein thromboses, 67 (38.5%) with pulmonary embolism, 84 (48.3%) were symptomatic and 90 (51.7) were incidental at diagnosis. The most common patients and disease characteristics were female sex, high body mass index (BMI), metastatic stage, colorectal and breast primaries, and anti-neoplastic therapy.

Conclusion: Our study confirmed the high burden of thromboembolic events in cancer patients and the relevant factors associated with its development.

Prediction models for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory adults with pancreatic and gastro-oesophageal cancer: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of cancer. Pancreatic and gastro-oesophageal cancers are among malignancies that have the highest rates of VTE occurrence. VTE can increase cancer-related morbidity and mortality and disrupt cancer treatment. The risk of VTE can be managed with measures such as using anticoagulant drugs, although the risk of bleeding may be an impeding factor. Therefore, a VTE risk assessment should be performed before the start of anticoagulation in individual patients. Several prediction models have been published, but most of them have low sensitivity and unknown clinical applicability in pancreatic or gastro-oesphageal cancers. We intend to do this systematic review to identify all applicable published predictive models and compare their performance in those types of cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

All studies in which a prediction model for VTE have been developed, validated or compared using adult ambulatory patients with pancreatic or gastro-oesphageal cancers will be identified and the reported predictive performance indicators will be extracted. Full text peer-reviewed journal articles of observational or experimental studies published in English will be included. Five databases (Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane) will be searched. Two reviewers will independently undertake each of the phases of screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The quality of the selected studies will be assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. The results from the review will be used for a narrative information synthesis, and if the same models have been validated in multiple studies, meta-analyses will be done to pool the predictive performance measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There is no need for ethics approval because the review will use previously peer-reviewed articles. The results will be published.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021253887.

Thrombotic events in patients using cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, analysis of existing ambulatory risk assessment models and the potential influences of tumor specific risk factors

Cyclin dependent kinase 4 of 6 inhibitors (CDKi) are key therapeutics in the treatment of advanced breast cancer and have recently been approved in small cell lung cancer for the prevention of myelosuppression. Thrombotic events have emerged as a significant treatment related adverse event in up to 5% of patients in clinical trials and has been reported at higher rates, up to 10%, in real world analysis. The prothrombotic mechanisms of CDKis, however, remain unknown. Cancer specific risk assessment models exist to identify who may be at highest risk of thrombosis and who could potentially benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation. However, these models may not be accurate in patients taking CDKis and may not fully capture recently identified thrombotic risk factors such as tumor specific somatic mutations. In the following manuscript, we summarize the literature on thrombotic events with CDKis in clinical trials and real-world settings, review the existing thrombosis risk assessment models for ambulatory cancer patients, and discuss the literature on tumor mutations and role in cancer associated thrombosis.

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.

Models for predicting venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with lung cancer: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer and has a determining role in the disease prognosis. The risk is significantly increased with certain types of cancer, such as lung cancer. Partly due to difficulties in managing haemorrhage in outpatient settings, anticoagulant prophylaxis is only recommended for ambulatory patients at high risk of VTE. This requires a precise VTE risk assessment in individual patients. Although VTE risk assessment models have been developed and updated in recent years, there are conflicting reports on the effectiveness of such risk prediction models in patient management. The aim of this systematic review is to gain a better understanding of the available VTE risk assessment tools for ambulatory patients with lung cancer and compare their predictive performance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases from inception to 30 September 2021, to identify all reports published in English describing VTE risk prediction models which have included adult ambulatory patients with primary lung cancer for model development and/or validation. Two independent reviewers will conduct article screening, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the primary studies. Any disagreements will be referred to a third researcher to resolve. The included studies will be assessed for risk of bias and applicability. The Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies will be used for data extraction and appraisal. Data from similar studies will be used for meta-analysis to determine the incidence of VTE and the performance of the risk models.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required. We will disseminate the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021245907.

Risk of Thrombo-Embolic Events in Ovarian Cancer: Does Bevacizumab Tilt the Scale? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Thromboembolic events (TEs) are the second cause of death in cancer patients. Two forms of thromboembolic events may arise: arterial, such as ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction; and venous, such as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial-derived growth factor, and is widely used in advanced ovarian cancer. However, whether bevacizumab increases the risk of thromboembolic events in ovarian cancer is matter of debate since studies have shown conflicting results. In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we included 14 trials with bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. We found that the risk of arterial thromboembolic events more than doubled with a risk ratio of 2.45. Also the risk of venous thromboembolism increased 30% with bevacizumab treatment. Bevacizumab, therefore, can be considered an additional risk factor for selecting patients for primary prophylaxis with anticoagulants.

