Management of cancer-associated thrombosis in patients with thrombocytopenia: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

Management of cancer-associated thrombosis with thrombocytopenia: Impact of the ISTH guidance statement

Background

Optimal management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in patients with thrombocytopenia remains difficult given competing risks of recurrent thrombosis and increased bleeding. We determine the impact of the ISTH Scientific and Standardization Committee (SCC) guidance on CAT management and thrombocytopenia on platelet transfusion, bleeding, and recurrent thrombosis.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of patients with CAT and thrombocytopenia who required anticoagulation for VTE for 11 months before and after implementation of the ISTH SCC guidance. Medical records were reviewed to identify the type of VTE event, number of platelet transfusions, incidence of bleeding, and VTE recurrence within pre- and postintervention time periods.

Results

A total of 41 and 80 cases were included in the preintervention and postintervention periods, respectively. The preintervention group showed a trend toward less acute VTE events (39% vs 55%; P = .05). The postintervention period had an increased per-patient platelet transfusion (median, 2.5 vs 4; P = .05). Nonmajor bleeding was increased in the postintervention group (2% vs 16%; P = 0.03) and included all six (8%) major hemorrhages (P = .09). There was numerically less recurrent thrombosis in the postintervention group (20% vs 8%; P = .07), which was not significantly different when accounting for acuity of VTE. Management adherence was strong, at 91%, in the postintervention group.

Conclusion

The ISTH guidance on management of cancer-associated thrombosis in patients with thrombocytopenia was successfully implemented in an academic medical center. There was no significant difference in bleeding or recurrent thrombosis outcomes after adjusting for acuity of VTE.

Challenging issues in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is associated with delays in underlying cancer treatment and increases in morbidity and mortality. Acute and long-term treatments with low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) have been recommended as a standard of care for patients with cancer with VTE for the past 20 years. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic modality for cancer-associated VTE because of the convenience of oral administration and rapid onset of action. Our knowledge regarding DOACs for cancer-associated VTD has expanded in recent years. Thus, this study aimed to review recent major pivotal trials comparing DOACs with LMWH for managing cancer-associated VTE. Moreover, a recently updated understanding of DOACs in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE in specific challenging situations is presented.

Circulating Fatty Objects and Their Preferential Presence in Pancreatic Cancer Patient Blood Samples

Human cancers are often complicated with increased incidences of blood vessel occlusion, which are mostly insensitive to anticoagulation therapy. We searched for causal factors of cancer-associated embolism. A total of 2,017 blood samples was examined for visible abnormalities. Examined were peripheral blood samples from cancer patients who were about to undergo surgical treatment for genitourinary, breast, gastrointestinal or abdominal tumors. Samples from ambulatory patients being treated for recurrent or castration-resistant prostate cancers were included in the study. The lipid-rich nature was studied with lipophilic stains and lipid panel analysis, while surface membrane was assessed with specific staining and antibody detection. We identified a new entity, lipid droplet-like objects or circulating fatty objects (CFOs), visible in the blood samples of many cancer patients, with the potential of causing embolism. CFOs were defined as lipid-rich objects with a membrane, capable of gaining in volume through interaction with peripheral blood mononuclear cells in ex vivo culture. Blood samples from pancreatic cancer patients were found to have the highest CFO incidence and largest CFO numbers. Most noticeably, CFOs from many pancreatic cancer samples presented as large clusters entangled in insoluble fiber networks, suggestive of intravascular clotting. This study identifies CFO as an abnormal entity in cancer patient blood, and a contributory factor to intravascular embolism during cancer development and progression.

Current management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in patients with thrombocytopenia: a retrospective cohort study

Optimal management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients with thrombocytopenia is uncertain. We described current management and clinical outcomes of these patients. We retrospectively included a cohort of cancer patients with acute VTE and concomitant mild (platelet count 100,000-150,000/mm³), moderate (50,000-99,000/mm³), or severe thrombocytopenia (< 50,000/mm³). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses explored the association between different therapeutic strategies and thrombocytopenia. The incidence of VTE and bleeding complications was collected at a 3-month follow-up. A total of 194 patients of whom 122 (62.89%) had mild, 51 (26.29%) moderate, and 22 (11.34%) severe thrombocytopenia were involved. At VTE diagnosis, a full therapeutic dose of LMWH was administered in 79.3, 62.8 and 4.6% of patients, respectively. Moderate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.12-0.75), severe thrombocytopenia (OR 0.01; 95% CI 0.00-0.08), and the presence of cerebral metastasis (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.01-0.30) were independently associated with the prescription of subtherapeutic LMWH doses. Symptomatic VTE (OR 4.46; 95% CI 1.85-10.80) and pulmonary embolism (OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.09-6.94) were associated with the prescription of full therapeutic LMWH doses. Three-month incidence of VTE was 3.9% (95% CI 1.3-10.1), 8.5% (95% CI 2.8-21.3), 0% (95% CI 0.0-20.0) in patients with mild, moderate, and severe thrombocytopenia, respectively. The corresponding values for major bleeding and mortality were 1.9% (95% CI 0.3-7.4), 6.4% (95% CI 1.7-18.6), 0% (95% CI 0.0-20.0) and 9.6% (95% CI 5.0-17.4), 48.2% (95% CI 16.1-42.9), 20% (95% CI 6.6-44.3). In the absence of sound evidence, anticoagulation strategy of VTE in cancer patients with thrombocytopenia was tailored on an individual basis, taking into account not only the platelet count but also VTE presentation and the presence of cerebral metastasis.

Venous Thromboembolism In Cancer Patients: "From Evidence to Care"

This article seeks to review the current status of treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) in cancer patients after the addition of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) to the therapeutic arsenal available. The suitability of DOAC use in complex clinical situations, poorly represented in clinical trials, is controversial and difficult for care activity, making the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines the focus of special attention in this area. Recently, several randomized trials have compared low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to DOAC for the management of CAT. Potential drug interactions with DOACs or the increased risk of bleeding in intraluminal tumors require special precautions, as do metastatic or primary brain disease and comorbid conditions, such as renal or liver failure, which are not suitably represented in pivotal studies. Furthermore, few data are available for situations involving elevated bleeding risk, with thrombocytopenia levels below the inclusion criterion of clinical trials, or recurrence during active anticoagulant therapy. Similarly, it is less clear that patients and physicians accept the presumption that oral DOAC administration is more convenient than subcutaneous LMWH, particularly when drug absorption may be compromised. The non-inclusion or under-representation of patients at higher risk for complications with anticoagulation in randomized clinical trials, makes their use complex in certain situations in health care. This paper provides a practical review of current clinical guideline recommendations regarding LMWH and/ or DOAC to treat and prevent CAT, as well as the most controversial clinical conditions for their use.

