D-dimer before chemotherapy might predict venous thromboembolism. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2009;20:170-175. [PMID: 19276795 DOI: 10.1097/mbc.0b013e32831bc2de]

High D-dimer levels are associated with poor prognosis in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Systemic activation of hemostasis is frequently observed in cancer patients, even in the absence of thrombosis. Moreover, this activation has been implicated in tumor progression, angiogenesis and metastatic spread. Increased levels of D-dimer, which is a degradation product of cross-linked fibrin, indicate a global activation of hemostasis and fibrinolysis.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In a prospective and observational cohort study, we assessed the prognostic value of D-dimer levels for overall survival and mortality risk in 1178 cancer patients included in the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS). Patients were followed over 2 years at regular intervals until occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism or death. D-dimer levels were measured with a quantitative D-dimer latex agglutination assay

RESULTS

The main solid tumors were malignancies of the lung (n=182), breast (n=157), lower gastrointestinal tract (n=133), pancreas (n=74), stomach (n=50), kidney (n=37), prostate (n=133), and brain (n=148); 201 of the patients had hematologic malignancies; 63 had other tumors. During a median follow-up of 731 days, 460 (39.0%) patients died. The overall survival probabilities for patients with D-dimer levels categorized into four groups based on the 1(st), 2(nd) and 3(rd) quartiles of the D-dimer distribution in the total study population were 88%, 82%, 66% and 53% after 1 year, and 78%, 66%, 50% and 30% after 2 years, respectively (P<0.001). The univariate hazard ratio of D-dimer (per double increase) for mortality was 1.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.4-1.6, P<0.001) and remained increased in multivariable analysis including tumor subgroups, age, sex and venous thromboembolism.

CONCLUSIONS

High D-dimer levels were associated with poor overall survival and increased mortality risk in cancer patients.

Management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In these patients VTE is associated with substantial morbidity and complicates the clinical management of cancer. Emerging research indicates a probable detrimental effect of VTE on cancer survival. Although VTE may develop at any stage of cancer disease, the risk of VTE is particularly high in association with three clinical settings including surgery for cancer, use of a central vein catheter (CVC) and chemotherapy. Guidelines recommend post-operative prophylaxis (for at least 7-10 days) for patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. A prolonged prophylaxis (for upto four post-operative weeks) is recommended in cancer patients at high risk for VTE. The role of antithrombotic prophylaxis in the prevention of CVC-related thrombosis remains controversial. The PROTECHT study has recently evaluated the benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, showing a statistically significant 50% relative risk reduction in symptomatic thromboembolic events. The international guidelines currently agree in non-recommending routine prophylaxis in ambulatory patients who receive anticancer chemotherapy but suggest an individual risk-based evaluation. To better identify cancer patients at high risk for VTE, simple predictive models have been validated. Further intervention studies are currently on-going to explore the benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis in individual high-risk groups of patients. The long-term treatment of cancer-related VTE is based on therapeutic doses of LMWH in preference to warfarin. The optimal duration of antithrombotic treatment in cancer patients remains to be fully defined.

Prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increased in cancer patients. To improve prediction of VTE in cancer patients, we performed a prospective and observational cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed cancer or progression of disease after remission. A previously developed risk scoring model for prediction of VTE that included clinical (tumor entity and body mass index) and laboratory (hemoglobin level and thrombocyte and leukocyte count) parameters was expanded by incorporating 2 biomarkers, soluble P-selectin, and D-Dimer. Of 819 patients 61 (7.4%) experienced VTE during a median follow-up of 656 days. The cumulative VTE probability in the original risk model after 6 months was 17.7% in patients with the highest risk score (≥ 3, n = 93), 9.6% in those with score 2 (n = 221), 3.8% in those with score 1 (n = 229), and 1.5% in those with score 0 (n = 276). In the expanded risk model, the cumulative VTE probability after 6 months in patients with the highest score (≥ 5, n = 30) was 35.0% and 10.3% in those with an intermediate score (score 3, n = 130) as opposed to only 1.0% in patients with score 0 (n = 200); the hazard ratio of patients with the highest compared with those with the lowest score was 25.9 (8.0-84.6). Clinical and standard laboratory parameters with addition of biomarkers enable prediction of VTE and allow identification of cancer patients at high or low risk of VTE.

The role of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: emerging data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. A significant proportion of cancer-associated VTE occurs in the ambulatory setting and is associated with poorer outcomes and reduced survival. Risk for VTE is influenced by patient, cancer and treatment-specific factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have identified biomarkers associated with increased VTE risk in malignancy, including leukocyte and platelet counts, tissue factor, prothrombin split products, D-dimer, P-selectin, factor VIII and C-reactive protein. Recent and ongoing clinical trials have focused on VTE prophylaxis with low-molecular weight heparins in high-risk cancer outpatients, particularly those with pancreatic cancer. These studies have yielded encouraging preliminary results but whether thromboprophylaxis provides significant benefit to unselected cancer outpatients remains unclear.

SUMMARY

A risk stratification model incorporating known risk factors and biomarkers can identify those patients at highest risk. This review focuses on emerging data regarding risk assessment and benefit of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer.

Venous thromboembolism in the management of patients with musculoskeletal tumor

BACKGROUND

Although patients with musculoskeletal tumors are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), few detailed studies on the incidence, clinical course, and risk factors of this condition have been reported.

METHODS

A total of 299 patients with musculoskeletal tumors during the preceding 3 years were enrolled. D-dimer (DD) levels on admission and on postoperative days 1, 7, and 14 were routinely assessed. For patients who were receiving chemotherapy, an examination was performed every 2-3 days for the survey. Multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) was used for the detection of VTE in patients with DD levels > 10 μg/ml. The incidence of clinically detected VTE and the clinical courses of the patients with VTE were reviewed. The risk factors for VTE were analyzed. For statistical analysis, Fisher's exact test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, and logistic regression were used.

RESULTS

VTE was detected in eight cases (2.7%). Six cases were detected postoperatively, and the remaining two cases were detected during chemotherapy. Pulmonary embolism was evident in four cases. No VTE-related lethal events were detected during the study period. In the univariate analysis, malignancy (P = 0.003), chemotherapy (P = 0.004), plastic surgery (P = 0.006), tumor size (P = 0.008), and elevated DD levels at admission (P = 0.03) were found to be significant risk factors for VTE. Among these factors, the multivariate analysis indicated that tumor size (P = 0.00 006), plastic surgery (P 0. 01), and chemotherapy (P = 0.02) were independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence and risk factors for VTE in the management of musculoskeletal tumor patients by screening DD levels combined with MDCT were analyzed. For patients at risk, prospective surveys for VTE should be considered in the future.