Evaluation of risk factors and assessment models for predicting venous thromboembolism in lung cancer patients

The Alfalfa-inpatient-CAT assessment model: a thrombotic risk assessment model for inpatient cancer patients

PURPOSE

To construct a venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment model specifically for inpatients with cancer.

METHOD

Patients were included according to the inclusion criteria. Univariate and multivariate analyses of all variables were included to develop a VTE risk assessment model applicable to the derivation cohort. Hosmer-Lemeshow test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used to test the fit degree and identification validity of the model. The patient data from separate validation cohorts verified the external population.

RESULT

A total of 944 cancer patients were included in this study. Alfalfa-inpatient-CAT model, a risk assessment model for VTE in hospitalized cancer patients, was established, which mainly includes hypertension, surgical history (nearly one month), history of VTE, peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC), chemotherapy, PT < 12.85 s, D-dimer ≥ 1.805 μg/mL, hemoglobin ≤ 114.5 g/L, CRP ≥ 7.575 mg/L. Hosmer-Lemeshow test results showed P = 0.353 > 0.05, (χ2 = 8.872, Df = 8). The area under ROC curve was 0.906 [95%CI (0.881-0.930), P < 0.001]. The authenticity evaluation in the model database showed that the risk of thrombosis in the high-risk group (score ≥ 3) was 72.63%, significantly higher than that in the low-risk group (score 0-2) (27.37%) [χ2 = 144.00, Df = 1, P < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

This study developed a new VTE risk assessment model - Alfalfa-inpatient-CAT model - for hospitalized cancer patients at high risk of thrombosis. This model has a good fitting degree and discriminant validity. It is expected to provide some reference for the clinical treatment of inpatients with cancer through continuous optimization.

Accuracy of the COMPASS-CAT thrombosis risk assessment scale in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of the COMPASS-CAT tool in predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) among cancer patients.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, OVID, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP database from their inception up to April 19, 2023. The quality of studies was appraised using the diagnostic test accuracy study bias assessment tool (QUADAS-2). Quantitative analysis was performed using Stata MP 17.0.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 8,665 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated that the COMPASS-CAT score had a pooled sensitivity of 0.76 [95%CI (0.61, 0.86)], specificity of 0.67 [95%CI (0.52, 0.79)], positive likelihood ratio of 2.3 [95%CI (1.7, 3.1)], negative likelihood ratio of 0.36 [95%CI (0.23, 0.54)], diagnostic odds ratio of 6 [95%CI (4, 10)], and an area under the Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) of 0.77 [95%CI (0.74, 0.81)]. Funnel plots indicated no publication bias. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis suggested that country and diagnostic setting might be potential sources of heterogeneity. The sensitivity of the COMPASS-CAT assessment tool in international outpatient settings was 0.94 with an AUC of 0.86, while in domestic inpatient settings, the sensitivity was 0.65 with an AUC of 0.78.

CONCLUSION

The COMPASS-CAT score had a certain diagnostic value for VTE in cancer patients and can effectively identify patients at risk of VTE. Most studies focus on patients with lung cancer. Future research should investigate more tumor types, and high-quality, large-sample, multi-center prospective studies on larger populations with cancers are warranted.

Circulating Blood Biomarkers and Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Cancer patients have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Currently, the availability of highly discriminatory prediction models for VTE in cancer patients is limited. The implementation of biomarkers in prediction models might lead to refined VTE risk prediction. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate candidate biomarkers and their association with cancer-associated VTE.

METHODS

 We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for studies that evaluated biomarkers in adult cancer patients from inception to September 2022. We included studies reporting on VTE after a cancer diagnosis with biomarker measurements performed at a defined time point. Median/mean differences (for continuous measures) and odds ratios (for dichotomous measures) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated and pooled using random-effects models.

RESULTS

 We included 113 studies in the systematic review. Of these, 50 studies were included in the meta-analysis. We identified two biomarkers at cancer diagnosis (factor VIII and time to peak thrombin), three biomarkers pre-chemotherapy (D-dimer, fibrinogen, and mean platelet volume), and one biomarker preoperatively (platelet count) that had significant median or mean differences. Additionally, we found that hemoglobin <100 g/L and white blood count >11 × 109/L were significantly associated with future VTE risk only when measured at cancer diagnosis. Pre-chemotherapy neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥3 and preoperative platelet count ≥400 × 109/L were also found to be associated with future VTE risk.

CONCLUSION

 In conclusion, this study identified nine candidate blood biomarkers that may help in optimizing VTE prediction in cancer patients that should be further explored in future studies.

A systematic review of risk prediction model of venous thromboembolism for patients with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) increases the risk of death or adverse outcomes in patients with lung cancer. Therefore, early identification and treatment of high-risk groups of VTE have been the research focus. In this systematic review, the risk assessment tools of VTE in patients with lung cancer were systematically analyzed and evaluated to provide a reference for VTE management.

