Thrombosis, cancer and renal insufficiency: low molecular weight heparin at the crossroads

[Translation into French and republication of: "Management of cancer-associated thromboembolism in vulnerable population"]

Although all patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) have a high morbidity and mortality risk, certain groups of patients are particularly vulnerable. This may expose the patient to an increased risk of thrombotic recurrence or bleeding (or both), as the benefit-risk ratio of anticoagulant treatment may be modified. Treatment thus needs to be chosen with care. Such vulnerable groups include older patients, patients with renal impairment or thrombocytopenia, and underweight and obese patients. However, these patient groups are poorly represented in clinical trials, limiting the available data on which treatment decisions can be based. Meta-analysis of data from randomised clinical trials suggests that the relative treatment effect of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors (DXIs) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with respect to major bleeding could be affected by advanced age. No evidence was obtained for a change in the relative risk-benefit profile of DXIs compared to LMWH in patients with renal impairment or of low body weight. The available, albeit limited, data do not support restricting the use of DXIs in patients with TAC on the basis of renal impairment or low body weight. In older patients, age is not itself a critical factor for choice of treatment, but frailty is such a factor. Patients over 70 years of age with CAT should undergo a systematic frailty evaluation before choosing treatment and modifiable bleeding risk factors should be addressed. In patients with renal impairment, creatine clearance should be assessed and monitored regularly thereafter. In patients with an eGFR less than 30mL/min/1.72m2, the anticoagulant treatment may need to be adapted. Similarly, platelet count should be assessed prior to treatment and monitored regularly. In patients with grade 3-4, thrombocytopenia (less than 50,000platelets/μL) treatment with a LMWH at a reduced dose should be considered. For patients with CAT and low body weight, standard anticoagulant treatment recommendations are appropriate, whereas in obese patients, apixaban may be preferred.

Management of cancer-associated thromboembolism in vulnerable population

Although all patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) have a high morbidity and mortality risk, certain groups of patients are particularly vulnerable. This may expose the patient to an increased risk of thrombotic recurrence or bleeding (or both), as the benefit-risk ratio of anticoagulant treatment may be modified. Treatment thus needs to be chosen with care. Such vulnerable groups include older patients, patients with renal impairment or thrombocytopenia, and underweight and obese patients. However, these patient groups are poorly represented in clinical trials, limiting the available data, on which treatment decisions can be based. Meta-analysis of data from randomised clinical trials suggests that the relative treatment effect of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors (DXIs) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with respect to major bleeding could be affected by advanced age. No evidence was obtained for a change in the relative risk-benefit profile of DXIs compared to LMWH in patients with renal impairment or of low body weight. The available, albeit limited, data do not support restricting the use of DXIs in patients with CAT on the basis of renal impairment or low body weight. In older patients, age is not itself a critical factor for choice of treatment, but frailty is such a factor. Patients over 70 years of age with CAT should undergo a systematic frailty evaluation before choosing treatment and modifiable bleeding risk factors should be addressed. In patients with renal impairment, creatine clearance should be assessed and monitored regularly thereafter. In patients with an eGFR<30mL/min/1.72m2, the anticoagulant treatment may need to be adapted. Similarly, platelet count should be assessed prior to treatment and monitored regularly. In patients with grade 3-4, thrombocytopenia (<50,000 platelets/μL) treatment with a LMWH at a reduced dose should be considered. For patients with CAT and low body weight, standard anticoagulant treatment recommendations are appropriate, whereas in obese patients, apixaban may be preferred.

Approach to Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in COVID-19: Global Updates and Clinical Insights from India

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) frequently occurs in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and is associated with increased mortality. Several global guidelines recommended prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation rather than intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related acute or critical illness without suspected or confirmed VTE. Even though standard doses of thromboprophylaxis are received, many cases of thrombotic complications are reported; hence, appropriate and adequate thromboprophylaxis is critical for the prevention of VTE in COVID-19. In spite of an increased prevalence of VTE in Indian patients, sufficient data on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and therapeutic approach for VTE in COVID is lacking. In this article, we review the available global literature (search conducted up to 31 May 2021) and provide clinical insights into our approach towards managing VTE in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, in this review, we summarize the incidence and risk factors for VTE with emphasis on the thromboprophylaxis approach in hospitalized patients and special populations with COVID-19 and assess clinical implications in the Indian context.