Evans syndrome in adults: an observational multicenter study

Evans syndrome (ES) is a rare condition, defined as the presence of 2 autoimmune cytopenias, most frequently autoimmune hemolytic anemia and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and rarely autoimmune neutropenia. ES can be classified as primary or secondary to various conditions, including lymphoproliferative disorders, other systemic autoimmune diseases, and primary immunodeficiencies, particularly in children. In adult ES, little is known about clinical features, disease associations, and outcomes. In this retrospective international study, we analyzed 116 adult patients followed at 13 European tertiary centers, focusing on treatment requirements, occurrence of complications, and death. ES was secondary to or associated with underlying conditions in 24 cases (21%), mainly other autoimmune diseases and hematologic neoplasms. Bleeding occurred in 42% of patients, mainly low grade and at ITP onset. Almost all patients received first-line treatment (steroids with or without intravenous immunoglobulin), and 23% needed early additional therapy for primary refractoriness. Additional therapy lines included rituximab, splenectomy, immunosuppressants, thrombopoietin receptor agonists, and others, with response rates >80%. However, a remarkable number of relapses occurred, requiring ≥3 therapy lines in 54% of cases. Infections and thrombotic complications occurred in 33% and 21% of patients, respectively, mainly grade ≥3, and correlated with the number of therapy lines. In addition to age, other factors negatively affecting survival were severe anemia at onset and occurrence of relapse, infection, and thrombosis. These data show that adult ES is often severe and marked by a relapsing clinical course and potentially fatal complications, pinpointing the need for high clinical awareness, prompt therapy, and anti-infectious/anti-thrombotic prophylaxis.

Management of Vascular Thrombosis in Patients with Thrombocytopenia

Platelets play critical roles in hemostasis and thrombosis. While low platelet counts increase the risk of bleeding, antithrombotic drugs, including anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents, are used to treat thromboembolic events. Thus, the management of thrombosis in patients with low platelet counts is challenging with hardly any evidence available to guide treatment. Recognition of the underlying cause of thrombocytopenia is essential for assessing the bleeding risk and tailoring therapeutic options. A typical clinical scenario is the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients experiencing transient thrombocytopenia during myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In such patients, the severity of thrombocytopenia, thrombus burden, clinical symptoms, and the timing of VTE relative to thrombocytopenia must be considered. In clinical practice, distinct hematological disorders characterized by low platelet counts and a thrombogenic state require specific diagnostics and treatment. These include the antiphospholipid syndrome, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and (spontaneous) HIT syndromes, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

Treatment Algorithm in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Updated Canadian Expert Consensus

Patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) are at high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding complications. Risks vary significantly between individuals based on cancer status, treatment, and other characteristics. To facilitate the evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy in this patient population, a committee of 11 Canadian clinical experts updated a consensus-based algorithm for the acute and extended treatment of symptomatic and incidental CAT that was developed in 2018. Following a systematic review of the literature, updates to the algorithm were discussed during an online teleconference, and the algorithm was subsequently refined based on feedback from committee members. Clinicians using this treatment algorithm should consider bleeding risk, type of cancer, and drug-drug interactions, as well as patient and clinician preferences, in tailoring anticoagulation for patients with CAT. Anticoagulant therapy should be adapted as the patient's cancer status and management change over time.

A clinical decision framework to guide the outpatient treatment of emergency department patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis: Results from a multidisciplinary consensus panel

The outpatient treatment of select emergency department patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been shown to be safe, cost effective and associated with high patient satisfaction. Despite this, outpatient PE and DVT treatment remains uncommon. To address this, the American College of Emergency Physicians assembled a multidisciplinary team of content experts to provide evidence-based recommendations and practical advice to help clinicians safely treat patients with low-risk PE and DVT without hospitalization. The emergency clinician must stratify the patient's risk of clinical decompensation due to their PE or DVT as well as their risk of bleeding due to anticoagulation. The clinician must also select and start an anticoagulant and ensure that the patient has access to the medication in a timely manner. Reliable follow-up is critical, and the patient must also be educated about signs or symptoms that should prompt a return to the emergency department. To facilitate access to these recommendations, the consensus panel also created 2 web-based "point-of-care tools."

Toward a pathophysiology inspired treatment of VEXAS syndrome

VEXAS syndrome has an unmet need for therapeutic interventions. Even if few data exist regarding the treatment of this newly described syndrome, different options can be proposed given the unique pathophysiological consequences of the clonal dominance of UBA1 mutated hematopoietic stem cells. To date, allogeneic transplantation is the only curative option, but many questions remain regarding the selection of eligible patients, the conditioning regimen or management of toxicities that may be unique to VEXAS patients. Alternatively, drugs used in myelodysplastic syndrome such as hypomethylating agents or lenalidomide are interesting candidates, which could theoretically have also an effect on the clone. Another strategy is to target the inflammatory cascade, by inhibiting proinflammatory cytokines (such as TNFα, IL1, IL6) or effector cells, for example with JAK inhibitors. Whatever the choice of treatment for VEXAS patients, supportive care is always needed to be considered to manage frequent complications such as cytopenia, thrombosis and infections. Finally, we discuss the challenges of the design of clinical trials for VEXAS patients, from inclusion criteria to clinical and biological endpoints of activity.

Anticoagulation in cancer-associated thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia: a prospective, multi-center cohort study

In patients with cancer with VTE and thrombocytopenia, modified-dose anticoagulation was associated with a lower rate of major hemorrhage.