Abstract

Thromboembolic events are the second cause of death in cancer patients. In ovarian cancer, 3–10% of patients present with venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the incidence may rise to 36% along the disease course. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial-derived growth factor, and in in vitro studies it showed a predisposition to hemostasis perturbation, including thrombosis. However, in vivo and clinical studies have shown conflicting results for its use as a treatment for ovarian cancer, so we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk of arterial thromboembolism (ATE) and VTE in ovarian cancer patients treated with bevacizumab. The review comprised 14 trials with 6221 patients: ATE incidence was reported in 5 (4811 patients) where the absolute risk was 2.4% with bevacizumab vs. 1.1% without (RR 2.45; 95% CI 1.27–4.27, p = 0.008). VTE incidence was reported in 9 trials (5121 patients) where the absolute risk was 5.4% with bevacizumab vs. 3.7% without (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.02–1.79, p = 0.04). Our analysis showed that the risk of arterial and venous thromboembolism increased in patients treated with bevacizumab. Thrombolic events (TEs) are probably underreported, and studies should discriminate between ATE and VTE. Bevacizumab can be considered as an additional risk factor when selecting patients for primary prophylaxis with anticoagulants.

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).

Risk Factors and Prediction Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Patients with Lung Cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of mortality in patients with lung cancer. Despite the availability of a wide range of anticoagulants to help prevent thrombosis, thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients is a challenge due to its associated risk of haemorrhage. As a result, anticoagulation is only recommended in patients with a relatively high risk of VTE. Efforts have been made to develop predictive models for VTE risk assessment in cancer patients, but the availability of a reliable predictive model for ambulate patients with lung cancer is unclear. We have analysed the latest information on this topic, with a focus on the lung cancer-related risk factors for VTE, and risk prediction models developed and validated in this group of patients. The existing risk models, such as the Khorana score, the PROTECHT score and the CONKO score, have shown poor performance in external validations, failing to identify many high-risk individuals. Some of the newly developed and updated models may be promising, but their further validation is needed.

New prophylaxis strategies to reduce the risk of thromboembolism in cancer

INTRODUCTION

: Patients with cancer are at risk of thrombotic events, mainly deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. The thrombosis risk is generally 4-6 times higher than in a healthy population and depends on factors related to patient characteristics, tumor factors, and treatment-related factors. The decision-making for prophylactic anticoagulation is individualized according to the relative risks and benefits. The VTE risk has been quantified using different assessment scores. In recent years, an effort has been made to establish "risk assessment models" specifically for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews current data and ongoing research on predictive factors involved in cancer-related thrombosis and it is highlighted the currently suggested strategies for prophylaxis. Several trials that compared the two treatment options, direct factor Xa inhibitor or LMWH, with placebo and not each other are discussed. In this article, was analyzed the safety and efficacy features that led several international organizations such as ASCO, NCCN, and others, to issue guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of patients at high risk of thrombosis by using LMWH, fondaparinux and DOACs.

EXPERT OPINION

ASCO, NCCN, and other international organizations recommend thromboprophylaxis in high risk patients. However, further investigation is needed to define better biomarkers for more accurate identification of cancer patients that will benefit from anticoagulant treatment.

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.

Provoked versus unprovoked venous thromboembolism: Findings from GARFIELD-VTE

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) has a long-term risk of recurrence, dependent on the presence or absence of provoking risk factors at the time of the event.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical characteristics, anticoagulant patterns, and 12-month outcomes in patients with transient provoking factors, active cancer, and unprovoked VTE.

METHODS

The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD)-VTE is a prospective, observational study that enrolled 10 207 patients with objectively diagnosed VTE from 415 sites in 28 countries.

RESULTS

Patients with transient provoking factors were younger (53.0 years) and more frequently women (61.2%) than patients with unprovoked VTE (60.3 years; 43.0% women) or active cancer (63.6 years; 51.7% women). After 6 months, 59.1% of patients with transient provoking factors remained on anticoagulation, compared to 71.3% with unprovoked VTE and 47.3% with active cancer. At 12 months, this decreased to 36.7%, 51.5%, and 25.4%, respectively. The risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.62), recurrent VTE (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.14), and major bleeding (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85) was comparable in patients with transient provoking factors and unprovoked VTE. Patients with minor and major transient provoking factors had a similar risk of recurrent VTE (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.59-1.66), but those with major transient risk factors had a lower risk of death (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.98).

CONCLUSION

At 1 year, nearly 40% of patients with transient provoking factors and slightly over half of patients with unprovoked VTE were on anticoagulant treatment. Event rates were comparable between the two groups. Risk of death was higher in patients with minor transient factors than in those with major transient factors.

Validation of the IMPROVE bleeding risk score in Chinese medical patients during hospitalization: Findings from the dissolve-2 study

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis remains suboptimal in China due to the bleeding risk associated with pharmacologic prophylaxis. We used data from the DissolVE-2 study to report the risk factors for bleeding and validated the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) bleeding risk score (BRS).

Methods

In-hospital major bleeding incidence in medical patients from the DissolVE-2 study were assessed by Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors associated with clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) were analysed using Cox regression model. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to compute the diagnostic accuracy of IMPROVE BRS in the study cohort.

Findings

Of the 6623 medical patients, 5076 patients with all relevant clinical details were included for the validation cohort. Overall, 127 CRB events (38 major and 89 clinically relevant non-major bleeding events) occurred in this cohort, with a cumulative incidence rate of 2.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3–3.4). Application of IMPROVE BRS revealed significantly higher hazards of CRB (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.17, 95% CI, 5.05–10.18) and major bleeding (HR: 13.95, 95% CI, 7.28–26.73) in patients with IMPROVE BRS ≥7. Comparison of predictive parameters revealed higher sensitivity (44.1 vs 35.9) and positive predictive value (10.9 vs 2.6) for CRB in our study than the IMPROVE study, which was substantiated by the area under the curve (0.73, p<0.0001) from the ROC curve analysis.

