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

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.

Trousseau syndrome with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma that could be removed radically after endovascular treatment: Report of a case

BACKGROUND

Trousseau syndrome is a poor prognosis. We report a case of Trousseau syndrome treated by radical resection after endovascular treatment.

CASE

A 59-year-old woman presented to our department reporting spontaneous dizziness and pain of the upper abdomen. Magnetic resolution imaging (MRI) showed shower embolization of Brain. Contrast-enhanced computer tomography (CT) showed renal infarction and splenic infarction, and a tumor was observed in the retrohepatic area. On day 9, sudden right side joint prejudice, neglect of left half space, and left hemiplegia were observed. MRI revealed obstruction of the right middle cerebral artery (MCA) perfusion zone. On the same day, endovascular treatment was performed and reperfusion was obtained. We decided on a radical surgery policy because there were a primary lesion and a high risk of new embolism, and no metastasis was seen.

DISCUSSION

Trousseau syndrome generally has a poor prognosis, but active treatment should be considered as an option when we can expect the recovery of function.

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.

Evidence-Based Palliative Care 13 Years On: Has anything changed?

There is a paucity of data on whether interventions in individual palliative care units are evidence-based. Thirteen years ago an initial study evaluated the evidence base of interventions in palliative care. Using similar methodology in the present study, we evaluated the evidence for interventions performed in an inpatient palliative care setting, looking at level of evidence as well as quality and outcome of evidence. More than half of all the interventions (47 interventions, 59 percent) we looked at in a Brisbane, Australia, inpatient palliative care setting were based on a high level of evidence in the form of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (level I or level II). There were only a few interventions (10 percent) for which no evidence could be retrieved. Our results show that the evidence base for interventions in palliative care continues to evolve, but that there are still areas for which further high-quality studies are needed.

Non-atherosclerotic aortic mural thrombus: a rare source of embolism

A 54-year-old man presented to the emergency department with acute left-sided chest pain and left upper quadrant abdominal pain. He had a significant history of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung previously treated with right pneumonectomy who ; is currently receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin. Physical examination was remarkable for tachycardia, hypertension and mild abdominal tenderness. CT angiography revealed an aortic mural thrombus in the ascending aorta and aortic arch without dissection, aneurysm or tortuosity of the aorta. In addition, an infarction of the inferior spleen was reported. Given the high risk of surgery for this patient, he was treated conservatively with esmolol and heparin infusion. His subsequent hospital course was uneventful, and he was successfully discharged on enoxaparin therapy that was successively bridged to rivaroxaban treatment. Follow-up transesophageal echocardiography and CT angiography at one month showed no thrombus in the aorta.

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.

Canadian consensus recommendations on the management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Part 1: prophylaxis

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (vte). Anticoagulation therapy has been shown to prevent vte; however, unique clinical circumstances in patients with cancer can often complicate the decisions surrounding the administration of prophylactic anticoagulation. No national Canadian guidelines on the prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis have been published. We therefore aimed to develop a consensus-based, evidence-informed guideline on the topic. PubMed was searched for clinical trials and meta-analyses published between 2002 and 2013. Reference lists of key articles were hand-searched for additional publications. Content experts from across Canada were assembled to review the evidence and make recommendations. Low molecular weight heparin can be used prophylactically in cancer patients at high risk of developing vte. Direct oral anticoagulants are not recommended for vte prophylaxis at this time. Specific clinical scenarios, including renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, liver disease, and obesity can warrant modifications in the administration of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy. There is no evidence to support the monitoring of anti-factor Xa levels in clinically stable cancer patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulation; however, factor Xa levels could be checked at baseline and periodically in patients with renal insufficiency. The use of anticoagulation therapy to prolong survival in cancer patients without the presence of risk factors for vte is not recommended.

Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: the Saudi clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is commonly encountered in the daily clinical practice. Cancer is an important VTE risk factor. Proper thromboprophylaxis is key to prevent VTE in patients with cancer, and proper treatment is essential to reduce VTE complications and adverse events associated with the therapy.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University working group produced this clinical practice guideline to assist health care providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for VTE prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Six questions related to thromboprophylaxis and antithrombotic therapy were identified and the corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Question 1. Should heparin versus no heparin be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against routine thromboprophylaxis with heparin (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 2. Should oral anticoagulation versus no oral anticoagulation be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 3. Should parenteral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with parenteral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 4. Should oral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; low quality evidence).Question 5. Should low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin be used in patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism?

