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

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.

ONKOTEV Score as a Predictive Tool for Thromboembolic Events in Pancreatic Cancer-A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients with cancer and causes considerable morbidity and mortality. The risk of VTE is higher in patients with pancreatic cancer and is often associated with treatment delays or interruptions. Recently, the ONKOTEV score was proposed as a VTE risk predictor model for patients with cancer, but its validation is still ongoing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study to determine the incidence of VTE and to evaluate the ONKOTEV score as a VTE predictive tool in a population of patients with pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

Between February 2012 and May 2017, 165 patients were included in the study. The median age was 73 years, 45.5% of patients were female, and 55.8% had stage IV disease. Fifty-one patients had a VTE (30.9%); 23.5% had pulmonary embolism, 25.5% had deep venous thrombosis, and 51.0% had visceral VTE (VsT). At a median follow-up time of 6.3 months, cumulative incidence of VTE was less than 10% for ONKOTEV scores 0 or 1 and approximately 40% and 70% for scores 2 and ≥3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The high VTE incidence observed in this study is consistent with prior reports. Patients at high risk for VTE with no increase in hemorrhagic risk should be considered for primary thromboprophylaxis. The ONKOTEV score may stratify VTE risk in patients with pancreatic cancer, with ONKOTEV score ≥2 being associated with a higher VTE occurrence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of patients with pancreatic cancer and causes considerable morbidity, treatment delays or interruptions, and mortality. Thromboprophylaxis is not used routinely in ambulatory patients. Tools to stratify the risk of VTE are important to help select patients who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Recently, the ONKOTEV score was proposed as a VTE risk predictor model for patients with cancer, but its validation is still ongoing. In this patient series, ONKOTEV score ≥2 was associated with high VTE occurrence and may stratify VTE risk in patients with pancreatic cancer, suggesting that ONKOTEV can be considered to select patients with pancreatic cancer for primary thromboprophylaxis.

Gastrointestinal Malignancies and Venous Thromboembolic Disease: Clinical Significance and Endovascular Interventions

Gastrointestinal malignancy encompasses a wide range of disease processes. Its incidence and mortality rate rank among the highest of all cancers. Venous thromboembolic disease is a common complication of gastrointestinal malignancy. Anticoagulation remains the first-line therapy. However, for patients who cannot tolerate or have failed anticoagulation, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement may be an option. Furthermore, to improve symptom resolution and reduce the severity of postthrombotic syndrome, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) may be an option. Recent randomized trials including the ATTRACT (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) trial have shed new light on the efficacy and safety of CDT and related methods. Overall, the decision to proceed with IVC filter placement or CDT must be individualized.

The current place of direct oral anticoagulants in the prevention/treatment of venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE; includes deep venous thrombosis, DVT, and pulmonary embolism, PE) represents the third most common acute cardiovascular syndrome. Contemporary VTE management comprises primary prevention in high-risk patients, treatment of established VTE, and prevention of its recurrence (secondary prevention). Anticoagulants are the basis of VTE pharmacological prophylaxis and treatment. For several decades, parenteral (heparin and low-molecular-weight heparins, LMWHs) and oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists, VKAs) have been the cornerstone of VTE prevention/treatment. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban) markedly improved the management of VTE by overcoming many disadvantages of conventional anticoagulants. For primary VTE prevention in patients after total hip/knee arthroplasty, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran are preferred over LMWHs, due to comparable efficacy and safety, but favourable acceptability (avoided everyday injections). In other high-risk populations (other surgical patients, acutely ill medical patients), LMWHs are still the recommended option. Betrixaban is currently the only DOAC approved for VTE prophylaxis in medically ill patients during and after hospitalization. For acute VTE treatment and secondary prevention, DOACs (rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran) are recommended as the first-line therapy in the general population. DOACs proved to be similarly effective but safer than VKAs. In some specific populations, DOACs also seem to be advantageous over conventional treatment (patients with renal impairment, elderly, long-term secondary prevention in cancer patients). Currently, there is no data from randomized head-to-head comparative studies between the DOAC classes or representatives so the choice is made mainly according to patient characteristics and pharmacokinetic properties of the drug.