Interpretation

IMPROVE BRS is a simple model for estimating bleeding risk in Chinese medical patients and could be used in conjunction with VTE risk assessment models to decide prophylactic treatment for VTE.

Funding

This study and the additional data analysis were funded by Sanofi (Beijing) Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd by the Fund of The National Key Research and Development Program of China [Grant 2016YFC0905600] and by CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) (No.2018-I2M-1–003)

Mechanisms and biomarkers of cancer-associated thrombosis

Cancer-associated thrombosis is a leading cause of non-cancer death in cancer patients and is comprised of both arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE). There are multiple risk factors for developing VTE, including cancer type, stage, treatment, and other medical comorbidities, which suggests that the etiology of thrombosis is multifactorial. While cancer-associated thrombosis can be treated with anticoagulation, benefits of therapy must be balanced with the increased bleeding risks seen in patients with cancer. Although risk models exist for primary and recurrent VTE, additional predictors are needed to improve model performance and discrimination of high-risk patients. This review will outline the diverse mechanisms driving thrombosis in cancer patients, as well as provide an overview of biomarkers studied in thrombosis risk and important considerations when selecting candidate biomarkers.

Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

In patients who undergo curative treatment for oesophageal cancer, risk estimates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism and bleeding are needed to guide decisions about thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I-III oesophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by oesophagectomy. The outcomes VTE, arterial thromboembolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding and mortality were analysed for four consecutive cancer treatment stages (from diagnosis to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, during neoadjuvant treatment, 30-day postoperative period, and up to 6 months after postoperative period).

RESULTS

Some 511 patients were included. The 2-year survival rate was 67·3 (95 per cent c.i. 63·2 to 71·7) per cent. During the 2-year follow-up, 50 patients (9·8 per cent) developed VTE, 20 (3·9 per cent) arterial thromboembolism, 21 (4·1 per cent) major bleeding and 30 (5·9 per cent) clinically relevant non-major bleeding. The risk of these events was substantial at all treatment stages. Despite 30-day postoperative thromboprophylaxis, 17 patients (3·3 per cent) developed VTE after surgery. Patients with VTE had worse survival (time-varying hazard ratio 1·81, 95 per cent c.i. 1·25 to 2·64). Most bleeding events occurred around the time of medical intervention, and approximately one-half during concomitant use of prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation.

CONCLUSION

Patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery are at substantial risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events throughout all stages of treatment. Survival is worse in patients with thromboembolic events during follow-up.

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: An individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oncology guidelines suggest using the Khorana score to select ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy for primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, but its performance in different cancers remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the performance of the Khorana score in assessing 6-month VTE risk, and the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) among high-risk Khorana score patients.

METHODS

This individual patient data meta-analysis evaluated (ultra)-LMWH in patients with solid cancer using data from seven randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

A total of 3293 patients from the control groups with an available Khorana score had lung (n = 1913; 58%), colorectal (n = 452; 14%), pancreatic (n = 264; 8%), gastric (n = 201; 6%), ovarian (n = 184; 56%), breast (n = 164; 5%), brain (n = 84; 3%), or bladder cancer (n = 31; 1%). The 6-month VTE incidence was 9.8% among high-risk Khorana score patients and 6.4% among low-to-intermediate-risk patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.2). The dichotomous Khorana score performed differently in lung cancer patients (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.72-1.7) than in the group with other cancer types (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.8-5.6; Pinteraction  = .002). Among high-risk patients, LMWH decreased the risk of VTE by 64% compared with controls (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58), without increasing the risk of major bleeding (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.59-2.1).

CONCLUSION

The Khorana score was unable to stratify patients with lung cancer based on their VTE risk. Among those with other cancer types, a high-risk score was associated with a three-fold increased risk of VTE compared with a low-to-intermediate risk score. Thromboprophylaxis was effective and safe in patients with a high-risk Khorana score.

Risk Prediction and New Prophylaxis Strategies for Thromboembolism in Cancer

In the general population, the incidence of thromboembolic events is 117 cases/100,000 inhabitants/year, while in cancer patient incidence, it is four-fold higher, especially in patients who receive chemotherapy and who are affected by pancreatic, lung or gastric cancer. At the basis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) there is the so-called Virchow triad, but tumor cells can activate coagulation pathway by various direct and indirect mechanisms, and chemotherapy can contribute to VTE onset. For these reasons, several studies were conducted in order to assess efficacy and safety of the use of anticoagulant therapy in cancer patients, both in prophylaxis setting and in therapy setting. With this review, we aim to record principal findings and current guidelines about thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients, with particular attention to subjects with additional risk factors such as patients receiving chemotherapy or undergoing surgery, hospitalized patients for acute medical intercurrent event and patients with central venous catheters. Nonetheless we added a brief insight about acute and maintenance therapy of manifested venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