In this cohort, recurrent VTE was not observed after initiation of modified-dose anticoagulation.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) with concurrent thrombocytopenia is frequently encountered in patients with cancer. Therapeutic anticoagulation in the setting of thrombocytopenia is associated with a high risk of hemorrhage. Retrospective analyses suggest the utility of modified-dose anticoagulation in this population. To assess the incidence of hemorrhage or thrombosis according to anticoagulation strategy, we performed a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Patients with active malignancy, acute VTE, and concurrent thrombocytopenia (platelet count <100 000/µL) were enrolled. The cumulative incidences of hemorrhage or recurrent VTE were determined considering death as a competing risk. Primary outcomes were centrally adjudicated and comparisons made according to initial treatment with full-dose or modified-dose anticoagulation. A total of 121 patients were enrolled at 6 hospitals. Seventy-five patients were initially treated with full-dose anticoagulation (62%) and 33 (27%) with modified-dose anticoagulation; 13 (11%) patients received no anticoagulation. Most patients who received modified-dose anticoagulation had a hematologic malignancy (31 of 33 [94%]) and an acute deep vein thrombosis (28 of 33 [85%]). In patients who initially received full-dose anticoagulation, the cumulative incidence of major hemorrhage at 60 days was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9-20.8) and 6.6% (95% CI, 2.4-15.7) in those who received modified-dose anticoagulation (Fine-Gray hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.21-3.93). The cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE at 60 days in patients who initially received full-dose anticoagulation was 5.6% (95% CI, 0.2-11) and 0% in patients who received modified-dose anticoagulation. In conclusion, modified-dose anticoagulation appears to be a safe alternative to therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with cancer who develop deep vein thrombosis in the setting of thrombocytopenia.

Consensus guidelines for the management of adult immune thrombocytopenia in Australia and New Zealand

Introduction

The absence of high quality evidence for basic clinical dilemmas in immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) underlines the need for contemporary guidelines relevant to the local treatment context. ITP is diagnosed by exclusions, with a hallmark laboratory finding of isolated thrombocytopenia.

Main recommendations

Bleeding, family and medication histories and a review of historical investigations are required to gauge the bleeding risk and possible hereditary syndromes. Beyond the platelet count, the decision to treat is affected by individual bleeding risk, disease stage, side effects of treatment, concomitant medications, and patient preference. Treatment is aimed at achieving a platelet count > 20 × 10⁹/L, and avoidance of severe bleeding. Steroids are the standard first line treatment, with either 6‐week courses of tapering prednisone or repeated courses of high dose dexamethasone providing equivalent efficacy. Intravenous immunoglobulin can be used periprocedurally or as first line therapy in combination with steroids.

Changes in management as a result of this statement

There is no consensus on choice of second line treatments. Options with the most robust evidence include splenectomy, rituximab and thrombopoietin receptor agonists. Other therapies include azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, dapsone and vinca alkaloids. Given that up to one‐third of patients achieve a satisfactory haemostatic response, splenectomy should be delayed for at least 12 months if possible. In life‐threatening bleeding, we recommend platelet transfusions to achieve haemostasis, along with intravenous immunoglobulin and high dose steroids.

Incidence, risk factors, and management of bleeding in patients receiving anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis

Updated clinical practice guidelines recommend the long-term use of low-molecular-weight heparins or direct oral anticoagulants as the preferred option for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), using a personalized approach matching the right drug to the right patient. In most cases, the benefit of anticoagulant therapy outweighs the risk. However, the long-term use of anticoagulants is associated with a non-negligible risk of bleeding, which constitutes a rare but serious adverse effect. Bleeding complications have been reported to be overall 2 to 3 times more frequent in cancer patients with CAT receiving anticoagulation than in non-cancer patients, with a reported incidence of major bleeding ranging from 2.4 to 16.0% in randomized controlled trials (RCT). In the absence of validated risk assessment model to predict the risk of bleeding in these patients, a careful evaluation of each individual profile, with adequate selection of the most appropriate anticoagulant for each individual patient, is warranted for overcoming management challenges, taking in account the numerous factors which may potentiate the overall bleeding risk in these complex patients, such as advanced or metastatic disease, older age, anemia, thrombocytopenia, renal impairment, liver dysfunction, and concomitant anticancer therapies. The purpose of this review is to call for awareness on bleeding complications as a major safety issue of CAT treatment and to summarize data from recent RCT and real-world studies on the incidence and risk factors for bleeding in this unique and challenging population to further help clinicians in decision-making.

Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Unmet Needs and Future Perspectives

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in this patient population. Increased risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding complications are two major challenges associated with therapeutic anticoagulation in these patients. Long-term therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) has been the standard of care for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE given its favorable risk–benefit ratio in comparison with vitamin K antagonists. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which offer the convenience of oral administration and have a rapid onset of action, have recently emerged as a new treatment option for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CT). Randomized clinical trial data with head-to-head comparisons between DOACs and LMWHs showed that overall, DOACs have a similar efficacy profile but a higher risk of bleeding was observed in some of these studies. This review aims to identify unmet needs in the treatment of CT. We discuss important considerations for clinicians tailoring anticoagulation (1) drug–drug interactions, (2) risk of bleeding (e.g., gastrointestinal bleeding), (3) thrombocytopenia, hematological malignancies, (4) metastatic or primary brain tumors, and (5) renal impairment. Additional research is warranted in several clinical scenarios to help clinicians on the best therapeutic approach.

How I treat and prevent venous thrombotic complications in patients with lymphoma

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication occurring in 5-10% of patients with lymphoma. As the complexity of lymphoma management has increased with novel therapies, so too has the treatment of VTE. Therapeutic options for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE have expanded from only warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) to include the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban. There have been no head-to-head trials comparing different DOACs in this setting and randomized trials comparing a DOAC with LMWH dalteparin differ in trial design and results. Drug-drug interactions, drug-specific side effects and patient selection are important considerations when prescribing anticoagulant therapy. In all patients, the relative risks of thrombosis and bleeding, the availability of the anticoagulant, and the life expectancy of the patient are vital elements in selecting the most appropriate anticoagulant (which can vary over time) for the individual patient. We describe the intricacies and challenges of treating thrombotic complications in patients with lymphoma with an emphasis on evidence and guideline-based care.

