Can Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Improve the Outcome of Patients With Operable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer?

Incidence of venous thromboembolism and hemorrhage in Chinese patients after pulmonary lobectomy: mechanical prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis combined with pharmacological prophylaxis: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and postoperative bleeding are important complications of lung resection surgery. We investigated the preventive effect of mechanical prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis after lobectomy, and evaluated the effect of both on the incidence of hemorrhagic events.

Methods

A prospective study of 424 lobectomies with moderate to high risk of VTE (Caprini risk score <5) in a single center was performed from April 2020 to March 2021. Patients were 1:1 randomly allocated to mechanical prophylaxis or to the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)-combination-prophylaxis. The incidence of postoperative thrombotic and bleeding events and relevant factors of the two groups were analyzed.

Results

A total of 410 participants, with 202 and 208 in the mechanical prophylaxis and LMWH-combination-prophylaxis groups respectively, were selected for analysis. Both groups had similar baseline and clinical characteristics. There were no cases of VTE or major bleeding during the study, but the incidence rate of minor bleeding in the LMWH-combination-prophylaxis group was significantly higher than mechanical prophylaxis group [odds ratio (OR) 0.035, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.011–0.113].

Conclusions

A case-by-case risk assessment of VTE and hemorrhage remains necessary to determine the most appropriate method of thrombosis prophylaxis for patients undergoing pulmonary surgery. Mechanical prophylaxis may be preferable for lung cancer patients with moderate to high risk of VTE (Caprini risk score <5) undergoing lobectomy.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100051073.

Safety profile of preoperative administration of low-molecular-weight heparin on minimally invasive lung cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Venous thromboembolism remains a common but preventable complication for cancerous lung surgical patients. Current guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for lung patients at high risk of thrombosis, while a consensus about specific administration time is not reached. This study was designed to investigate the safety profile of preoperative administration of low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) for lung cancer patients.

Methods

From July 2017 to June 2018, patients prepared to undergo lung cancer surgery were randomly divided into the preoperative LMWH-administration group (PRL) for 4000 IU per day and the postoperative LMWH-administration group (POL) with same dosage, all the patients received thromboprophylaxis until discharge. Baseline characteristics including demographics and preoperative coagulation parameters were analyzed, while the endpoints included postoperative coagulation parameters, postoperative drainage data, hematologic data, intraoperative bleeding volume and reoperation rate.

Results

A total of 246 patients were collected in this RCT, 34 patients were excluded according to exclusion criterion, 101 patients were assigned to PRL group and 111 patients belonged to POL group for analysis finally. The baseline characteristic and preoperative coagulation parameters were all comparable except the PRL group cost more operation time (p = 0.008) and preoperative administration duration was significantly longer (p < 0.001). The endpoints including postoperative day 1 coagulation parameters, mean and total drainage volume, drainage duration, intraoperative bleeding volume and reoperation rate were all similar between the two groups. Moreover, coagulation parameters for postoperative day 3 between the two groups demonstrated no difference.

Conclusion

Preoperative administration of low-molecular-weight-heparin demonstrated safety and feasibility for lung cancer patients intended to receive minimally invasive surgery.

Trial registration: ChiCTR2000040547 (www.chictr.org.cn), 2020/12/1, retrospectively registered.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Immune therapy of non-small cell lung cancer. The future

Surgery is still the best treatment option of lung cancer but only one third of patients are operable and prognosis remains mediocre in operated patients, with the exception of initial stages. Medical treatment is fast moving toward new frontiers. New insights in the biology of cancer development led to discovery of new drugs, which are more effective as compared to conventional platinum based chemotherapy. A new approach to immunotherapy based on immune-check point represents a remarkable innovation in lung cancer treatment. Initial trials with anti PD-1 antibodies in metastatic patients provided results never observed with previously known drug categories. Several key question need to be answered to identify patients most likely to respond to anti PD-1/anti PD-L1 treatments, to assess the role of combined treatment modalities including immune check point receptor block (associations with surgery, chemotherapy, ITKs), and to boost host immune response, possibly by lowering his systemic inflammation and improving nutritional status.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The antineoplastic effect of low-molecular-weight heparins - a literature review

There is some evidence for the antitumor effect of heparins, especially the low-molecular-weight ones. The authors discuss the potential mechanism of this antineoplastic effect and present results from several in vitro and in vivo experiments. The clinical trials concerning the impact of low-molecular-weight heparins on the tumor and on the patients' survival are described. The objective was to find out if heparins could be administered as an antitumor drug, independently of their anticoagulatory properties. The antitumor role of tissue factor, heparinase, chemokines, stromal proteins, cellular interactions as well as angiogenesis and immunology seems certain. The results of the available studies seem promising but large clinical trials are necessary in order to confirm the antineoplastic effect of the low-molecular-weight heparins and to approve them for standard anticancer treatment. It could be a breakthrough in modern oncology.

Parenteral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search included (1) an electronic search (February 2010) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 1, 2010, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science; (2) handsearch of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; and (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in patients with cancer but no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form we extracted in duplicate data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all-cause mortality, symptomatic thromboembolism, major bleeding, minor bleeding and quality of life (QoL).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8187 identified citations, nine RCTs enrolling 2857 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, the effect of heparin therapy on mortality was not statistically significant at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.93; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02) but it was statistically significant at 24 months (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically important reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82). There were no statistically significant effects on major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.88), minor bleeding (RR 1.05; 95% 0.75 to 1.46) or QoL. The quality of evidence was high for symptomatic venous thromboembolism, moderate for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding, and low for QoL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin was associated with a significant reduction of death at 24 months but not 12 months. It was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism but based on the RCTs in this review it had no significant effect on major bleeding, minor bleeding or QoL. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy for survival benefit should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences.