Impact of Tumor Genomic Mutations on Thrombotic Risk in Cancer Patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer and is an important contributor to morbidity and mortality in these patients. Early thromboprophylaxis initiated only in those cancer patients at highest risk for VTE would be optimal. Risk stratification scores incorporating tumor location, laboratory values and patient characteristics have attempted to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis but even well-validated scores are not able to reliably distinguish the highest-risk patients. Recognizing that tumor genetics affect the biology and behavior of malignancies, recent studies have explored the impact of specific molecular aberrations on the rate of VTE in cancer patients. The presence of certain molecular aberrations in a variety of different cancers, including lung, colon, brain and hematologic tumors, have been associated with an increased risk of VTE and arterial thrombotic events. This review examines the findings of these studies and discusses the implications of these findings on decisions relating to thromboprophylaxis use in the clinical setting. Ultimately, the integration of tumor molecular genomic information into clinical VTE risk stratification scores in cancer patients may prove to be a major advancement in the prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis.

Dynamics of D-dimer in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving radical surgery and its association with postoperative venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs at a high rate after lung cancer surgery and can be attributed to various clinical risk factors. Here, we aimed to determine whether early detection of perioperative D-dimer and risk-stratified cutoff values would improve the diagnostic efficacy of VTE.

METHODS

In this case-control study, D-dimer results were acquired from 171 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients preoperatively and at the first, third, and fifth day after surgery. VTE was confirmed by Doppler ultrasonography and computer tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze how D-dimer changed with time and the effects of risk factors on D-dimer levels. We then compared sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value, using both adjusted and unadjusted cutoff values.

RESULTS

VTE occurred in 23 patients (13.5%) of the study population. D-dimer levels increased unsustainably after lung cancer surgery (P < 0.001) due to a trough on the third day, and patients who had undergone thoracotomy (P < 0.001) and those at a more advanced tumor stage (P = 0.037) had higher D-dimer levels. Area under the curve of D-dimer was greatest on the third day (0.762 [P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.643-0.882]). Applying stratified cutoff values improved the specificity in the video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery (VATS) (P = 0.004) and thoracotomy groups (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

D-dimer levels elevated with fluctuation in NSCLC patients after surgery. Surgical options and tumor stages had an impact on D-dimer levels. With regard to VTE diagnosis, stratified cutoff values by these two factors showed better accuracy compared with a collective one..

KEY POINTS

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: The changing pattern of perioperative D-dimer levels in NSCLC patients who received surgical therapy in a major teaching hospital in Beijing, China was revealed.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Risk-stratified D-dimer cutoff values adjusted to surgical methods and disease stages would benefit the exclusion of postoperative venous thromboembolism.

Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients on Simultaneous and Palliative Care

Simultaneous care represents the ideal integration between early supportive and palliative care in cancer patients under active antineoplastic treatment. Cancer patients require a composite clinical, social and psychological management that can be effective only if care continuity from hospital to home is guaranteed and if such a care takes place early in the course of the disease, combining standard oncology care and palliative care. In these settings, venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a difficult medical challenge, for the requirement of acute treatments and for the strong impact on anticancer therapies that might be delayed or, even, totally discontinued. Moreover, cancer patients not only display high rates of VTE occurrence/recurrence but are also more prone to bleeding and this forces clinicians to optimize treatment strategies, balancing between hemorrhages and thrombus formation. VTE prevention is, therefore, regarded as a double-edged sword. Indeed, while on one hand the appropriate use of antithrombotic agents can reduce VTE occurrence, on the other it significantly increases the bleeding risk, especially in the frail patients who present with multiple co-morbidities and poly-therapy that can interact with anticoagulant drugs. For these reasons, thromboprophylaxis should start while active cancer treatment is ongoing, according to a simultaneous care model in a patient-centered perspective.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with colorectal cancer according to oncogenic status

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data regarding the role of KRAS mutation on the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Moreover, the role of other biomarkers such as NRAS or BRAF has not been studied.

PURPOSE

To analyze the incidence of VTE in a cohort of patients with CRC based on KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF status.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients with unresectable locally advanced and metastatic CRC (mCRC) and known KRAS/NRAS/BRAF status, attended in the Medical Oncology Department of the Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón (Madrid, Spain). The primary outcome was VTE defined as any venous thromboembolic event that occurred either 6 months before or at any time after the diagnosis of CRC. The biomarker status (KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF) and other predictors of thrombosis were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-four patients were identified and included in the analysis. Forty-one patients (21.1%) experienced VTE. The incidence was 19.1% in RAS-mutated patients, 28.6% in BRAF-mutated patients and 21% in triple wild-type patients (p = NS). In multivariate analysis, ECOG ≥ 2 was the only independent predictor of VTE (OR 8.73; CI 95% 1.32-57.82; p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, biomarkers have not been associated with an increased risk of VTE in CRC patients. A high incidence of VTE in BRAF-mutated patients has been observed and should be explored in further studies.