Impact of anticoagulation on recurrent thrombosis and bleeding after hematopoietic cell transplantation

History of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is prevalent among patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Management of anticoagulation is particularly challenging as most patients will have chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia while awaiting engraftment post-HCT. We conducted a retrospective study of autologous and allogeneic HCT recipients with prior VTE from 2006-2015 to 1) compare anticoagulant strategies on short-term VTE recurrence and bleeding and 2) assess predictors for VTE recurrence beyond 30 days. Patients with VTE were allocated to two cohorts based on anticoagulant strategy at thrombocytopenia onset and underwent inverse probability weighting to assess primary outcomes of VTE recurrence and bleeding within 30 days post-HCT. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the association of 100-day VTE recurrence by the HIGH-2-LOW VTE risk assessment score and whether patients resumed anticoagulation at platelet recovery. Thirteen percent of recipients had VTE prior to HCT; of those meeting inclusion criteria, 227 continued anticoagulation and 113 temporarily discontinued it. Anticoagulant strategy was not significantly associated with decreased risk of VTE recurrence within 30 days (3% vs 4%, p = 0.61); however, risk of overall bleeding was non-significantly higher in those who continued vs discontinued anticoagulation (41% vs 31%, p = 0.08). In a subgroup of 250 allogeneic HCT patients, every one-point increase of HIGH-2-LOW score was significantly associated with VTE recurrence at 100 days (OR 1.57 [95% CI 1.10-2.23]), while anticoagulation resumption upon platelet engraftment was associated with lower recurrent risk (OR 0.48 [0.20-1.14]). Temporarily withholding anticoagulation during thrombocytopenia may optimize risk-benefit tradeoffs, though additional strategies are essential to prevent VTE recurrence after hematopoietic recovery.

Risk of pulmonary emboli after removal of an upper extremity central catheter associated with a deep vein thrombosis

Standard treatment of catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE-DVT) is anticoagulation, although catheters are often removed for this indication. The optimal time for catheter removal and whether the act and/or timing of catheter removal is associated with pulmonary embolism (PE) remain unknown. A retrospective cohort study was performed at 8 participating institutions through the Venous thromboEmbolism Network US. Patients with hematologic malignancies and central venous catheter (CVC)-associated UE-DVT were included from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2016. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed PE within 7 days of UE-DVT diagnosis in anticoagulated patients comparing early (≤48 hours) vs delayed (>48 hours) catheter removal. A total of 626 patients were included, among whom 480 were treated with anticoagulation. Among anticoagulated patients, 255 underwent early CVC removal, while 225 had delayed or no CVC removal; 146 patients received no anticoagulation, among whom 116 underwent CVC removal alone. PE within 7 days occurred in 2 patients (0.78%) with early removal compared with 1 patient (0.44%) with delayed or no CVC removal (P > .9). PE or any cause of death within 7 days occurred in 3 patients in both the early removal (1.18%) and delayed/no removal (1.33%) groups (P > .9). In patients treated with CVC removal only (no anticoagulation), there were no PEs but 3 deaths within 7 days. In patients with hematological malignancy and CVC-associated UE-DVT, early removal of CVCs was not associated with an increased risk of PE compared with delayed or no removal.

Thrombosis in hematological malignancies: mechanisms and implications

A B S T R A C T Thrombotic events are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer. While the association of venous thromboembolic events with cancer is well documented, in recent years arterial events (i.e. acute myocardial infarction and ischemic strokes) have also emerged as relatively common complications among cancer patients. In hematological malignancies incorporating a heterogeneous group of diseases, the prediction of thrombosis occurrence and/or recurrence is challenging, due to unique disease characteristics. Furthermore, the treatment of thrombosis in these patients is often complicated because of disease- or therapy-related thrombocytopenia. In addition, patients with hematological cancers are poorly represented in randomized control clinical trials; hence, evidence-based guidelines are limited. This review will discuss the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events in common myeloid and lymphoproliferative diseases. Several new mechanisms contributing to cancer- associated thrombosis will be elaborated. The complicated issue of risk assessment and management of venous thrombosis in patients with hematological malignancies will be delineated.

Cancer-Associated Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), which includes portal, mesenteric, and splenic vein thrombosis and the Budd-Chiari syndrome, is an infrequent manifestation of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Like typical site VTE, SVT is also frequently associated with cancer, particularly intra-abdominal solid malignancies and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). The clinical presentation of SVT is nonspecific. Symptoms may be related to the underlying malignancy, and thrombosis is incidentally diagnosed by imaging studies for cancer staging or follow-up in a substantial proportion of cases. The occurrence of SVT predicts worse prognosis in patients with liver or pancreatic cancer and, not uncommonly, SVT may precede the diagnosis of cancer. Therefore, the occurrence of an apparently unprovoked SVT should prompt careful patient evaluation for the presence of an underlying malignancy or MPN. Cancer patients carry a high risk of VTE extension and recurrence and long-term anticoagulant treatment is suggested in the absence of high risk of bleeding. Either LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are suggested for the treatment of patients with cancer-related SVT, although limited experience is available on the use of DOACs in these settings. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are suggested for the short and long-term treatment of SVT associated with MPN. This review outlines the epidemiological aspects, pathogenesis, risk factors, and diagnosis of cancer-associated SVT, and addresses questions regarding the management of this challenging condition.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with Malignancies: Daily Practice Recommendations by the Hemostasis Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO), the Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research (GTH), and the Austrian Society of Hematology and Oncology (ÖGHO)

Patients with cancer, both hematologic and solid malignancies, are at increased risk for thrombosis and thromboembolism. In addition to general risk factors such as immobility and major surgery, shared by non-cancer patients, cancer patients are exposed to specific thrombotic risk factors. These include, among other factors, cancer-induced hypercoagulation, and chemotherapy-mediated endothelial dysfunction as well as tumor-cell-derived microparticles. After an episode of thrombosis in a cancer patient, secondary thromboprophylaxis to prevent recurrent thromboembolism has long been established and is typically continued as long as the cancer is active or actively treated. On the other hand, primary prophylaxis, even though firmly established in hospitalized cancer patients, has only recently been studied in ambulatory patients. This recent change is mostly due to the emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have a shorter half-life than vitamin K antagonists (VKA), and they overcome the need for parenteral application, the latter of which is associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and can be difficult for the patient to endure in the long term. Here, first, we discuss the clinical trials of primary thromboprophylaxis in the population of cancer patients in general, including the use of VKA, LMWH, and DOACs, and the potential drug interactions with pre-existing medications that need to be taken into account. Second, we focus on special situations in cancer patients where primary prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered, including myeloma, major surgery, indwelling catheters, or immobilization, concomitant diseases such as renal insufficiency, liver disease, or thrombophilia, as well as situations with a high bleeding risk, particularly thrombocytopenia, and specific drugs that may require primary thromboprophylaxis. We provide a novel algorithm intended to aid specialists but also family practitioners and nurses who care for cancer patients in the decision process of primary thromboprophylaxis in the individual patient.