RECOMMENDATION

In patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests low-molecular-weight heparin over intravenous unfractionated heparin (weak; very low quality evidence).Question 6. Should heparin versus oral anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE?

RECOMMENDATION

In patients with metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). In patients with non-metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests LMWH over VKA (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).

Cancer-associated thrombosis: an overview

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with malignant disease. Emerging data have enhanced our understanding of cancer-associated thrombosis, a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. In addition to VTE, arterial occlusion with stroke and anginal symptoms is relatively common among cancer patients, and is possibly related to genetic predisposition. Several risk factors for developing venous thrombosis usually coexist in cancer patients including surgery, hospital admissions and immobilization, the presence of an indwelling central catheter, chemotherapy, use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and new molecular-targeted therapies such as antiangiogenic agents. Effective prophylaxis and treatment of VTE reduced morbidity and mortality, and improved quality of life. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is preferred as an effective and safe means for prophylaxis and treatment of VTE. It has largely replaced unfractionated heparin (UFH) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Recently, the development of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) that directly inhibit factor Xa or thrombin is a milestone achievement in the prevention and treatment of VTE. This review will focus on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of cancer-associated thrombosis, risk factors, and new predictive biomarkers for VTE as well as discuss novel prevention and management regimens of VTE in cancer according to published guidelines.

Clinical guide SEOM on venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common event in cancer patients and one of the major causes of cancer-associated mortality and a leading cause of morbidity. In recent years, the incidence rates of VTE have notably increased; however, VTE is still commonly underestimated by oncologists. VTE is considered an adverse prognostic factor in cancer patients in all settings. In 2011 the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) first published a clinical guideline of prophylaxis and treatment of VTE in cancer patients. In an effort to incorporate evidence obtained since the original publication, SEOM presents an update of the guideline for thrombosis and cancer in order to improve the prevention and management of VTE.

Implementing thrombosis guidelines in cancer patients: a review

Venous thromboembolism is a frequent and serious complication in patients with cancer. It is an independent prognostic factor of death in cancer patients and the second leading cause of death, but physicians often underestimate its importance, as well as the need for adequate prevention and treatment. Management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer requires the coordinated efforts of a wide range of clinicians, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. However, a lack of consensus among various national and international clinical practice guidelines has contributed to knowledge and practice gaps among practitioners, and inconsistent approaches to venous thromboembolism. The 2013 international guidelines for thrombosis in cancer have sought to address these gaps by critically re-evaluating the evidence coming from clinical trials and synthesizing a number of guidelines documents. An individualized approach to prophylaxis is recommended for all patients.

Evidence-based guidance on venous thromboembolism in patients with solid tumours

Venous thromboembolism (vte) is a serious, life-threatening complication of cancer. Anticoagulation therapy such as low molecular weight heparin (lmwh) has been shown to treat and prevent vte. Cancer therapy is often complex and ongoing, making the management of vte less straightforward in patients with cancer. There are no published Canadian guidelines available to suggest appropriate strategies for the management of vte in patients with solid tumours. We therefore aimed to develop a clear, evidence-based guideline on this topic. A systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analyses published between 2002 and 2013 in PubMed was conducted. Reference lists were hand-searched for additional publications. The National Guidelines Clearinghouse was searched for relevant guidelines. Recommendations were developed based on the best available evidence. In patients with solid tumours, lmwh is recommended for those with established vte and for those without established vte but with a high risk for developing vte. Options for lmwh include dalteparin, enoxaparin, and tinzaparin. No one agent can be recommended over another, but in the setting of renal insufficiency, tinzaparin is preferred. Unfractionated heparin can be used under select circumstances only (that is, when rapid clearance of the anticoagulant is desired). The most common adverse event is bleeding, but major events are rare, and with appropriate follow-up care, bleeding can be monitored and appropriately managed.