Do we need prophylactic anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with lung cancer? A review

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of malignancy. Lung cancer is considered one of the most thrombogenic cancer types. Primary thromboprophylaxis is not currently recommended for all ambulatory patients with active cancer. In the present narrative review we aim to summarize recent data on the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis as well as on venous thromboembolism risk assessment, focusing on ambulatory patients with lung cancer. A potential benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparins in terms of venous thromboembolism risk reduction and increased overall survival in patients with lung cancer, without a significant increase in bleeding risk, has been reported in several studies. Recent studies also reveal promising results of direct oral anticoagulants regarding their efficacy as primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer, including those with lung cancer. However, the use of different study methodologies and the heterogeneity of study populations among the trials limit the extraction of definite results. More randomized, controlled trials, restricted to a well-characterized population of patients with lung cancer, are greatly anticipated. The use of risk assessment tools for stratification of venous thromboembolic risk is warranted. The development of an accurate and practical risk assessment model for patients with lung cancer represents an unmet need.

Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Patients with Cancer: A Narrative Review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is frequent among patients with cancer. Ambulatory cancer patients starting chemotherapy have a 5% to 10% risk of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) within the first year after cancer diagnosis. This risk may vary according to patient characteristics, cancer location, cancer stage, or the type of chemotherapeutic regimen. Landmark studies evaluating thrombophrophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for ambulatory cancer patients have shown a relative reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE of about one half. However, the absolute risk reduction is modest among unselected patients given a rather low risk of events resulting in a number needed to treat (NNT) of 40 to 50. Moreover, this modest benefit is mitigated by a trend towards an increased risk of bleeding, and the economic and patient burden due to daily injections of LMWH. For these reasons, routine thromboprophylaxis is not recommended by expert societies. Advances in VTE risk stratification among cancer patients, and growing evidence regarding efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment and prevention of CAT have led to reconsider the paradigms of this risk–benefit assessment. This narrative review aims to summarize the recent evidence provided by randomized trials comparing DOACs to placebo in ambulatory cancer patients and its impact on expert recommendations and clinical practice.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Pancreatic Cancer Patients: Why Clinical Practice Guidelines Should Be Implemented

Exocrine pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, simply referred to as pancreatic cancer (PC) has the worst prognosis of any malignancy. Despite recent advances in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in PC, the prognosis remains poor, with fewer than 8% of patients being alive at 5 years after diagnosis. The prevalence of PC has steadily increased over the past decades, and it is projected to become the second-leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030. In this context, optimizing and integrating supportive care is important to improve quality of life and survival. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common but preventable complication in PC patients. VTE occurs in one out of five PC patients and is associated with significantly reduced progression-free survival and overall survival. The appropriate use of primary thromboprophylaxis can drastically and safely reduce the rates of VTE in PC patients as shown from subgroup analysis of non-PC targeted placebo-controlled randomized trials of cancer patients and from two dedicated controlled randomized trials in locally advanced PC patients receiving chemotherapy. Therefore, primary thromboprophylaxis with a Grade 1B evidence level is recommended in locally advanced PC patients receiving chemotherapy by the International Initiative on Cancer and Thrombosis clinical practice guidelines since 2013. However, its use and potential significant clinical benefit continues to be underrecognized worldwide. This narrative review aims to summarize the main recent advances in the field including on the use of individualized risk assessment models to stratify the risk of VTE in each patient with individual available treatment options.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a frequent complication in ambulatory cancer patients. Despite the high risk, routine thromboprophylaxis is not recommended because of the high number needed to treat and the risk of bleeding. Two recent trials demonstrated that the number needed to treat can be reduced by selecting cancer patients at high risk for VTE with prediction scores, leading the latest guidelines to suggest such an approach in clinical practice. Yet, the interpretation of these trial results and the translation of the guideline recommendations to clinical practice may be less straightforward. In this clinically-oriented review, some of the controversies are addressed by focusing on the burden of VTE in cancer patients, discussing the performance of available risk assessment scores, and summarizing the findings of recent trials. This overview can help oncologists, hematologists, and vascular medicine specialists decide about thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients.

SEOM clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer (2019)

In 2011, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) first published a clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer. This guideline was updated in 2014, and since then, multiple studies and clinical trials have changed the landscape of the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in cancer patients. To incorporate the most recent evidence, including data from direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) randomized clinical trials, SEOM presents a new update of the guideline.

[Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism in 283 Patients with Lung Cancer during Systemic Therapy]

背景与目的

肺癌患者是静脉血栓栓塞症（venous thrombo-embolism, VTE）的高危人群，合并VTE者具有较高的死亡率。本研究旨在明确接受系统性治疗肺癌患者的VTE发生情况及影响因素。

方法

回顾性分析2016年1月-2018年12月在北京大学第三医院肿瘤化疗与放射病科接受系统性治疗的283例肺癌患者，卡方检验分析VTE与临床特征间的关系，多因素回归分析影响VTE的高危因素。