Venous and Arterial Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Arterial thromboembolism, including myocardial infarction and stroke, is also prevalent. Risk differs in subgroups, with higher rates observed in specific cancers including pancreas, stomach, and multiple myeloma. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for most patients with active cancer hospitalized for medical illnesses and after major cancer surgery. Outpatient thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended, but emerging data suggest that a high-risk population that benefits from pharmacological thromboprophylaxis can be identified using a validated risk tool. Direct oral anticoagulants are emerging as the preferred new option for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, although low-molecular-weight heparin remains a standard for patients at high bleeding risk. Management of VTE beyond the first 6 months and challenging clinical situations including intracranial metastases and thrombocytopenia require careful management in balancing the benefits and risks of anticoagulation and remain major knowledge gaps in evidence.

How I treat anticoagulant-refractory thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome

The standard treatment of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is lifelong oral anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), generally warfarin. A minority of patients with APS rethrombose despite seemingly adequate anticoagulation. These patients are deemed anticoagulant refractory. The management of anticoagulant-refractory APS is largely empirical and extrapolated from other clinically similar situations. Further options include increased VKA anticoagulation intensity or alternative antithrombotic strategies, including low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux, the addition of antiplatelet therapy, and consideration of vascular options. Patients with anticoagulant-refractory thrombotic APS may have APS-associated thrombocytopenia, which necessitates balancing the risk of recurrent thrombosis vs bleeding to achieve adequate anticoagulation. The multiple mechanisms involved in the generation of the thrombotic phenotype in APS suggest that anticoagulation alone may not control thrombosis. Thus, other modalities, including adjunctive treatment (hydroxychloroquine, statins, and vitamin D) for APS-related thrombosis, merit consideration, as do immunomodulatory therapy and complement inhibition. Patients with APS may have coexistent systemic lupus erythematosus, which adds to the complexity of managing their thromboembolic disease. However, with attention to detail and judicious application of the limited data, it is possible to minimize the morbidity resulting from anticoagulant-refractory thrombotic APS. Multicenter studies are required to guide the sequence of interventions and their comparative efficacy in patients with anticoagulant-refractory thrombotic APS.

Anticoagulation in Patients with Platelet Disorders

Platelet disorders comprise heterogeneous diseases featured by reduced platelet counts and/or impaired platelet function causing variable bleeding symptoms. Despite their bleeding diathesis, patients with platelet disorders can develop transient or permanent prothrombotic conditions that necessitate prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. Anticoagulation in patients with platelet disorders is a matter of concern because the bleeding risk could add to the hemorrhagic risk related to the platelet defect. This review provides an overview on the evidence on anticoagulation in patients with acquired and inherited thrombocytopenia and/or platelet dysfunction. We summarize tools to evaluate and balance bleeding- and thrombotic risks and describe a practical approach on how to manage these patients if they have an indication for prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation.

Treatment of portal vein thrombosis: an updated narrative review

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is the most frequent among the splanchnic vein thrombosis, accounting for 90% of cases. More than half of PVT are provoked by liver cirrhosis, solid cancer or myeloproliferative neoplasms. The remaining cases are non-malignant non-cirrhotic PVT and include either unprovoked events or thrombosis secondary to other less common risk factors (e.g. abdominal surgery, intrabdominal inflammations/infections, or hormonal stimuli). Anticoagulant therapy in patients with acute symptomatic PVT should be started early after diagnosis, if no active bleeding, to obtain greater vessel recanalization and reduce the occurrence of portal-hypertension related complications. Gastroesophageal varices do not represent a contraindication to anticoagulant treatment, as long as adequate measures have been undertaken for the prophylaxis of gastroesophageal bleeding. Different treatment options (unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin, vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) can be considered. In this narrative review we will discuss the treatment of PVT in the three most common scenarios (cirrhosis-associated, cancer-associated and non-malignant non-cirrhotic PVT). We will also discuss the role of the DOACs and summarise recent guidelines on this topic.

Treatment of catheter-related thrombosis in patients with hematologic malignancies: A Venous thromboEmbolism Network U.S. retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Optimal treatment of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is uncertain in patients with hematologic malignancy. We aimed to evaluate the treatment strategies, outcomes, and predictors of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with hematologic malignancy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of eight institutions through the Venous thromboEmbolism Network US. Patients with hematologic malignancies with documented CRT were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Semi-competing risks proportional hazard regression models were created.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Of the 663 patients in the cohort, 124 (19%) were treated with anticoagulation alone, 388 (58%) were treated with anticoagulation and catheter removal, 119 (18%) treated with catheter removal only, and 32 (5%) had neither catheter removal nor anticoagulation. 100 (15%) patients experienced a recurrent VTE event. In the 579 patients who had catheter removal, the most common reason for catheter removal was the CRT [392 (68%)]. For subjects who received any anticoagulation (n = 512), total anticoagulation duration was not associated with VTE recurrence [1.000 (0.999-1.002)]. After adjustment patients treated with catheter removal only had an increased risk of VTE recurrence [2.50 (1.24-5.07)] and death [4.96 (2.47-9.97)]. Patients with no treatment had increased risk of death [16.81 (6.22-45.38)] and death after VTE recurrence [27.29 (3.13-238.13)]. In this large, multicenter retrospective cohort, we found significant variability in the treatment of CRT in patients with hematologic malignancy. Treatment without anticoagulation was associated with recurrent VTE.

Thrombosis in immune thrombocytopenia - current status and future perspectives

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disorder in which a combination of defective platelet production and enhanced clearance leads to thrombocytopenia. The primary aim for therapy in patients with this condition is the prevention of bleeding. However, more recently, increased rates of venous and arterial thrombotic events have been reported in ITP, even in the context of marked thrombocytopenia. In this review we discuss the epidemiology, aetiology and management of thrombotic events in these patients. We consider the impact of ITP therapies on the increased thrombotic risk, in particular the use of thrombopoietin-receptor agonists (TPO-RAs), as well as factors inherent to ITP itself. We also discuss the limited evidence available to guide clinicians in the treatment of these complex cases.

