Systematic review of observational studies reporting antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with solid tumors

This review summarizes the evidence on antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies and related thromboembolic events in patients with solid tumors. Data sources included Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed ePubs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through August 2019 without restrictions. Observational studies that evaluated patients with solid tumors for the presence of aPL antibodies were included. Data were extracted and quality was assessed by one reviewer and cross-checked by another. Thirty-three studies were identified. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) cancers were the most frequently reported. Compared with healthy patients, patients with GI cancer were more likely to develop anticardiolipin antibodies (risk ratio [RR], 5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-9.95), as were those with GU (RR, 7.3; 95% CI, 3.3-16.2) and lung cancer (RR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.3-20.6). The increased risk for anti-β2-glycoprotein I or lupus anticoagulant was not statistically significant. Patients with lung cancer who had positive aPL antibodies had higher risk of developing thromboembolic events than those who had negative antibodies (RR, 3.8%; 95% CI, 1.2-12.2), while the increased risk in patients with GU cancer was not statistically significant. Deaths due to thromboembolic events were more common among patients with lung cancer who had elevated aPL antibodies. A limitation of this review is that the results are contingent on the reported information. We found an increased risk of developing aPL antibodies in patients with GI, GU, and lung cancers resulting in thromboembolic events and death. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathogenesis and development of aPL antibodies in cancer.

Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Systemic chemotherapy can be administered either through a peripheral vein (IV), or centrally through peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), totally implanted vascular access devices (PORTs) or tunnelled cuffed catheters. Despite the widespread use of systemic chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, the optimal choice of vascular access is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluated complication rates and patient satisfaction with different access strategies for administering neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEWED

Ovid Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1946 to September 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed each citation. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of cohort and case-control studies.

FINDINGS

Of 1584 citations identified, 15 unique studies met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. There were no randomised studies comparing types of vascular access. Reports included six single-institution retrospective cohort studies, one retrospective multi-institution cohort, one retrospective cohort database study, five prospective single-institution studies, one prospective multi-institution study and one nested case-control study. Median complication rates were infection: 6.0% PICC (2 studies) versus 2.1% PORT (8 studies); thrombosis: 8.9% PICC (2 studies) versus 2.6% PORT (9 studies); extravasation: 0 PICC (1 study) versus 0.4% PORT (4 studies) and mechanical issues: PICC 3.8% (1 study) versus 1.8% PORT (9 studies). Satisfaction/quality of life appeared high with each device.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of high-quality data comparing vascular access strategies, randomised, adequately powered, prospective studies would be required to help inform clinical practice and reduce variation.