结果

283例肺癌患者中，VTE发生率为12.01%（34/283）。有下肢静脉曲张组的VTE发生率为50.00%（5/10），显著高于无下肢静脉曲张组的9.89%（27/273）（P=0.001）。远处转移患者的VTE发生率为14.05%（26/185），高于带瘤但无远处转移患者的14.00%（7/50），且高于无瘤患者的2.08%（1/48）（P=0.024）。肿瘤活动组的VTE发生率为16.93%（21/124），显著高于稳定组的8.18%（3/159)（P=0.025）。首次药物治疗前白蛋白 < 35g/L组VTE发生率为22.00%（11/50），显著高于≥35 g/L组的9.87%（23/233）（P=0.017）；D-二聚体 > 0.3 μg/mL组VTE发生率为17.93%（26/145），显著高于≤0.3 μg/mL组的5.80%（8/138）（P=0.006）。接受PICC的患者上肢静脉血栓的发生率为9.71%（17/175），显著高于未行PICC组的1.85%（2/108）（P=0.010）。肺癌病理类型、白细胞、血红蛋白、血小板计数及是否接受抗血管生成药物治疗等因素与VTE的发生率无关。多因素分析显示下肢静脉曲张、低白蛋白血症、D-二聚体升高是VTE的独立影响因素。

结论

有无下肢静脉曲张、血白蛋白和D-二聚体水平或许是预测肺癌患者系统性治疗期间发生VTE更为有效的因子，可进一步建立新的预测模型并进行前瞻性验证。

Development of a clinical prediction tool for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT): the MD Anderson Cancer Center CAT model

INTRODUCTION

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) is a major complication of malignancy. Our goal was to develop a prediction model for VTE that better represented to the population seen at large referral cancer centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was nested in a prospective cohort study at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center that evaluated adult patients during outpatient cancer-staging computed tomography to estimate the prevalence of incidental VTE. Data from patients in whom incidental VTE was not found on initial CT were collected until 24 months ± 7 days from the study inclusion date to determine the occurrence of new VTE events. Demographics, clinical data, current cancer treatment information, and the use of erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) along with hematologic variables were collected in all patients and analyzed to determine differences between those who developed VTE versus those who did not. All candidate variables with significance p value (≤ 0.1) under univariate analysis were considered to enter the final multivariate model.

RESULTS

Data of 548 patients were analyzed. The presence of metastatic disease and the use of platinum-based chemotherapy were strongly associated with CAT occurrence. The use of ESAs and specific malignancies showed trends of association with CAT, while associations were not statistically significant.Those characteristics were utilized to develop a clinical prediction model for CAT readily available and effective (c-index = 0.74).

CONCLUSION

Our model is effective and easy to incorporate in busy clinical settings and it does not depend on esoteric or difficult-to-obtain laboratory testing. Future external validation studies may provide further evidence for the applicability of our results.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Thrombin Generation and Cancer: Contributors and Consequences

The high occurrence of cancer-associated thrombosis is associated with elevated thrombin generation. Tumour cells increase the potential for thrombin generation both directly, through the expression and release of procoagulant factors, and indirectly, through signals that activate other cell types (including platelets, leukocytes and erythrocytes). Furthermore, cancer treatments can worsen these effects. Coagulation factors, including tissue factor, and inhibitors of coagulation are altered and extracellular vesicles (EVs), which can promote and support thrombin generation, are released by tumour and other cells. Some phosphatidylserine-expressing platelet subsets and platelet-derived EVs provide the surface required for the assembly of coagulation factors essential for thrombin generation in vivo. This review will explore the causes of increased thrombin production in cancer, and the availability and utility of tests and biomarkers. Increased thrombin production not only increases blood coagulation, but also promotes tumour growth and metastasis and as a consequence, thrombin and its contributors present opportunities for treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis and cancer itself.

Predicting VTE in Cancer Patients: Candidate Biomarkers and Risk Assessment Models

Risk prediction of chemotherapy-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a compelling challenge in contemporary oncology, as VTE may result in treatment delays, impaired quality of life, and increased mortality. Current guidelines do not recommend thromboprophylaxis for primary prevention, but assessment of the patient's individual risk of VTE prior to chemotherapy is generally advocated. In recent years, efforts have been devoted to building accurate predictive tools for VTE risk assessment in cancer patients. This review focuses on candidate biomarkers and prediction models currently under investigation, considering their advantages and disadvantages, and discussing their diagnostic performance and potential pitfalls.

Recent Advances in the Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: New Hopes but New Challenges

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients and leads to a significant increase in health care costs. Cancer patients often suffer from multiple co-morbidities and have both a greater risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding compared to non-cancer patients. Anticoagulation is therefore challenging. For many years, long-term therapy with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH) was the standard of care for the management of cancer-associated VTE. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), which offer the convenience of an oral administration and have a rapid onset of action, have recently been proposed as a new option in this setting. Head-to-head comparisons between DOAC and LMWHs for the treatment of established VTE are now available, and data on the efficacy and safety of these drugs for primary prophylaxis of VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy are emerging. This narrative review aims to summarize the main recent advances in the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated VTE, including recent data on the use of individualized factors to stratify the risk of VTE in each individual patient, quality-of-life in patients treated with LMWH, and the place that DOACs will likely take in the cancer-associated VTE management landscape.