Monitoring of anticoagulation in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome

Anticoagulation is central to the management of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The standard anticoagulant treatment for thrombotic APS is life-long warfarin or an alternative vitamin K antagonist. The role of direct oral anticoagulants for thrombotic APS is not established due to the lack of definitive evidence and has recently been addressed in international guidance. Other anticoagulant options include low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, and fondaparinux. In APS patients, lupus anticoagulant can affect phospholipid-dependent coagulation monitoring tests, so that they may not reflect true anticoagulation intensity. Accurate assessment of anticoagulation intensity is essential, to optimize anticoagulant dosing and facilitate thrombus resolution; minimize the risk of recurrent thrombosis or bleeding; inform assessment of whether recurrent thrombosis is related to breakthrough thrombosis while on therapeutic anticoagulation, subtherapeutic anticoagulation, non-adherence, or spurious results; and guide the management of bleeding. Knowledge of anticoagulant intensity also informs assessment and comparison of anticoagulation regimens in clinical studies. Considerations regarding anticoagulation dosing and/or monitoring of thrombotic APS patients underpin appropriate management in special situations, notably APS-related severe renal impairment, which can occur in APS or APS/systemic lupus erythematosus-related nephropathy or catastrophic APS; and APS-related thrombocytopenia. Anticoagulant dosing and monitoring in thrombotic APS patients also require consideration in anticoagulant-refractory APS and during pregnancy. In this review, we summarize the tests generally used in monitoring anticoagulant therapy, use of the main anticoagulants considered for thrombotic APS, lupus anticoagulant effects on anticoagulation monitoring tests, and strategies for appropriate anticoagulant monitoring in thrombotic APS.

Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: The dark side of the moon

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer. The risk of emergent VTE is four- to seven-fold higher in cancer patients compared to non-cancer patients. Although the therapeutic armamentarium for cancer-associated VTE has been recently implemented, anticoagulant treatment remains challenging because of the increased risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding. Several international societies and expert panels released clinical practice guidelines on VTE treatment which are mostly focused on the general cancer population. Nevertheless, recommendations for the management of VTE in patients with peculiar clinical presentations are inconsistent and remain elusive due to the lack of pertinent evidence. The challenging clinical scenarios include, among others, patients with thrombocytopenia, renal impairment, gastrointestinal cancer, primary or metastatic brain cancer, distal thrombosis of the lower extremities, catheter-related VTE, splanchnic thrombosis, incidental VTE, extreme body weight, recurrent VTE during treatment, as well as the optimal duration of anticoagulant treatment in patients with active disease who have received 3 to 6 months of anticoagulation. Herein, we present a critical overview on VTE management in these challenging clinical settings, discuss potential approaches, and include some calls to action for future clinical research.

Challenges and Advances in Managing Thrombocytopenic Cancer Patients

Cancer patients have varying incidence, depth and duration of thrombocytopenia. The mainstay of managing severe chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) in cancer is the use of platelet transfusions. While prophylactic platelet transfusions reduce the bleeding rate, multiple unmet needs remain, such as high residual rates of bleeding, and anticancer treatment dose reductions/delays. Accordingly, the following promising results in other settings, antifibrinolytic drugs have been evaluated for prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients with hematological malignancies and solid tumors. In addition, Thrombopoeitin receptor agonists have been studied for two major implications in cancer: treatment of severe thrombocytopenia associated with myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia; primary and secondary prevention of CIT in solid tumors in order to maintain dose density and intensity of anti-cancer treatment. Furthermore, thrombocytopenic cancer patients are often prescribed antithrombotic medication for indications arising prior or post cancer diagnosis. Balancing the bleeding and thrombotic risks in such patients represents a unique clinical challenge. This review focuses upon non-transfusion-based approaches to managing thrombocytopenia and the associated bleeding risk in cancer, and also addresses the management of antithrombotic therapy in thrombocytopenic cancer patients.

Direct oral anticoagulants and cancer-associated VTE: good for all, or just some?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer. Therefore, tailoring anticoagulation is of utmost importance to decrease the risk of recurrent VTE while minimizing the risk of bleeding. Direct oral anticoagulants have been recently compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for the management of acute cancer-associated thrombosis. Although direct oral anticoagulants are a welcome addition, clinicians need to incorporate clinical characteristics, drug-drug interactions, and patient preference in decision making.

Cerebrovascular manifestations in hematological diseases: an update

Patients with hematological diseases often experience cerebrovascular complications including ischemic stroke, intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhage, microbleeds, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and dural sinus and cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT). In this update, we will review recent advances in the management of cerebrovascular diseases in the context of myeloproliferative neoplasms, leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma, POEMS, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), and sickle-cell disease. In acute ischemic stroke associated with hematological diseases, thrombectomy can in general be applied if there is a large vessel occlusion. Intravenous thrombolysis can be used in myeloproliferative neoplasms and sickle-cell anemia, but in other diseases, a case-by-case evaluation of the bleeding risks is mandatory. Patients with sickle-cell disease and acute stroke need very often to be transfused. In PNH, acute ischemic stroke patients must be anticoagulated. Most patients with CVT can be treated with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) acutely, even those with leukemias. Prevention of recurrence of cerebral thrombotic events depends on the control of the underlying disease, combined in some conditions with antithrombotic drugs. The recent introduction of specific monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of PHN and TTP has dramatically reduced the risk of arterial and venous thrombosis.

Anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation, thrombocytopenia and hematological malignancy

Managing anticoagulation in hematological malignancy patients with atrial fibrillation and thrombocytopenia is a clinical challenge with limited data. We aimed to identify anticoagulation management strategies and evaluate bleeding and thrombosis rates associated with each approach. A retrospective cohort study in Israel and the Netherlands was conducted. Patients with hematological malignancy and atrial fibrillation were indexed when platelets were < 50 × 10⁹/L and followed for 30 days. The cohort included 61 patients of whom 42 (69%) had anticoagulation held at index. On multivariate analysis, holding anticoagulation was associated with age < 65 years and atrial fibrillation diagnosed within 30 days prior index. Clinically relevant bleeding was diagnosed in 7 (16.7%) and 1 (5.3%) of patients who had anticoagulation held and continued respectively, while arterial thromboembolism occurred in 1 patient in each group (2.4% and 5.3%, respectively). All-cause mortality rate was high at 45%. Accordingly, the 30-day bleeding risk may outweigh the risk of arterial thromboembolism in hematological malignancy, platelets < 50 × 10⁹/L and atrial fibrillation.