Parenteral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search included (1) an electronic search (February 2010) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 1, 2010, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science; (2) handsearch of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; and (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in patients with cancer but no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form we extracted in duplicate data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all-cause mortality, symptomatic thromboembolism, major bleeding, minor bleeding and quality of life (QoL).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8187 identified citations, nine RCTs enrolling 2857 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, the effect of heparin therapy on mortality was not statistically significant at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.93; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02) but it was statistically significant at 24 months (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically important reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82). There were no statistically significant effects on major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.88), minor bleeding (RR 1.05; 95% 0.75 to 1.46) or QoL. The quality of evidence was high for symptomatic venous thromboembolism, moderate for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding, and low for QoL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin was associated with a significant reduction of death at 24 months but not 12 months. It was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism but based on the RCTs in this review it had no significant effect on major bleeding, minor bleeding or QoL. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy for survival benefit should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences.

FRAGMATIC: a randomised phase III clinical trial investigating the effect of fragmin added to standard therapy in patients with lung cancer

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs when blood clots in the leg, pelvic or other deep vein (deep vein thrombosis) with or without transport of the thrombus into the pulmonary arterial circulation (pulmonary embolus). VTE is common in patients with cancer and is increased by surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and disease progression. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is routinely used to treat VTE and some evidence suggests that LMWH may also have an anticancer effect, by reduction in the incidence of metastases. The FRAGMATIC trial will assess the effect of adding dalteparin (FRAGMIN), a type of LMWH, to standard treatment for patients with lung cancer.

Methods/Design

The study design is a randomised multicentre phase III trial comparing standard treatment and standard treatment plus daily LMWH for 24 weeks in patients with lung cancer. Patients eligible for this study must have histopathological or cytological diagnosis of primary bronchial carcinoma (small cell or non-small cell) within 6 weeks of randomisation, be 18 or older, and must be willing and able to self-administer 5000 IU dalteparin by daily subcutaneous injection or have it administered to themselves or by a carer for 24 weeks. A total of 2200 patients will be recruited from all over the UK over a 3 year period and followed up for a minimum of 1 year after randomisation. Patients will be randomised to one of the two treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio, standard treatment or standard treatment plus dalteparin. The primary outcome measure of the trial is overall survival. The secondary outcome measures include venous thrombotic event (VTE) free survival, serious adverse events (SAEs), metastasis-free survival, toxicity, quality of life (QoL), levels of breathlessness, anxiety and depression, cost effectiveness and cost utility.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80812769

Parenteral anticoagulation may prolong the survival of patients with limited small cell lung cancer: a Cochrane systematic review

BACKGROUND

To determine the efficacy and safety of heparin (unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH)) and fondaparinux in improving the survival of patients with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted in January 2007 a comprehensive search for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We used a standardized form to extract in duplicate data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all cause mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding events. We assessed the methodological quality for each outcome by grading the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology

RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, we included 5 RCTs, none of which evaluated fondaparinux. The quality of evidence was moderate for survival, low for major and minor bleeding, and very low for DVT. Heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77; 95%CI = 0.65-0.91). In subgroup analyses, patients with limited small cell lung cancer experienced a clear survival benefit (HR = 0.56; 95%CI = 0.38-0.83). The survival benefit was not statistically significant for either patients with extensive small cell lung cancer (HR = 0.80; 95%CI = 0.60-1.06) or patients with advanced cancer (HR = 0.84; 95%CI = 0.68-1.03). The increased risk of bleeding with heparin was not statistically significant (relative risk (RR) = 1.78; 95%CI = 0.73-4.38).

CONCLUSION

This review suggests a survival benefit of heparin in cancer patients in general, and in patients with limited small cell lung cancer in particular.

Parenteral anticoagulation for prolonging survival in patients with cancer who have no other indication for anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Basic research and clinical studies have generated the hypothesis that anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through an antitumour effect in addition to the antithrombotic effect.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of heparin (including unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and fondaparinux to improve survival of patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including (1) A January 2007 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science; (2) Hand search of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and of the American Society of Hematology; (3) Checking of references of included studies; and (4) Use of "related article" feature in PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer patients without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism comparing UFH, LMWH or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo and RCTs comparing two of the three agents of interest.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form we extracted in duplicate data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all cause mortality, venous thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, major bleeding and minor bleeding.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin ( either UFH or LMWH). The overall methodological quality of the included studies was acceptable. Overall, heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.91). In subgroup analyses, patients with limited small cell lung cancer experienced a clear survival benefit (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.83). The survival benefit was not statistically significant for either patients with extensive small cell lung cancer (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.06) or patients with advanced cancer (HR = 0.84; 95%: 0.68 to 1.03). The increased risk of bleeding with heparin was not statistically significant (RR = 1.78; 95% CI: 0.73 to 4.38).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin has a survival benefit in cancer patients in general, and in patients with limited small cell lung cancer in particular. Heparin might be particularly beneficial in cancer patients with limited cancer or a longer life expectancy. Future research should investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants (in different dosing, schedules and duration of therapy) in patients with different types and stages of cancers.