Dynamic Thromboembolic Risk Modelling to Target Appropriate Preventative Strategies for Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Prevention of cancer-associated thromboembolism (TE) remains a significant clinical challenge and priority world-wide safety initiative. In this prospective non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort, longitudinal TE risk profiling (clinical and biomarker) was undertaken to develop risk stratification models for targeted TE prevention. These were compared with published models from Khorana, CATS, PROTECHT, CONKO, and CATS/MICA. The NSCLC cohort of 129 patients, median follow-up 22.0 months (range 5.6—31.3), demonstrated a hypercoagulable profile in >75% patients and TE incidence of 19%. High TE risk patients were those receiving chemotherapy with baseline fibrinogen ≥ 4 g/L and d-dimer ≥ 0.5 mg/L; or baseline d-dimer ≥ 1.5 mg/L; or month 1 d-dimer ≥ 1.5 mg/L. The model predicted TE with 100% sensitivity and 34% specificity (c-index 0.67), with TE incidence 27% vs. 0% for high vs. low-risk. A comparison using the Khorana, PROTECHT, and CONKO methods were not discriminatory; TE incidence 17–25% vs. 14–19% for high vs. low-risk (c-index 0.51–0.59). Continuous d-dimer (CATS/MICA model) was also not predictive of TE. Independent of tumour stage, high TE risk was associated with cancer progression (HR 1.9, p = 0.01) and mortality (HR 2.2, p = 0.02). The model was tested for scalability in a prospective gastrointestinal cancer cohort with equipotency demonstrated; 80% sensitivity and 39% specificity. This proposed TE risk prediction model is simple, practical, potent and can be used in the clinic for real-time, decision-making for targeted thromboprophylaxis. Validation in a multicentre randomised interventional study is underway (ACTRN12618000811202).

Treatment and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in Frail Patients: Tailored Management

Advanced age is one of the major determinants of frailty in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. However, multiple other factors contribute to frailty in these patients. The identification of frailty in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis is critical as it influences the complexity of the anticoagulant treatment in this population at high risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding. Factors that contribute to frailty in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis include age, type of cancer, comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease, poly-pharmacotherapy, treatment compliance, cognitive impairment, anemia, thrombocytopenia, mobility, nutritional status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group grade, risk of falls, and reduced life expectancy. In the absence of specific clinical studies current anticoagulant treatment guidelines for the management are not fully applicable to frail patients with cancer. The anticoagulant treatment should therefore benefit from a tailored approach based on an algorithm that takes into account the specificities of the malignant disease.

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Khorana score in predicting venous thromboembolic events in ambulatory cancer patients. Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2008 to June 2018 for studies which evaluated the Khorana score. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Additional data on the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism were sought by contacting corresponding authors. The incidence in each Khorana score risk group was estimated with random effects meta-analysis. A total of 45 articles and eight abstracts were included, comprising 55 cohorts enrolling 34,555 ambulatory cancer patients. For 27,849 patients (81%), 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall, 19% of patients had a Khorana score of 0 points, 64% a score of 1 or 2 points, and 17% a score of 3 or more points. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in the first six months was 5.0% (95%CI: 3.9-6.5) in patients with a low-risk Khorana score (0 points), 6.6% (95%CI: 5.6-7.7) in those with an intermediate-risk Khorana score (1 or 2 points), and 11.0% (95%CI: 8.8-13.8) in those with a high-risk Khorana score (3 points or higher). Of the patients with venous thromboembolism in the first six months, 23.4% (95%CI: 18.4-29.4) had been classified as high risk according to the Khorana score. In conclusion, the Khorana score can be used to select ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism for thromboprophylaxis; however, most events occur outside this high-risk group.

A clinical prediction model for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a development and validation study in two independent prospective cohorts

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of cancer, but the risk of developing venous thromboembolism varies greatly among individuals and depends on numerous factors, including type of cancer. We aimed to develop and externally validate a clinical prediction model for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

METHODS

We used data from the prospective Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS) cohort (n=1423) to select prognostic variables for inclusion in the model. We then validated the model in the prospective Multinational Cohort Study to Identify Cancer Patients at High Risk of Venous Thromboembolism (MICA) cohort (n=832). We calculated c-indices to show how the predicted incidence of objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism at 6 months compared with the cumulative 6-month incidences observed in both cohorts.

FINDINGS

Two variables were selected for inclusion in the final clinical prediction model: tumour-site risk category (low or intermediate vs high vs very high) and continuous D-dimer concentrations. The multivariable subdistribution hazard ratios were 1·96 (95% CI 1·41-2·72; p=0·0001) for high or very high versus low or intermediate and 1·32 (95% CI 1·12-1·56; p=0·001) per doubling of D-dimer concentration. The cross-validated c-indices of the final model were 0·66 (95% CI 0·63-0·67) in CATS and 0·68 (0·62-0·74) in MICA. The clinical prediction model was adequately calibrated in both cohorts.

INTERPRETATION

An externally validated clinical prediction model incorporating only one clinical factor (tumour-site category) and one biomarker (D-dimer) predicted the risk of venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with solid cancers. This simple model is a considerable improvement on previous models for predicting cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, and could aid physicians in selection of patients who will likely benefit from thromboprophylaxis.

FUNDING

Austrian Science Fund, Austrian National Bank Memorial Fund, and participating hospitals.

