Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

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.

Case of internal jugular vein thrombosis and fever: Lemierre's syndrome or Trousseau's syndrome?

Internal jugular vein thrombosis is a rare critical cardiovascular emergency, which has potential catastrophic clinical outcomes by resulting in stroke and pulmonary embolism. Several etiologies have been reported; however, there are limited data on Lemierre's and Trousseau's syndromes, which are both rare conditions with advanced disease progression and poor clinical outcomes. Lemierre's syndrome may present with typical progressively infectious symptoms and signs, including sore throat, neck mass, and fever, whereas Trousseau's syndrome may present with thrombophlebitis and painful edema. Without antibiotic agents controlling the infection, the condition of patients with Lemierre's syndrome may progress to sepsis or septic shock. The infection pattern plays an important role for differential diagnosis. Herein, we describe the case of a 46-year-old woman presenting with atypical symptoms of Trousseau's syndrome mimicking Lemierre's syndrome. Laboratory analysis including protein C, protein S, rheumatoid factor, and antinuclear antibody ruled out hypercoagulopathy and autoimmune vasculitis. Abdominal computed tomography and panendoscopy revealed ulcerative tumor at the antrum. Pathological examination confirmed the presence of signet-ring cell adenocarcinoma. We highlight the clinical features and etiologies of internal jugular vein thrombosis, especially in Lemierre's syndrome and Trousseau's syndrome, to aid physicians in making an early diagnosis and providing timely management.

Anticoagulation Strategies in Patients With Cancer: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Patients with active cancer are at an increased risk of arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events. Historically, in patients with cancer, low molecular weight heparins have been preferred for treatment of VTE, whereas warfarin has been the standard anticoagulant for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). More recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in large randomized clinical trials of patients with VTE and AF, respectively, thus providing an attractive oral dosing option that does not require routine laboratory monitoring. In this review, we summarize available clinical trial data and guideline recommendations, and outline a practical approach to anticoagulation management of VTE and AF in cancer.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included a major electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and a search for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 15440 identified citations, 7387 unique citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH enrolling 1025 participants, one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH enrolling 477 participants, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin enrolling 113 participants. The meta-analysis of mortality at three months included 418 participants from five studies and that of recurrent VTE included 422 participants from 3 studies. The findings showed that LMWH likely decreases mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence), but did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in VTE recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of fondaparinux on mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; moderate certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; moderate certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; moderate certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence)The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of dalteparin on mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Anticoagulation in ambulatory cancer patients with no indication for prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs frequently in cancer patients and is a major cause of mortality. Although anticoagulation (AC) may have anti-tumour effects, it is recommended in cancer patients only for indications unrelated to these effects. A Markov model was constructed to estimate when prophylactic AC, given during four months of chemotherapy following a new cancer diagnosis, would be economically reasonable in ambulatory cancer patients with no VTE history. Risks and costs of major and minor bleeding, VTE, and death were obtained from the literature, including a 2011 Cochrane review of AC in cancer inpatients with no conventional indication. In the model, AC was low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH), and effects were modeled over a 24-month period. Model outputs were quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In the base case analysis, when prophylactic AC had a two-year relative mortality risk of 0.92, there was a gain of 0.0354 QALY, for an ICER of $90,893/QALY gained, compared with no AC. In sensitivity analyses, AC prophylaxis cost less than $100,000/QALY, if two-year mortality exceeded 75%, or if AC costs were less than $1,076 per month, or if LMWH relative mortality risk was less than 0.927. Results were not sensitive to variation in VTE relative risk on AC, nor to major or minor bleeding risk on AC. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis also favoured prophylactic AC. In conclusion, prophylactic LMWH given to decrease cancer-related mortality, with no conventional indication, appears economically reasonable if its suggested mortality benefit is confirmed in future trials.

Analysis of clinical factors affecting the rates of fatal pulmonary embolism and bleeding in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

In cancer patients with symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) (deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE)), clinical factors that influence the benefit-risk balance of anticoagulation need to be identified so treatment intensity and duration can be optimally adjusted for the individual patient.

METHODS

Using clinical data for cancer patients with VTE obtained from the RIETE registry, we compared how rates of fatal PE and fatal bleeding during and after anticoagulation vary depending on patients' clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Data were analysed from the 10,962 cancer patients with VTE (5,740 with PE with or without DVT; 5,222 with DVT alone) in RIETE registry as of March 2016. Fatal PE occurred in 2.18% of patients, while fatal bleedings occurred in 1.55%. During the 12 months from initial VTE, fatal PE was the most common cause of death, after disseminating cancer, and bleeding the fourth most common. In patients initially presenting with PE, fatal PE during anticoagulation was 4-fold more frequent than fatal bleeding (204 vs 51 deaths) and occurred mostly during the first month of treatment (196/223, 88%). In patients initially presenting with DVT, fatal PE was 3-fold lower than fatal bleeding during (25 vs 85 deaths) and after anticoagulation treatment (8 vs 37 deaths). During the 12-month follow-up, other characteristics of cancer patients with VTE were identified as more common in fatal cases of PE and/or bleeding than in surviving cases.