The Risk Factors of VTE and Survival Prognosis of Patients With Malignant Cancer: Implication for Nursing and Treatment

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is very common in patients with malignant cancer. We aimed to conduct a retrospective analysis on the risk factors of VTE and its survival prognosis of patients with malignant cancer, to provide evidence into the management of VTE. Patients with malignant cancer treated in our hospital were selected. The characteristic of patients and related lab detection results including activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), plasma prothrombin time (PT) and thrombin coagulation time (TT), fibrinogen (FIB), thrombin AT-Ⅲ complex (TAT) and D-dimer (D-D) were collected and analyzed. And logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the potential risk factors. And ROC curves were established to evaluate their predictive ability of VTE for patients with malignant cancers. A total of 286 patients were included, of which 63 patients had VTE, the incidence of VTE in patients with malignant cancers was 22.03%. There were significant differences on the D-D, TAT level between VTE and no VTE patients (all P < 0.05). The survival condition of VTE patients was significantly worse than that of no VTE patients(P = 0.017). D-D (RR7.895, 3.228∼19.286) and TAT (6.122, 2.244∼16.695) were risk factors of VTE for patients with cancers (all P < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of D-D, TAT and combined use was 0.764, 0.698, 0.794 respectively, and the cutoff value for D-D, TAT was 1.835mg/L and 4.58μg/L respectively. For cancer patients with D-D >1.835 mg/L and TAT >4.58 μg/L, early interventions are needed for the prophylaxis of VTE.

How I treat cancer-associated thrombosis

Patients with cancer are at an increased risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). In addition, an increasing number of patients with incidental thromboembolic events have been recorded in clinical practice. Therapeutic anticoagulation is crucial to prevent thrombus progression and reduce risk of recurrence; however, this comes at the price of an increased bleeding risk, which necessitates a personalised approach to choose the most appropriate type of therapy. Over the last decade, low-molecular-weight heparin has been the preferred anticoagulant agent for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis due to better efficacy and similar safety profile compared with vitamin K antagonists. While direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have emerged as new option for treatment of VTE in a general population, only limited data have been available specifically for patients with cancer until recently. Randomised, controlled trials have now been published, establishing DOAC as an alternative for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. However, the improvement in the therapeutic armamentarium is accompanied by a number of special considerations. For instance, risk of bleeding is elevated in patients with cancer-associated VTE receiving DOAC, especially in certain tumour types (eg, gastrointestinal), and no guidance exists regarding their use in patients with severe thrombocytopaenia. Furthermore, DOAC are prone to certain drug-drug interactions and their effect might be altered due to nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy. Here, we provide guidance on how to treat cancer-associated VTE and how new evidence from randomised controlled trials can be implemented in clinical practice. There are still clinical scenarios where robust evidence is lacking and treatment recommendations are based on extrapolations from other populations or expert opinion only. Therefore, additional research in special subpopulations is needed to optimise management of patients in challenging clinical scenarios.

Venous thromboembolic complications in lymphoma patients

Lymphomas represent a heterogeneous group of malignant hematological diseases with high risk for development of venous thromboembolic complications (VTE). Consequently, VTE significantly impacts morbidity and mortality in these patients. Another concern is the financial burden of the healthcare system caused by diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). The complex biology of lymphoma, in conjunction with patient and treatment related risk factors for the development of VTE, results in a procoagulant hemostatic dysregulation. Considering the incidence of VTE in patients with lymphoma, there is an emerging demand for both reliable risks assessment model (RAM) for prediction of VTE, as well as for effective VTE prophylaxis and treatment. The clinical course of patients with malignant diseases is accompanied by a wide range of potential treatment complications, making the task of prevention and treatment of VTE even more challenging. In recent years, great progress has been achieved in understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of thrombotic complications, while the significant number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) have provided standards of prophylaxis and treatment of VTE complications in patients with malignancy. In comparison to previous recommendations and guidelines for CAT, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) has been gradually approaching low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in terms of efficacy and safety profile in these indications. This systematic review is focused on the latest pathophysiological advances, risk factors assessment, prophylactic and therapeutic recommendations and guidelines concerning VTE in patients with lymphoma.

[Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis in Thoracic Cancer Patients: Chinese Experts Consensus - Interpretation of Application Prospect of Direct Oral Anticoagulant]

胸部恶性肿瘤患者围术期静脉血栓栓塞症（venous thromboembolism, VTE）是一种需要引起重视的胸外科围术期并发症，中国胸外科静脉血栓栓塞研究协作组针对胸部恶性肿瘤患者围术期VTE的预防，发布了国际首部《胸部恶性肿瘤围术期静脉血栓栓塞症预防中国专家共识》（2018版）。本文将对直接口服抗凝药在胸部恶性肿瘤患者围术期的应用进行解读，以助于更好地理解共识相关内容。

[Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis in Thoracic Cancer Patients: Chinese Experts Consensus - Interpretation of Epidemiological Characteristics]

胸部恶性肿瘤患者围术期静脉血栓栓塞症（venous thromboembolism, VTE）是一种需要引起重视的胸外科围术期并发症，中国胸外科静脉血栓栓塞研究协作组针对胸部恶性肿瘤患者围术期VTE的预防，发布了国际首部《胸部恶性肿瘤围术期静脉血栓栓塞症预防中国专家共识》（2018版）。本文将对其中胸部恶性肿瘤围术期VTE的流行病学特征、国内外面临的挑战及预防现状进行解读，以助于更好地理解共识相关内容。

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.