Challenging anticoagulation cases: Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism and chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia - A case-based review of clinical management

Patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy are at risk of thrombocytopenia. The co-incidence of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) and thrombocytopenia is a frequent complication in patients with cancer. Especially in certain tumour entities at high VTE risk, chemotherapeutic agents with myelosuppressive effects are part of the standard of care. The management of cancer-associated VTE in the setting of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia is challenging, in the absence of evidence from high-quality studies. Thrombocytopenia is associated with both increased risk of recurrent VTE and risk of bleeding during anticoagulation. In this case-based concise review, we aimed at summarizing available literature and expert consensus guidance on the treatment of cancer-associated VTE in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia.

Survival patterns among venous thromboembolism patients with hematologic malignancies in Alberta, Canada from 2003 to 2015

BACKGROUND

Hematologic malignancies are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify the prevalence of hematologic malignancy in VTE patients and compare the survival with or without VTE.

METHODS

Using linked administrative data and a validated algorithm we identified VTE cases in Alberta, Canada from 2003 to 2015. Subjects having International Classification of Diseases code for hematologic malignancies, solid tumors and both cancers within 1 year before and after the VTE index event were defined as cancer associated VTE cases. We also identified patients with no VTE. Cox proportional hazards model was applied to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of death. Kaplan Meier analysis was performed to compare survival rate between different groups.

RESULTS

We identified 5157 cancer associated VTE patients and 24,932 cancer patients with no VTE. Among the cancer associated VTE patients 697 (13.5%), 4376 (84.9%) and 84 (1.6%) had hematologic malignancies, solid tumors and both cancers, respectively. The median survival (in months) was significantly shorter in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) and plasma cell dyscrasia patients with VTE than those without (16.6 vs 27.1, p = 0.004; 70.6 vs 99.2, p = 0.023 and 32.9 vs 55.5, p = 0.007 respectively). Occurrence of pulmonary embolism in MDS and MPN patients and deep vein thrombosis in plasma cell dyscrasia patients were significantly associated with increased risk of death (adjusted HR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1. 46-6.16; adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI:1.01-2.51 and adjusted HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.03-1.89 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

VTE adversely affects the survival among patients with hematologic malignancies.

Update on Guidelines for the Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Over the past 2 decades, enormous advances have been made in the management of CAT. The growing evidence base informing practice has led to the publication of a number of guidelines and guidance documents on the diagnosis and treatment of CAT. The goal of this review is to examine the latest versions of evidence-based guidelines, highlighting the differences and similarities in their methodology, their disease-specific content, and recommendations for management. Our analysis shows that for most clinical topics, the different guidelines provide roughly similar management advice. However, there are a number of important clinical topics in CAT that are not currently covered by the existing guidelines. We think inclusion of these topics in future versions of the guidelines will facilitate ongoing efforts to optimize the care of patients with CAT. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in patients with cancer. This review examines the differences and similarities of the current CAT guidelines methods and recommendations. Current guidelines largely agree on many aspects of CAT management. However, there are a number of topics in CAT that are not currently included in guidelines where evidence-based guidance would be very helpful for clinicians. Coverage of these topics in future guidelines is encouraged to optimize clinical practice.

Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin or Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Patient Selection, Controversies, and Caveats

The treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is challenging because these patients have increased risks of both recurrent VTE and major bleeding, along with patient-specific and cancer-related factors that influence the approach to treatment. Historically, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), given for both initial and long-term treatment, has been the preferred approach recommended by practice guidelines. Most recently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines indicate that the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban are preferred for patients without gastric or gastroesophageal lesions. DOACs have been associated with an increased risk of major bleeding in patients with gastrointestinal and possibly genitourinary cancers, and DOACs should either not be used (especially in those with intact intraluminal tumors) or be used with caution in patients with these cancers. Fatal or life-threatening bleeding occurs with similar frequency with DOACs or LMWH, and most major bleeding with DOACs can be managed with transfusion and standard measures. The patient's willingness and ability to comply with LMWH injections, and their treatment preference, should also be considered. Patients with cancer who have VTE should be treated with anticoagulation for a minimum of 6 months. Anticoagulation should be continued indefinitely while cancer is active or under treatment or if there are persistent risk factors for recurrent VTE. This article summarizes the evidence from clinical trials of LMWH and DOACs that underpins the NCCN guideline recommendations, addresses several controversies and caveats regarding anticoagulant treatment, and offers evidence-based, practical suggestions on patient selection for treatment with DOACs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Several randomized trials support the addition of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to the therapeutic armamentarium for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). These agents come with unique risks and patient- and cancer-specific variables that must be evaluated during the course of a patient's cancer care. This narrative review discusses findings from clinical trials of low-molecular-weight heparin and DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, evidence that supports the recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. A personalized approach to treatment is proposed that addresses patient selection for treatment with DOACs, factors that influence efficacy and safety, controversies and caveats, and suggestions for their resolution in clinical practice.

Challenging anticoagulation cases: A case of acute pulmonary embolism in a patient with chronic thrombocytopenia

We present a case of acute pulmonary embolism in a patient with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia. The patient had a history of portal vein thrombosis and had taken warfarin for the past six years. At the time of his pulmonary embolism diagnosis, his INR was 1.5 and platelet count 58 × 10⁹/L. This article discusses how to balance the risk of thrombosis against the risk of bleeding, and reviews the options for pulmonary embolism treatment including transition to low-molecular-weight heparin, direct oral anticoagulants and/or inferior vena cava filters.

Management of hemostatic complications in acute leukemia: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

Patients with acute leukemia frequently develop thrombocytopenia and hemostatic complications caused by coagulopathy. Coagulopathy complicates the management of these patients and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. This guidance document aims to review and provide guidance on the management of hemostatic complications in adult patients with acute leukemia, addressing four main issues, including platelet transfusion, disseminated intravascular coagulation, L-asparaginase-related hypofibrinogenemia, and the use of antifibrinolytic agents.

Bleeding outcomes in thrombocytopenic acute leukemic patients with venous thromboembolism

Cancer-associated thrombosis in acute leukemia patients with severe thrombocytopenia (platelets ≤50 × 109/L) poses a management challenge due to competing risks of bleeding and recurrent thrombosis. A retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the occurrence of clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) rates during treatment for acute venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in thrombocytopenic acute leukemic patients. A cohort of 74 patients were subgrouped into three VTE-treatment interventions: anticoagulation (n = 24), inferior vena cava filter placement (n = 22), and observation (n = 28). Multivariate analysis found a significant correlation between CRB occurrence and quantity of overall blood transfusions, chemotherapy administration, and relapsed leukemia presentation. There was no difference in the occurrence of CRB between VTE-treatment subgroups, regardless of initial platelet count at the time of VTE diagnosis. Regarding the hematologic parameters, only the velocity of the platelet count recovery was associated with the risk of bleeding. From this analysis, it appears the trajectory of the platelet count and the factors associated with a slower recovery of it, are the main determinants for the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications during VTE treatment in acute leukemia.