Treating venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer. Although much is known about the factors that contribute to VTE risk, pre-emptive therapy in high-risk populations is clearly indicated in only a few clinical situations. Low-molecular-weight heparin is still the recommended class of anticoagulants for cancer-associated VTE. Management of VTE in patients with renal failure, hemorrhagic brain metastases, thrombocytopenia and coagulopathy remains challenging with few safe and effective alternatives. Novel oral agents are currently being investigated and may play a role in the future in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Outpatient use of low molecular weight heparin monotherapy for first-line treatment of venous thromboembolism in advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based treatment guidelines recommend low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) monotherapy for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). This analysis assessed the first-line treatment strategies for VTE in patients with advanced solid tumors.

METHODS

Using administrative data from advanced lung, prostate, colon, or breast cancer patients diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2007 at four HMOs with integrated delivery systems, patients with an inpatient or outpatient VTE diagnosed within 2 years after cancer diagnosis and an outpatient purchase of warfarin, LMWH, and/or fondaparinux anticoagulant within 7 days of the VTE diagnosis were identified. First-line outpatient VTE pharmacological treatment and factors independently associated with receipt/non-receipt of LMWH monotherapy were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 25% of the 1,089 eligible patients received LMWH monotherapy as primary VTE treatment. The percentage increased steadily over time from 18% among patients diagnosed in 2000 to 31% among those diagnosed in 2007. Factors associated with LMWH monotherapy included VTE diagnosis year, chemotherapy within 60 days prior to VTE diagnosis, history of VTE prior to cancer diagnosis, and invasive surgery in the 90 days following VTE diagnosis. Colorectal and prostate cancer patients versus lung cancer patients and stage III versus stage IV patients were less likely to be treated with LMWH monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of LMWH monotherapy as initial treatment for cancer-associated VTE was low but increased steadily over the study period. Future studies should explore reasons underlying the underutilization of this preferred evidence-based treatment as well as the comparative effectiveness of LMWH versus warfarin-based anticoagulation in real-world cancer patients with VTE.

Designing nonsaccharide, allosteric activators of antithrombin for accelerated inhibition of factor Xa

Antithrombin is a key regulator of coagulation and prime target of heparins, clinically used anticoagulants. Heparins induce a two-step conformational activation of antithrombin, a process that has remained challenging to target with molecules devoid of the antithrombin-binding pentasaccharide DEFGH. Computational screening of a focused library led to the design of two tetra-sulfated N-arylacyl tetrahydroisoquinoline variants as potential nonsaccharide activators of antithrombin. A high yielding synthetic scheme based on Horner-Wadsworth-Emmons or Pictet-Spengler reactions was developed to facilitate the functionalization of the tetrahydoisoquinoline ring, which upon further amidation, deprotection, and sulfation gave the targeted nonsaccharide activators. Spectrofluorometric measurement of affinity displayed antithrombin binding affinities in the low to high micromolar range at pH 6.0, I 0.05, 25 °C. Measurement of second-order rate constants of antithrombin inhibition of factor Xa in the presence and absence of the designed activators showed antithrombin activation in the range of 8-80-fold in the pH 6.0 buffer. This work puts forward 20c, a novel tetra-sulfated N-arylacyl tetrahydroisoquinoline-based molecule, that activates AT only 3.8-fold less than that achieved with DEFGH, suggesting a strong possibility of rationally designing sulfated organic molecules as clinically relevant AT activators.

Comparative assessment of low-molecular-weight heparins in cancer from the perspective of patient outcomes and survival

Patients with cancer are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Compared to non-cancer patients, VTE in cancer is more frequently associated with clinical consequences, including recurrent VTE, bleeding, and an increase in the risk of death. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are commonly recommended for the prevention and treatment of VTE in cancer patients because of their favorable risk-to-benefit profile. Indeed, compared with vitamin K antagonists, LMWHs are characterized by a reduced need for coagulation monitoring, few major bleeding episodes, and once-daily dosing, which make these drugs more suitable in the cancer setting. Guidelines have been published recently with the aim to improve the clinical outcomes in cancer patients at risk of VTE and its complications. Coagulation activation in cancer may have a role not only in thrombosis but also in tumor growth and dissemination. Hence, inhibition of fibrin formation has been considered a possible tool against the progression of malignant disease. Clinical studies show that anticoagulant drugs may have a beneficial effect on survival in cancer patients, with a major role for LMWHs. Recently a number of prospective randomized clinical trials to test LMWHs to improve cancer survival as a primary endpoint in cancer patients have been conducted. Although the results are controversial, the interest in this research area remains high.