Managing the competing risks of thrombosis, bleeding, and anticoagulation in patients with malignancy

The association between malignancy and thrombosis has been recognized for over a century and a half. Patients with cancer have an elevated risk of both initial and recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with patients without cancer owing to cancer- and patient-specific factors. Recurrent VTE is common despite anticoagulation, presenting additional management challenges. Patients with cancer also have an increased risk of bleeding when on anticoagulants compared with patients without cancer. This bleeding risk is heightened by the thrombocytopenia common in patients with hematologic malignancies and those treated with intensive myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens. Despite the advancements in cancer-directed therapy made over the past 15 years, numerous large studies have confirmed that bleeding and VTE recurrence rates remain high in cancer patients. Balancing the increased and competing risks of clotting and bleeding in these patients can be difficult, because management of cancer-associated thrombosis requires anticoagulation despite known increased risks for bleeding. In the context of challenging illustrative cases, this review will describe management approaches to clinical scenarios in which data are sparse: cancer patients with recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation and cancer patients with a new VTE in the setting of severe thrombocytopenia.

Managing the competing risks of thrombosis, bleeding, and anticoagulation in patients with malignancy

The association between malignancy and thrombosis has been recognized for over a century and a half. Patients with cancer have an elevated risk of both initial and recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with patients without cancer owing to cancer- and patient-specific factors. Recurrent VTE is common despite anticoagulation, presenting additional management challenges. Patients with cancer also have an increased risk of bleeding when on anticoagulants compared with patients without cancer. This bleeding risk is heightened by the thrombocytopenia common in patients with hematologic malignancies and those treated with intensive myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens. Despite the advancements in cancer-directed therapy made over the past 15 years, numerous large studies have confirmed that bleeding and VTE recurrence rates remain high in cancer patients. Balancing the increased and competing risks of clotting and bleeding in these patients can be difficult, because management of cancer-associated thrombosis requires anticoagulation despite known increased risks for bleeding. In the context of challenging illustrative cases, this review will describe management approaches to clinical scenarios in which data are sparse: cancer patients with recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation and cancer patients with a new VTE in the setting of severe thrombocytopenia.

Multiple drug combinations of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide for first-line treatment in adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a "c". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design. Overall survival (OS) Evidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty). Progression-free survival (PFS) Treatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months). Adverse events The risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc. VMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared. Treatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP. Quality of life QoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.

Bioelectrical Analysis of Various Cancer Cell Types Immobilized in 3D Matrix and Cultured in 3D-Printed Well

Cancer cell lines are important tools for anticancer drug research and assessment. Impedance measurements can provide valuable information about cell viability in real time. This work presents the proof-of-concept development of a bioelectrical, impedance-based analysis technique applied to four adherent mammalian cancer cells lines immobilized in a three-dimensional (3D) calcium alginate hydrogel matrix, thus mimicking in vivo tissue conditions. Cells were treated with cytostatic agent5-fluoruracil (5-FU). The cell lines used in this study were SK-N-SH, HEK293, HeLa, and MCF-7. For each cell culture, three cell population densities were chosen (50,000, 100,000, and 200,000 cells/100 μL). The aim of this study was the extraction of mean impedance values at various frequencies for the assessment of the different behavior of various cancer cells when 5-FU was applied. For comparison purposes, impedance measurements were implemented on untreated immobilized cell lines. The results demonstrated not only the dependence of each cell line impedance value on the frequency, but also the relation of the impedance level to the cell population density for every individual cell line. By establishing a cell line-specific bioelectrical behavior, it is possible to obtain a unique fingerprint for each cancer cell line reaction to a selected anticancer agent.

Extending venous thromboembolism secondary prevention with apixaban in cancer patients: The EVE trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) carries a high rate of recurrence and death. Guidelines recommend continued anticoagulation therapy as long as active cancer persists. Apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily is the FDA-approved dose for secondary prevention regardless of VTE causation. Whether this apixaban dose is appropriate for secondary VTE prevention in cancer patients is not clear. The rationale and design of this investigator initiated phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, trial assessing apixaban 2.5 mg vs 5 mg twice daily for 12 months for the secondary VTE prevention in cancer patients (n = 370) who have completed 6 months (but no more than 12 months) of anticoagulation is provided (NCT03080883).