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (which agent for which patient)

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer, associated with significant higher rate of mortality and morbidity. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as a single therapeutic is considered as the standard of care for the treatment of acute cancer-associated thrombosis for many years, showing a significant 40% reduction of recurrent VTE (RR: 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.77) without a significant increase of major bleeding complications compared to VKA (RR: 1.09; 95% CI 0.55 - 2.12). Based on results analysis studies only including patients with proximal DVT or PE the risk of recurrent VTE was similar in the DOAC and the LMWH (RR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 - 1.17) groups, without significantively increasing the risk of either major bleeding (RR = 1.32; 95% CI 0.7 - 2.47) or CRNMB (RR 1.6; 95% 0.99 - 2.6). Compared with LMWH, the risk of major bleeding and clinically relevant-non major bleeding was higher, although non-significantly, with DOACs than with LMWH, underlying that DOACs should be avoided in patients at high risk of bleeding. The higher risk of bleeding reported in DOACs-treated patients appears related to an excess of upper GI bleeding. In addition to GI cancer, other high-risk features associated with bleeding complications are an urothelial cancer, drug-drug interactions and use of anticancer drugs associated with GI toxicity. Overall, DOACs are an effective treatment option, and safe in most cancer patients with acute VTE. Nonetheless, DOACs should be used with caution in cancer patients at high risk for bleeding due to cancer site and stage per se or to cancer treatments.

Treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis: The evolution of anticoagulant choice and clinical insights into practical management

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) therapy is recommended over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) and extended therapy is recommended in those with active cancer to prevent recurrent thrombosis. However, the inconvenience of daily subcutaneous injections and the cost of LMWH therapy hinder long-term use. Observational data demonstrate that persistence with LMWH therapy is low in clinical practice and that many patients are switched to oral alternatives - namely VKAs and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Recently, the efficacy and safety of apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus LMWH therapy for the treatment of CAT have been demonstrated in randomized trials. This review provides a critical evaluation of studies with DOACs in this setting and an update on the guidance regarding anticoagulant use for the treatment of CAT. In recognition of the heterogeneity of patients with cancer and the challenges of CAT, patient cases with expert clinical perspectives are presented.

[Treatment recommendations in cardio-oncology: where are we?]

This article provides an overview of current prevention and treatment options for typical cardiovascular side effects of oncological therapies as well as cardiovascular complications of malignant disease. Focus is put on the prevention and treatment of heart failure under potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapies. In addition, current options for the treatment of common venous thromboembolism in cancer patients will be discussed.

Cancer-associated thromboembolism: antithrombotic management of hospitalized patients

Cancer increases risk for venous thromboembolism. Incident thrombocytopenia increases hemorrhagic risk. Hospitalized adults with a cancer diagnosis who received subcutaneous dalteparin in doses adjusted according to platelet count were retrospectively evaluated. Outcomes of interest included nadir platelet counts, transfusions, thromboembolism, and hemorrhage. During a 2-year period of observation, 1854 cancer patients received individualized inpatient treatment with dalteparin. Transfusion was required in 38 of 77 (49.4%) patients with nadir platelet counts < 25 × 10⁹ cells/L as compared with 16 of 75 (21.3%) patients whose nadir platelet counts were 25-50 × 10⁹ cells/L [risk ratio (RR) 2.31; 95% CI 1.42 to 3.78, p < 0.001] and 45 of 1657 (2.7%) patients with platelet counts > 50 × 10⁹ cells/L (RR - 8.07; 95% CI - 4.79 to - 13.59, p < 0.001). Transfusions were administered primarily as supportive therapy. Among transfusion recipients, new or recurrent venous thromboembolism was documented in 2.6%, 0%, and 2.2% of patients with nadir platelet counts of < 25, 25-50, or > 50 × 10⁹ cells/L, respectively (p > 0.9 for all comparisons). Acute blood loss or major bleeding was documented in 10.5%, 12.5%, and 15.6% of patients with platelet counts of < 25, 25-50, or > 50 × 10⁹ cells/L, respectively (p > 0.9 for all comparisons). Among hospitalized cancer patients who received individualized dalteparin treatment, transfusion requirements varied inversely with platelet count. Irrespective of platelet counts, occurrence rates for venous thromboembolism and acute hemorrhage were similar across all treatment groups. Individualized dalteparin treatment provided a consistent pattern of safety and effectiveness.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism and the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants: a review of clinical outcomes and patient perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism remains an important but challenging aspect in the treatment of patients with cancer. Recently, alternatives to injection of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) have been introduced, the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), which could potentially alleviate patients from burdensome daily injections.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the available evidence exploring the role of NOACs in the treatment and secondary prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, from randomized trials, observational data, contemporary guideline recommendations, and patient perspectives.

EXPERT OPINION

Edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban have proven attractive alternatives to LMWH for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Contemporary guidelines have promptly endorsed the use of NOACs in patients with most cancer types. Nonetheless, issues remain regarding bleeding risk, interactions with medical cancer treatment, and the effectiveness and safety for extended treatment periods. There are head-to-head comparisons of the NOACs, and therefore no data favoring the use of one NOAC over the others. Patient's preferences are highly diverse and should be part of routine considerations when weighing risks and benefits associated with various available anticoagulant drugs.

Consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer

Up to 20% of cancer patients will develop some manifestation of venous thromboembolic disease (VTD) during their clinical course. VTD greatly impacts morbidity, mortality, quality of life and pharmaceutical expenditure. In addition, both thrombotic relapse and major haemorrhages derived from VTD treatment are more likely in oncological patients. To make the decision to establish secondary thromboprophylaxis as an indefinite treatment in these patients, it is important to review all the risk factors involved, whether related to the disease, the patient or the prior thrombotic event. The objectives of this consensus of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna-SEMI) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica-SEOM) are to establish recommendations that help assess the risk of recurrence of VTD and haemorrhagic risk in patients with cancer, as well as to analyse the evidence that exists on the currently available drugs, which will allow the establishment of a protocol for shared decision-making with the informed patient.