Consensus on prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in controversial clinical situations with low levels of evidence

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients suffer high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cancer-associated VTE (CAT) causes hospitalization, morbidity, delayed cancer treatment, and mortality; therefore, exceptional CAT prevention and management are imperative.

METHODS

This review offers practical recommendations and treatment algorithms for eight complex, clinically relevant situations posing great uncertainty regarding management and requiring an urgent decision: VTE prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients with pancreatic pancreas (1) or lung cancer with molecular alterations (2); optimal management of VTE during antineoplastic treatment with antiangiogenics (3) or chemotherapy (4); protracted VTE treatment, determinants; (5) drugs used (6), and optimal VTE management in situations of high bleeding risk (7) or recurrent VTE (8).

RESULTS

With the evidence available, primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with lung cancer harbouring ALK/ROS1 translocations or pancreatic cancer receiving ambulatory chemotherapy must be appraised. If antiangiogenic therapy can yield a clear benefit and the patient recovers from a grade 3 thrombotic event, it can be cautiously re-introduced in selected cases, provided that the person agrees to assume the risk after being duly informed. Anticoagulation maintenance beyond 6 months is recommended in individuals with metastatic tumours, on active treatment, or at high risk for recurrent VTE without bleeding risk. In such cases, LMWH and DOACs are safe, being mindful that the latter could entail a higher risk of bleeding; consequently, they should be used judiciously in more haemorrhagic tumours, such as gastrointestinal cancers. In cases of recurrent VTE, the presence of active cancer, infra-therapeutic dose, and anticoagulant treatment failure must be ruled out. In individuals with platelet counts of 25,000-50,000 and VTE liable to recur who need anticoagulation, full-dose LMWH and transfusion support can be contemplated to reach values of > 50,000. In CAT unlikely to recur, decreasing the LMWH dose by 25-50% is recommended. Renal impairment associated with thrombosis must be treated with LMWHs; there is no need to adjust the dose in patients with CrCl > 30; with CrCl = 15-30, dose adjustment is advised, and suspended when CrCl is < 15.

CONCLUSION

We provide useful advice for complex, clinically relevant situations that clinicians treating CAT must face devoid of any unequivocal, strong, evidence-based recommendations.

Can thromboprophylaxis build a link for cancer patients undergoing surgical and/or chemotherapy treatment? The MeTHOS cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with active cancer have a 4-sevenfold increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) especially during systematic anticancer treatment. Simultaneously, surgery is an additional risk factor.

METHODS

The Metaxas's Hospital THromboprophylaxis program in Oncological & Surgical Patients (MeTHOS) is a prospective, phase IV, observational, non-interventional cohort study, aiming to record the thromboprophylaxis practice patterns in high-risk active cancer patients undergoing surgical and/or chemotherapy treatment.

RESULTS

We are reporting results from 291 ambulatory patients (median age: 67 years, Q1-Q3: 59-73 years, 54.6% males) who received anti-neoplastic treatment and administered thromboprophylaxis. 59.8% had cardiovascular disease (mostly hypertension), 76.6% were reported as having at least one comorbidity, while 27.5% and 15.8% accumulated two and three comorbidities, respectively. 94.9% of the patients were receiving highly thrombogenic agents such as platinum-based agents, 5-FU, immunotherapy, antiangiogenics/anti-VEGF, or erythropoietin. 26.5% of the patients were initially surgically treated. In terms of anticoagulation, all patients were treated with tinzaparin (fixed dose, 10,000 Anti-Xa IU, OD). The median anticoagulation duration was 6.2 months. Six thrombotic events were observed (2.06%, 95% CI: 0.76-4.43%): 5 were DVT, and one PE. With respect to safety, 7 bleeding events occurred (2.6%, 95% CI: 1.0-5.3%); 6 of them were minor.

CONCLUSIONS

Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in patients with active cancer and high thrombotic burden was safe and effective. Intermediate dose of tinzaparin seems to be an appropriate agent for cancer-associated thromboprophylaxis management.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04248348.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Not All Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins Are the Same, Focus on Tinzaparin, A Narrative Review

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is the second main cause of cancer death with high related mortality and morbidity, leading to anticancer agent delays and interruptions. The recommended therapy, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), however, is burdensome for patients and costly for society, as treatment should last until cancer is no longer active, even indefinitely. Tinzaparin is a manageable, efficient, safe, and cost-effective option. Compared to the other LMWHs, advantages are single-daily dose and safety in the elderly and those with renal impairment (RI). The purpose of this review is to critically discuss recent data on its efficacy and safety in CAT.