INTERPRETATION

Baseline clinical characteristics may determine anticoagulation outcomes in cancer patients with VTE and should be further investigated as possible factors for guiding changes in current practices of anticoagulation, such as adjusting anticoagulation intensity and duration in selected patients.

[Haemostatic aspects in clinical oncology]

The clinical link between cancer and thrombosis has been recognized by Armand Trousseau in 1865. It has become clear that activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis plays an important role not only in the pathophysiology of Trousseau's syndrome, but also in the progression of solid malignancies. In particular, tissue factor is critical for both primary tumour growth and haematogenous metastasis. Haemostatic perturbations in cancer patients are, at least in part, controlled by defined genetic events in molecular tumourigenesis, including activating and inactivating mutations of oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes, respectively. While long-term treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is considered standard therapy for established venous thromboembolism (VTE), pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients and the management of complex systemic coagulopathies remain a challenge and have to be decided on an individual basis and in a risk-adapted manner. Experimental and preclinical studies further suggest that LMWH may be beneficial in cancer therapy, but this innovative concept has not yet been proven beyond doubt in rigorously designed clinical trials.

DWI Lesion Patterns in Cancer-Related Stroke--Specifying the Phenotype

BACKGROUND

Due to the lack of specific diagnostic markers, the diagnosis of cancer-related stroke strongly depends on its phenotype. Distinct DWI lesion patterns with involvement of multiple vascular territories have been reported repeatedly in cancer-related stroke but have not been addressed in detail in a selected cohort of prospectively recruited cancer patients with emphasis on hypercoagulable conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ischemic stroke patients with known malignant cancer activity, laboratory evidence of strong plasmatic hypercoagulation (D-dimer levels > 3 µg/ml) and without competing stroke etiologies according to the recently introduced ASCOD (A - atherosclerosis, S - small vessel disease, C - cardiac pathology, O - other cause, and D - dissection) classification of evidence-rated etiology of stroke subtypes were included in the analysis. Cerebral MRI on admission was reviewed with respect to ischemic lesion patterns.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean D-dimer levels were 15.39 µg/ml (± 10.84). Acute infarction in ≥ 2 vascular territories was present in 27/32 (84%) patients. (Micro-) embolic scattering of infarction was present in 25/32 (78%) patients. Evidence for previous, potentially oligosymptomatic infarction was found in 16 (50%) patients, demonstrated by the additional presence of subacute or chronic ischemic lesions.

CONCLUSION

When excluding competing embolic and nonembolic stroke etiologies, the pattern of scattered DWI lesions in multiple vascular supply territories strongly dominates the phenotype of cancer-related stroke. Additionally, evidence of recurrent infarction is frequent in this cohort of patients. This is not only important for the diagnosis of cancer-related stroke itself but may prove helpful for the identification of cancer-related stroke patients with unknown malignancy at the time of stroke manifestation and evaluation of strategies for secondary prevention.

The effect of therapeutic anticoagulation on overall survival in men receiving first-line docetaxel chemotherapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulants have been postulated to possess antitumor activity, although clinical data supporting this claim are conflicting. No definitive data exist on the clinical impact of anticoagulation therapy in patients with prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between therapeutic anticoagulant use and survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving docetaxel chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 247 consecutive patients with mCRPC who received first-line docetaxel chemotherapy between 1998 and 2010 at a single institution. Among them, 29 patients (11.7 %) received therapeutic anticoagulation (low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH] or warfarin) for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to investigate the effect of anticoagulant use on overall survival.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, anticoagulant use was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; P = .024). Median survival was 20.9 months in the anticoagulation group versus 17.1 months in the control group (P = .024). In multivariable analysis, anticoagulant use remained a significant predictor of survival after adjusting for other baseline prognostic factors (HR, 0.49; P = .023). When each anticoagulant was considered separately in the multivariable model, LMWH remained significantly prognostic for survival (HR, 0.48; P = .035), whereas warfarin use did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulant use (LMWH in particular) is an independent predictor of improved survival in men with mCRPC receiving docetaxel. These data provide the impetus to further explore the antitumor properties of anticoagulants in patients with prostate cancer and warrant validation in prospective studies.

[Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. Clinical value of low-molecular-weight heparins]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer. Because of their improved subcutaneous bioavailability and reliable antithrombotic efficiency low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) are preferably used for prevention and treatment of cancer-related VTE. Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH is well established in patients undergoing cancer surgery and hospitalized cancer patients, while outpatient prophylaxis remains contentious. LMWH are recommended over unfractionated heparins and vitamin K antagonists for initial treatment and secondary prophylaxis (3-6 months) after cancer-related VTE. Long-term secondary prophylaxis should be considered for patients with ongoing active malignancy and low bleeding risk. Due to absence of clinical studies in cancer patients, the use of novel oral anticoagulants is currently not recommended.