Evaluation of risk factors and assessment models for predicting venous thromboembolism in lung cancer patients

The aim of the study was to investigate the prognostic significance of selected risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in patients undergoing outpatient chemotherapy for lung cancer. We evaluated the following VTE-risk assessment tools: Khorana risk score (KRS), PROTECHT score, CONKO score and COMPASS-cancer-associated thrombosis score (COMPASS-CAT). Retrospective analyses were performed on 118 patients with lung cancer, 20 of whom developed VTE with a median of 2.5 months from diagnosis. Patients receiving gemcitabine-based regimen (25%), patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF) and patients with chronic kidney disease developed VTE more often than other patients. In the multivariate analysis, high COMPASS-CAT score (OR 8.73; 95% CI 1.01–75.22, P = 0.049), gemcitabine chemotherapy (OR 3.37; 95% CI 1.09–10.39, P = 0.035) and AF (OR 7.19; 95% CI 1.89–27.33, P = 0.004) were all significantly associated with VTE development. VTE occurred in; 13% (n = 2) of the KRS high-risk group, 17.7% (n = 11) of the PROTECHT high-risk group, 15% (n = 4) of the CONKO high-risk group and 23.8% (n = 20) of the COMPASS-CAT high-risk group (n = 84). Only the COMPASS-CAT score was able to identify 100% of patients who developed VTE, and best discriminated between patients with high and low risk of VTE development (C statistic 0.89). The ROC analysis indicated a cutoff value of 11 points (95% CI 0.821–0.962) for COMPASS-CAT for VTE development in patients with lung cancer. In conclusion, in our study of all the VTE–RAMs analyzed, the COMPASS-CAT model was the most accurate predictor of VTE development in patients with lung cancer.

Management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism - a case-based practical approach

In patients with solid tumours or haematological malignancies, venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death and significantly contributes to morbidity and healthcare resource utilization. Current practice guidelines recommend long-term anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as the treatment of choice for cancer-associated VTE, based on clinical trial data showing an overall improved safety and efficacy profile of LMWH compared to vitamin K antagonists. However, several open questions remain, e. g. with regard to the intensity and duration of LMWH therapy; moreover, recent real-world evidence indicates that adherence to parenteral anticoagulation with LMWH over the course of treatment is poor in clinical practice. In this regard, the direct oral factor Xa or thrombin inhibitors (DOACs) have emerged as potential alternatives in the management of patients with cancer-associated VTE, albeit findings from randomized controlled studies with a direct head-to-head comparison of DOACs with LMWH, the current standard of care, are still lacking. Based on the case of a lymphoma patient experiencing symptomatic pulmonary embolism during immunochemotherapy, this article aims at both highlighting the current state-of-the-art approach to cancer-associated VTE and pointing out some of the unresolved, controversial issues clinicians have to face when taking care of haematology and oncology patients with already established or with high risk of developing VTE. These issues include the management of patients with incidental pulmonary embolism or thrombocytopenia, the use of DOACs, and the initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in non-surgical cancer patients.

Comparison of risk prediction scores for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a prospective cohort study

In ambulatory patients with solid cancer, routine thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is not recommended. Several risk prediction scores to identify cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism have been proposed, but their clinical usefulness remains a matter of debate. We evaluated and directly compared the performance of the Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores in a multinational, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer were eligible if they were due to undergo chemotherapy or had started chemotherapy in the previous three months. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed symptomatic or incidental deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during a 6-month follow-up period. A total of 876 patients were enrolled, of whom 260 (30%) had not yet received chemotherapy. Fifty-three patients (6.1%) developed venous thromboembolism. The c-statistics of the scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.57. At the conventional positivity threshold of 3 points, the scores classified 13–34% of patients as high-risk; the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism in these patients ranged from 6.5% (95%CI: 2.8–12) for the Khorana score to 9.6% (95%CI: 6.6–13) for the PROTECHT score. High-risk patients had a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism when using the Vienna (subhazard ratio 1.7; 95%CI: 1.0–3.1) or PROTECHT (subhazard ratio 2.1; 95%CI: 1.2–3.6) scores. In conclusion, the prediction scores performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. The Vienna CATS and PROTECHT scores appear to discriminate better between low- and high-risk patients, but further improvements are needed before they can be considered for introduction into clinical practice.

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.

[Multimodal treatment of pancreatic cancer]

Adenocarcinoma of the exocrine pancreas is one of the most aggressive types of solid tumor and stands at fourth position in the tumor death frequency scale due to a high mortality rate. Effective screening methods are not available and only radical surgery offers a curative option. With adjuvant chemotherapy the median survival time can be prolonged up to 23 months and approximately 25 % of patients are still alive after 5 years. Of these patients approximately 75-80 % are already in a palliative therapy situation at the time of diagnosis. In the last 5 years treatment options have been increased by the introduction of new chemotherapeutic drugs. For patients with metastasized disease median survival times of 6-12 months can currently be achieved depending on the general performance status at diagnosis but less than 5 % of these patients are still alive after 5 years. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies, radiation and immunotherapy do not play a role in evidence-based clinical practice. Despite progress in the understanding of cancer biology and new treatment options, non-resectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas remains a disease with a very poor prognosis.