METHODS/DESIGN

The primary study objective is to estimate differences in the combined rate of major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding for apixaban 2.5 mg vs 5 mg twice daily. Secondary efficacy outcome is to assess rates of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Participating centers are chosen from the Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) consortium.

CONCLUSION

We anticipate these trial results to provide evidence supporting low-dose apixaban as a safe agent for secondary prevention of cancer-associated VTE for patients who have already completed 6-12 months of anticoagulation.

Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin in gastrointestinal cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal cancer (GICA) is associated with a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to other solid tumors, moreover, recurrent VTE and major bleeding (MB) complications during anticoagulation treatment have an associated increase rate. GICA-VTE remains a challenging clinical scenario with MB concerns for utilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), especially with active cancer therapies.

AIM

To evaluate patient risk factors, effectiveness (VTE) and safety (MB) of DOACs and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with active GICA-VTE.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients receiving DOACs and LMWH with GICA and symptomatic or incidental VTE treated at comprehensive cancer center from November 2013 to February 2017 was performed. Inclusion criteria included active GI cancer diagnosed at any stage or treatment +/- 6 mo of VTE diagnosis, whom were prescribed 6 mo or more of DOACs or LMWH. The Chi-squared test was used for overall and the Fisher exact test for pairwise comparisons of the proportions of patients experiencing recurrent VTE and MB events. Odds ratios were used to compare the relative odds of the occurrence of the outcome given exposure to the risk factor.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients were prescribed anticoagulation, in which 106 fulfilled inclusion criteria apixaban (27.3%), rivaroxaban (34.9%) and enoxaparin (37.7%), and 38 were excluded. Patients median age was 66.5 years at GICA diagnosis and 67 years at CAVTE event, with 62% males, 80% Caucasian, 70% stage IV, pancreatic cancer (40.5%), 30% Khorana Score (≥ 3 points), and 43.5% on active chemotherapy. Sixty-four percent of patients completed anticoagulation therapy (range 1 to 43 mo). Recurrent VTE at 6 mo was noted in 7.5% (n = 3), 6.8% (n = 2) and 2.7% (n = 1) of patients on enoxaparin, apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively (all P = NS). MB at 6 mo were 5% (n = 2) for enoxaparin, 6.8% (n = 2) for apixaban and 21.6% (n = 8) for rivaroxaban (overall P = 0.048; vs LMWH P = 0.0423; all other P = NS). Significant predictors of a primary or secondary outcome for all anticoagulation therapies included: Active systemic treatment (OR = 5.1, 95%CI: 1.3-19.3), high Khorana Score [≥ 3 points] (OR = 5.5, 95%CI: 1.7-17.1), active smoker (OR = 6.7, 95%CI: 2.1-21.0), pancreatic cancer (OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 1.9-23.2), and stage IV disease (OR = 9.9, 95%CI: 1.2-79.1).

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban compared to apixaban and enoxaparin had a significantly higher risk of MB on GICA-VTE patients with equivocal efficacy.

Anemia management in cancer patients with chronic kidney disease

Cancer and kidney disease are linked by causality and comorbidities. Observational data show an increased risk of malignancy as renal function declines. Erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs), which are the cornerstone therapy for anemia patients with chronic kidney disease and cancer, are associated with increased risks for cancer, cancer-related mortality, progression of disease, and thromboembolic events. This article examines the recently published guidelines for ESA use in cancer patients from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and American Society of Hematology and attempts to contextualize them to the care of patients with coexistent CKD, cancer, and anemia.

Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Beyond HOKUSAI

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent an attractive alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) since they avoid the burden of daily injections. Analyses in subgroups of cancer patients from large randomized trials suggested that DOACs were at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists, while indirect comparisons suggested that DOACs' efficacy and safety profile were comparable to those of LMWHs. In the randomized controlled HOKUSAI-VTE Cancer study, currently the only completed phase III trial on DOACs in CT patients, edoxaban was shown noninferior to dalteparin on the composite primary endpoint of time to first recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding during the 12 months after randomization. Study results suggest that both agents had comparable benefit/risk ratio in patients with CT. Even though this conclusion was valid from a strict statistical viewpoint, it was potentially misleading when interpreting benefit/risk ratios. Besides the obvious heterogeneity of the study population (e.g., 23% of patients no longer had cancer) and significantly different treatment durations between arms, secondary outcomes for efficacy were in favor of edoxaban for recurrent deep-vein thrombosis but not for recurrent pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding episodes were significantly more frequent in the edoxaban group, with an excess of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding episodes observed mainly but not only in patients with GI cancers. More research is needed regarding specific patients' profiles, cancer types, and treatment period to better clarify the respective roles of DOACs and LMWHs in CT patients.