Tinzaparin inhibits VL30 retrotransposition induced by oxidative stress and/or VEGF in HC11 mouse progenitor mammary cells: Association between inhibition of cancer stem cell proliferation and mammosphere disaggregation

Tinzaparin is an anticoagulant and antiangiogenic drug with inhibitory properties against tumor growth. VEGF stimulates angiogenesis, while an association between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and angiogenesis is involved in tumor progression. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of tinzaparin on VL30 retrotransposition-positive mouse HC11 mammary stem-like epithelial cells, previously reported to be associated with induced mammosphere/cancer stem cell (CSC) generation and tumorigenesis. Under 24 h serum starvation, 15.2% nominal retrotransposition frequency was increased to 29%. Additionally, while treatment with 3–12 ng/ml VEGF further induced retrotransposition frequency in a dose-dependent manner (up to 40.3%), pre-incubation with tinzaparin (2 IU/ml) for 0.5–4 h reduced this frequency to 18.3% in a time-dependent manner, confirmed by analogous results in NIH3T3 fibroblasts. Treatment with 10–40 pg/ml glucose oxidase (GO) for 24 h induced HC11 cell retrotransposition in a dose-dependent manner (up to 82.5%), while a 3 h pre-incubation with tinzaparin (1 or 2 IU/ml) elicited a 13.5 or 25.5% reduction in retrotransposition, respectively. Regarding tumorigenic VL30 retrotransposition-positive HC11 cells, treatment with 2 IU/ml tinzaparin for 5 days reduced proliferation rate in a time-dependent manner (up to ~55%), and after 3 weeks, disaggregated soft agar-formed foci, as well as low-adherent mammospheres, producing single mesenchymal-like cells with a ~50% reduced retrotransposition. With respect to the VL30 retrotransposition mechanism: While 12 ng/ml VEGF increased the level of VL30 and endogenous reverse transcriptase (enRT) transcripts ~1.41- and ~1.16-fold, respectively, subsequent tinzaparin treatment reduced both endogenous/ROS- and VEGF-induced levels 1.15- and 0.40-fold (VL30) and 0.60- and 0.52-fold (enRT), respectively. To the best of our knowledge, these data demonstrate for the first time, the novel inhibition activity of tinzaparin against ROS- and VEGF-induced VL30 retrotransposition, and the proliferation and/or aggregation of mouse HC11 mammosphere/tumor-initiating CSCs, thus contributing to the inhibition of VL30 retrotransposition-induced primary tumor growth.

Construction and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting the Risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients After Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Retrospective Study

Background

The incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is unclear, and there is no effective method for DVT risk assessment in these patients.

Methods

The data from the total of 355 consecutive HCC patients who underwent LH were included. A DVT risk algorithm was developed using a training set (TS) of 243 patients, and its predictive performance was evaluated in both the TS and a validation set (VS) of 112 patients. The model was then used to develop a DVT risk nomogram (TRN).

Results

The incidence of DVT in the present study was 18.6%. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities and operative position were independent risk factors for DVT in the TS. The model based on these factors had a good predictive ability. In the TS, it had an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of 0.861, Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness of fit p value of 0.626, sensitivity of 44.4%, specificity of 96.5%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 74.1%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 88.4%, and accuracy of 86.8%. In the VS, it had an AUC of 0.818, H-L p value of 0.259, sensitivity of 38.1%, specificity of 98.9%, PPV of 88.9%, NPV of 87.4%, and accuracy of 87.5%. The TRN performed well in both the internal and the external validation, indicating a good clinical application value. The TRN had a better predictive value of DVT than the Caprini score (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The incidence of DVT after LH was high, and should not be neglected in HCC patients. The TRN provides an efficacious method for DVT risk evaluation and individualized pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolic complications in lymphoma patients

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

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

PURPOSE

To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Current Management of Cancer-associated Venous Thromboembolism: Focus on Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) is a common complication associated with high morbidity and mortality. In accordance with major clinical trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), LMWH is currently the standard treatment for CAT, owing to its efficacy for thrombosis recurrence and improved safety profile compared to VKA. Over the past few years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as potential alternative therapies to LMWH due to their convenient route of administration and predictable pharmacokinetics, but evidence for their use in CAT is inconclusive, as only a small fraction of the study populations in these trials had CAT. Recently, two large head-to-head trials comparing DOACs to LMWH in CAT patients reported comparable efficacies of DOACs with increased bleeding risk. Occasionally, CAT treatment can be challenging due to the heterogeneity of underlying malignancies and comorbidities. Renal insufficiency and gastrointestinal defects are the main obstacles in anticoagulant selection. Careful choice of treatment candidates and proper anticoagulant strategies are critical for the treatment of CAT; hence, more studies are required to address these challenges.

Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients: a Summary of Pitfalls to Avoid

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, and its management is often associated with complications including risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding. Here, we review the current data on pitfalls during anticoagulation in cancer patients and measures necessary to avoid them.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although low-molecular-weight heparin monotherapy has been the standard of treatment for several years, emerging data for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are leading to new paradigms in treatment. Reports of recent randomized trials suggest a lower risk of recurrent thrombosis but higher risk of bleeding, particularly in gastrointestinal cancer patients, with DOACs. Careful patient selection and individualization of therapy based on risk of bleeding as well as recurrent VTE are keys. Problems like bleeding, recurrence, thrombocytopenia, drug-drug interactions, renal impairment, nausea-vomiting along with concerns about adherence arise during anticoagulation in cancer patients. However, with adequate pre-treatment assessment, correct anticoagulant selection and proper monitoring during anticoagulation, these issues can be addressed safely and effectively.

Characteristics and Impacts of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in cancer patients, and is associated with worse prognosis in such population. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses high risk for VTE; however, data is scarce regarding the characteristics and consequences of VTE in HCC patients.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records (EMR) of 270 patients diagnosed with HCC from 2000 to 2015 in Cook County Health and Hospitals System. We report the cumulative incidence of VTE in the present cohort, and identified through multivariate logistic regression the independent risk factors of the development of VTE. Overall prognosis of patients with and without VTE were presented and compared.

RESULTS

Sixteen cases (5.93%) of VTE were documented in the present study. In multivariate analysis, obesity, Child B cirrhosis, intra-hepatic lesions more than 3, and multi-organ extrahepatic metastasis were significantly associated with VTE development (p < 0.05). The presence of VTE was an independent risk factor for mortality in multivariate analysis (HR = 3.62, p = 0.021), together with male gender, Child C cirrhosis, and extrahepatic metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity, Child B cirrhosis, more intra-hepatic lesions, and multi-organ extrahepatic metastasis are associated with cancer-associated VTE. VTE will adversely affect the prognosis of patients with HCC; therefore, primary thromboprophylaxis may be warranted in such population.

Anticoagulants in frail patients. Seven situations at risk

In the case of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE), physicians are facing more and more difficulties in managing VTE and their treatment in frail patients. These patients could present several risk situations such as: chronic kidney disease (CKD), underweight or malnourished, falls, cognitive impairment, multi-medicated patients, cancer and pregnancy. Guidelines typically recommend anticoagulation. There are multiple challenges in the safe use of anticoagulation in frail patients, including bleeding risk, monitoring and adherence, and polypharmacy. The objective of this review is to explore these at-risk situations and to suggest adequate anticoagulation therapy, when possible, in each of these complex situations.

Meeting Report EuroG20 Meeting on Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (CAT) Bergamo, Italy 7 April 2016

The EuroG20 meeting on cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) convened in Bergamo, Italy on 7 April 2016 to discuss a selection of controversial topics in CAT management. This satellite meeting besides ICTHIC in Bergamo has the objective to propose an European Guidance on CAT in various complex situations where evidence-based guidelines are lacking, driven by eminence-based thoughts of 20 experts and key opinion leaders in thrombosis from EU area and 8 experts from the rest of the world.

Performance of Khorana Risk Score for Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity among patients with malignancy. The Khorana risk score (KRS) is currently the best validated risk assessment model to stratify risks of VTE development in ambulatory patients with cancer. In the current study, we assessed the performance of KRS in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We retrospectively analyzed patients with diagnosis of HCC (screened by International Classification of Diseases [ ICD-9] and ICD-10 code, confirmed with radiographic examination and/or histopathology) at a large public hospital over 15 years (January 2000 through July 2015). Cases with VTE were identified through radiographic examination and blindly adjudicated. Khorana risk score was calculated for each patient, and its association with VTE development and mortality was assessed. Among 270 patients with HCC, 16 (5.9%) cases of VTE were identified, including 7 (43.8%) pulmonary embolism, 4 (25%) peripheral deep vein thrombosis, and 6 (37.5%) intra-abdominal thrombosis. One hundred eighty-four (68.1%) patients had a KRS of 0 and 86 (31.9%) patients had a KRS >0. Most of the thrombotic (n = 9, 56%) events occurred in the low-risk group. In univariate analysis, only prechemotherapy leukocyte count equal to or greater than 11 000/μL was statistically significant in the prediction of VTE incidence. After adjusting for confounding factors in multivariate analysis, KRS >0 was not predictive of VTE (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81-4.15, P = .15) or mortality (HR = 1.61, 95% CI = 0.92-2.81, P = .09). Khorana risk score did not predict VTE development or mortality in patients with HCC. Design of HCC-specific risk assessment model for VTE development is necessary.

Non-anticoagulant effects of low molecular weight heparins in inflammatory disorders: A review

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are produced by chemical or enzymatic depolymerization of unfractionated heparin (UFH). Besides their well-known anticoagulant effects, LMWHs have also been reported to exhibit numerous anti-inflammatory properties. Previous studies have, however, shown that different production processes result in unique structural characteristics of LMWHs. The structural variations may help explain the different therapeutic spectrums in disease treatment for non-anticoagulant effects. In the present review, we summarize major advances in understanding and exploiting the anti-inflammatory disorder activities of LMWHs, based on mechanistic studies, preclinical experiments and clinical trials. We highlight differences in these activities of commercially available LMWHs produced using different manufacturing processes. We stress the importance of structure-activity relationship (SAR) studies on the non-anticoagulant effects of LMWHs and discuss strategies for exploring new clinical indications.

The Role of Pulmonary Veins in Cancer Progression from a Computed Tomography Viewpoint

Background. We studied the role of pulmonary veins in cancer progression using computed tomography (CT) scans. Methods. We obtained data from 260 patients with pulmonary vein obstruction syndrome (PVOS). We used CT scans to investigate pulmonary lesions in relation to pulmonary veins. We divided the lesions into central and peripheral lesions by their anatomical location: in the lung parenchymal tissue or pulmonary vein; in the superior or inferior pulmonary vein; and by unilateral or bilateral presence in the lungs. Results. Of the 260 PVOS patients, 226 (87%) had central lesions, 231 (89%) had peripheral lesions, and 190 (75%) had mixed central and peripheral lesions. Among the 226 central lesions, 93% had lesions within the superior pulmonary vein, either bilaterally or unilaterally. Among the 231 peripheral lesions, 65% involved bilateral lungs, 70% involved lesions within the inferior pulmonary veins, and 23% had obvious metastatic extensions into the left atrium. All patients exhibited nodules within their pulmonary veins. The predeath status included respiratory failure (40%) and loss of consciousness (60%). Conclusion. CT scans play an important role in following tumor progression within pulmonary veins. Besides respiratory distress, PVOS cancer cells entering centrally can result in cardiac and cerebral events and loss of consciousness or can metastasize peripherally from the pulmonary veins to the lungs.

Pulmonary Venous Obstruction in Cancer Patients

Background. We study the clinical significance and management of pulmonary venous obstruction in cancer patients. Methods. We conducted a prospective cohort study to characterize the syndrome that we term “pulmonary vein obstruction syndrome” (PVOS) between January 2005 and March 2014. The criteria for inclusion were (1) episodes of shortness of breath; (2) chest X-ray showing abnormal pulmonary hilum shadow with or without presence of pulmonary edema and/or pleural effusion; (3) CT scan demonstrating pulmonary vein thrombosis/tumor with or without tumor around the vein. Results. Two hundred and twenty-two patients developed PVOS. Shortness of breath was the main symptom, which was aggravated by chemotherapy in 28 (13%), and medical/surgical procedures in 21 (9%) and showed diurnal change in intensity in 32 (14%). Chest X-rays all revealed abnormal pulmonary hilum shadows and presence of pulmonary edema in 194 (87%) and pleural effusion in 192 (86%). CT scans all showed pulmonary vein thrombosis/tumor (100%) and surrounding the pulmonary veins by tumor lesions in 140 patients (63%). PVOS was treated with low molecular weight heparin in combination with dexamethasone, and 66% of patients got clinical/image improvement. Conclusion. Physicians should be alert to PVOS when shortness of breath occurs and chest X-ray reveals abnormal pulmonary hilum shadows.

Venous thromboembolism risk factors in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer patients

PURPOSE

Certain clinicopathological factors contribute to the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in lung cancer. The aim of the current study was to assess the incidence of and the potential risk factors associated with the development of VTE in Chinese lung cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients with lung cancer in our center were screened for VTE from January 2004 to July 2013. One VTE case was matched with two controls according to gender, pathology, clinical stage, and anticancer therapy.

RESULTS

Among the 4,726 patient records screened, 61 (1.3 %) VTE cases with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were identified, including 58 (95.1 %) with adenocarcinoma and 59 (96.7 %) with advanced stage tumors (IIIb and IV). Serous effusion (OR 2.089, 95 % CI 1.022-4.270, P = 0.043), fever (OR 8.999, 95 % CI 1.688-47.968, P = 0.010), increased leukocytes (OR 4.136, 95 % CI 1.957-8.738, P < 0.001), hyponatremia (< 130 mmol/L, OR 5.335, 95 % CI 1.366-20.833, P = 0.016), and increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (OR 3.879, 95 % CI 1.514-9.936, P = 0.005) were associated with an increased risk of VTE. Patients with poor performance status (PS) (≥ 2 vs. < 1) (HR 1.574, 95 % CI 1.112-2.228, P = 0.010) and serous effusion (HR 1.571, 95% CI 1.114-2.215, P = 0.010) tended to have a poor prognosis. There was no difference in overall survival between VTE (median 15.2 months, 95 % CI 11.6-18.9) and control patients (median 16.3 months, 95 % CI 14.1-18.4, P = 0.184; HR 1.273, 95 % CI 0.890-1.820, P = 0.185).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical characteristics such as serous effusion, fever, increased leukocytes, hyponatremia, and increased ALT are potential risk factors for VTE in NSCLC. Poor PS and serous effusion imply poor prognosis for NSCLC patients, most of which have adenocarcinomas and advanced stage.

What is the Best Treatment for a Cancer Patient with Thrombosis?

The relationship between venous thromboembolism and cancer has been known for many years, and there is solid scientific evidence addressing the adequate treatment of this condition in oncology patients. However, established prescribing habits, individual patient challenges, and uncertainty concerning treatment justifies poor adherence to published guidelines. This paper reviews venous thromboembolism treatment while focusing on vitamin K antagonists, low-molecular-weight heparins, and novel oral anticoagulants, namely in terms of their efficacy and limitations.

Chronic kidney disease in patients with cancer and its association with occurrence of venous thromboembolism and mortality

INTRODUCTION

The risk for occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients has been the aim of numerous investigations. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a frequent comorbidity in cancer patients and has been found to be a risk factor for VTE in the general population. We investigated the association of CKD with VTE and mortality in cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients were recruited into the prospective cohort study, Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS). CKD was estimated with equations for glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) based on serum creatinine by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), CKD Epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Cockcroft-Gault equation (C-G). Patients were subsequently classified to stages of CKD according to the Kidney Diseases Outcomes Quality Initiative. Primary endpoint was occurrence of VTE and secondary endpoint was death.

RESULTS

The cohort of 1100 patients was prospectively followed over a median of 723 days. CKD with an eGFR of under 90 ml/min was common with a prevalence of 71.1%, 67.0% or 51.5% of patients calculated with MDRD, CKD-EPI and C-G equations, respectively, but severe CKD (eGFR<30 ml/min) was rare. Patients with a moderately decreased eGFR (90-60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) based on CKD-EPI had a subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.43-1.06). An association between CKD and occurrence of VTE or mortality could also not be shown with the other equations.

CONCLUSIONS

In our investigation of a large cohort of cancer patients with a high prevalence of CKD, a reduced eGFR was not an independent risk factor for occurrence of VTE or death.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. Prophylaxis in the outpatient, inpatient, and perioperative settings was considered, as were treatment and use of anticoagulation as a cancer-directed therapy.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published from December 2007 to December 2012 was completed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed evidence to determine which recommendations required revision.

RESULTS

Forty-two publications met eligibility criteria, including 16 systematic reviews and 24 randomized controlled trials.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Most hospitalized patients with cancer require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for outpatients with cancer. It may be considered for selected high-risk patients. Patients with multiple myeloma receiving antiangiogenesis agents with chemotherapy and/or dexamethasone should receive prophylaxis with either low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose aspirin. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis, starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Extending prophylaxis up to 4 weeks should be considered in those with high-risk features. LMWH is recommended for the initial 5 to 10 days of treatment for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as well as for long-term (6 months) secondary prophylaxis. Use of novel oral anticoagulants is not currently recommended for patients with malignancy and VTE. Anticoagulation should not be used for cancer treatment in the absence of other indications. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk. Oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.