METHODS

Relevant studies were retrieved from major English databases (The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Medline) and Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI] and WanFang Data) until July 2023 and extracted by two researchers. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42023409748).

RESULTS

Finally, two prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies were included from 2019. There was a high risk of bias in all included studies according to the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment tool (PROBAST). In the included studies, Cox and logistic regression were used to construct models. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the model ranged from 0.670 to 0.904, and the number of predictors ranged from 4 to 11. The D-dimer index was included in five studies, but significant differences existed in optimal cutoff values from 0.0005 mg/L to 2.06 mg/L. Then, three studies validated the model externally, two studies only validated the model internally, and only one study validated the model using a combination of internal and external validation.

CONCLUSION

VTE risk prediction models for patients with lung cancer have received attention for no more than 5 years. The included model shows a good predictive effect and may help identify the risk population of VTE at an early stage. In the future, it is necessary to improve data modeling and statistical analysis methods, develop predictive models with good performance and low risk of bias, and focus on external validation and recalibration of models.

Models for predicting venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with lung cancer is relatively high, and risk stratification models are vital for the targeted application of thromboprophylaxis. We aimed to review VTE risk prediction models that have been developed in patients with lung cancer and evaluated their performance.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-four eligible studies involving 123,493 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE within 12 months was 11 % (95 % CI 8 %-14 %). With the identified four VTE risk assessment tools, meta-analyses did not show a significant discriminatory capability of stratifying VTE risk for Khorana, PROTECHT and CONKO scores. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the Khorana score were 24 % (95 % CI 11 %-44 %) and 84 % (95 % CI 73 %-91 %) at the 3-point cut-off, and 43 % (95 % CI 35 %-52 %) and 61 % (95 % CI 52 %-69 %) at the 2-point cut-off. However, a COMPASS-CAT score of ≥ 7 points indicated a significantly high VTE risk, with a RR of 4.68 (95 % CI 1.05-20.80).

CONCLUSIONS

The Khorana score lacked discriminatory capability in identifying patients with lung cancer at high VTE risk, regardless of the cut-off value. The COMPASS-CAT score had better performance, but further validation is needed. The results indicate the need for robust VTE risk assessment tools specifically designed and validated for lung cancer patients. Future research should include relevant biomarkers as important predictors and consider the combined use of risk tools. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021245907.

Novel Insights in Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Methods in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: From the Guidelines to Clinical Practice

Many cancer patients will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE) at some stage, with the highest rate in the initial period following diagnosis. Novel cancer therapies may further enhance the risk. VTE in a cancer setting is associated with poor prognostic, a decreased quality of life, and high healthcare costs. If thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized cancer patients and perioperative settings is widely accepted in clinical practice and supported by the guidelines, it is not the same situation in ambulatory cancer patient settings. The guidelines do not recommend primary thromboprophylaxis, except in high-risk cases. However, nowadays, risk stratification is still challenging, although many tools have been developed. The Khrorana score remains the most used method, but it has many limits. This narrative review aims to present the current relevant knowledge of VTE risk assessment in ambulatory cancer patients, starting from the guideline recommendations and continuing with the specific risk assessment methods and machine learning models approaches. Biomarkers, genetic, and clinical features were tested alone or in groups. Old and new models used in VTE risk assessment are exposed, underlining their clinical utility. Imaging and biomolecular approaches to VTE screening of outpatients with cancer are also presented, which could help clinical decisions.

Lung Cancer Related Thrombosis (LCART): Focus on Immune Checkpoint Blockade

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in lung cancer patients. Lung cancer confers an increased risk of thrombosis compared to other solid malignancies across all stages of the disease. Newer treatment agents, including checkpoint immunotherapy and targeted agents, may further increase the risk of CAT. Different risk-assessment models, such as the Khorana Risk Score, and newer approaches that incorporate genetic risk factors have been used in lung cancer patients to evaluate the risk of thrombosis. The management of CAT is based on the results of large prospective trials, which show similar benefits to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory patients. The anticoagulation agent and duration of therapy should be personalized according to lung cancer stage and histology, the presence of driver mutations and use of antineoplastic therapy, including recent curative lung surgery, chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Treatment options should be evaluated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been shown to impact the thrombotic risk in cancer patients. This review focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, novel predictive scores and management of CAT in patients with active lung cancer, with a focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

A nomogram for predicting the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with solid cancers

Cancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are prone to poor prognoses. Thus, we aimed to develop a nomogram to predict the risk of VTE in these patients. We retrospectively analyzed 791 patients diagnosed with solid tumors between January 2017 and May 2021 at Tongji Hospital. Univariate logistic analysis and multivariate logistic regression were adopted in this study. Our results indicated that age ≥ 60 years, tumor stages III-IV, platelet distribution width (PDW) ≤ 12.6%, albumin concentration ≤ 38.8 g/L, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) concentration ≥ 198 U/L, D-dimer concentration ≥ 1.72 µg/mL, blood hemoglobin concentration ≤ 100 g/dL or the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and cancer types were independent risk factors. The nomogram prediction model was developed based on the regression coefficients of these variables. We assessed the performance of the nomogram by calibration plot and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and compared it with the Khorana score. The concordance index (C- index) of the nomogram was 0.852 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.823 to 0.880], while the Khorana score was 0.681 (95% CI 0.639 to 0.723). Given its performance, this nomogram could be used to select cancer patients at high risk for VTE and guide thromboprophylaxis treatment in clinical practice, provided it is validated in an external cohort.

A New Risk Prediction Model for Venous Thromboembolism and Death in Ambulatory Lung Cancer Patients

(1) Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in ambulatory lung cancer patients during chemotherapy and is associated with increased mortality. (2) Methods: We analyzed 568 newly diagnosed metastatic lung cancer patients prospectively enrolled in the HYPERCAN study. Blood samples collected before chemotherapy were tested for thrombin generation (TG) and a panel of hemostatic biomarkers. The Khorana risk score (KRS), new-Vienna CATS, PROTECHT, and CONKO risk assessment models (RAMs) were applied. (3) Results: Within 6 months, the cumulative incidences of VTE and mortality were 12% and 29%, respectively. Patients with VTE showed significantly increased levels of D-dimer, FVIII, prothrombin fragment 1 + 2, and TG. D-dimer and ECOG performance status were identified as independent risk factors for VTE and mortality by multivariable analysis and utilized to generate a risk score that provided a cumulative incidence of VTE of 6% vs. 25%, death of 19% vs. 55%, and in the low- vs. high-risk group, respectively (p < 0.001). While all published RAMs significantly stratified patients for risk of death, only the CATS and CONKO were able to stratify patients for VTE. (4) Conclusions: A new prediction model was generated to stratify lung cancer patients for VTE and mortality risk, where other published RAMs failed.

Primary prevention of cancer-associated venous thrombosis: Rationale and challenges in clinical practice

Cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT) is a common, multifactor event known to complicate the course of cancer and jeopardize a patient's prognosis. The current guidelines regarding the prevention of CAT are sometimes considered insufficiently precise about specific situations, or are poorly applied. The expected benefits of thromboprophylaxis are balanced by the risk of major bleeding induced by anticoagulation, which implies a need to accurately identify ambulatory patients at high risk of thrombosis or hemorrhage. The Khorana score is commonly used for this, but is limited by the non-reproducibility of predicted performance across cancer types, and by the fact that antitumor treatment and cardiovascular risks are not included. The COMPASS-CAT score, which includes those two aspects, was found to be a more accurate predictor of venous thromboembolism in patients with lung cancer, and to better distinguish between patients at low or high risk of thrombosis. The frailty of patients with cancer is also a major issue, and should be taken into account when thromboprophylaxis is considered. According to current guidelines, CAT prophylaxis should be considered for hospitalized patients, those for whom surgery is scheduled, or those with pancreatic cancers. In ambulatory patients, decisions should be made according to patient, cancer and antitumoral treatment characteristics. Low molecular weight heparin is the gold standard of CAT prophylaxis. Despite increased risks of bleeding or drug-drug interactions in cancer patients, direct oral anticoagulants could be alternate options for high-risk ambulatory patients that should be accompanied by a careful global analysis of benefits, harms, and patient preferences.

Evaluating the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on venous thromboembolism in non-small cell lung cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Currently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy is one of the main methods of treatment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to explore the risk factors of VTE and evaluate the effect of ICIs on VTE in patients with NSCLC.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied patients with NSCLC who were divided into VTE group and without VTE (Non-VTE) group. We identified the risk factors of VTE in NSCLC patients and evaluated the effect of ICIs on VTE in NSCLC patients.

RESULTS

We found that clinical stage III-IV (P = 0.015) and Khorana score (KS) ≥ 2 (P = 0.047) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of VTE in NSCLC, and treatment with ICIs reduced the risk of VTE occurrence (P = 0.028). There were no differences of survival rates in the 12-month (P = 0.449), 24-month (P = 0.412), or 36-month (P = 0.315) between the VTE and non-VTE groups. History of anti-angiogenic therapy (P = 0.033) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (P = 0.046) were independent risk factors for VTE in NSCLC patients who were treated with ICIs.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that we should strengthen anticoagulant therapy when using ICIs for NSCLC patients with a history of anti-angiogenic therapy and COPD.

Stratification of Risk Factors of Lung Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism and Determining the Critical Point for Preemptive Intervention: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Background

Several biomarkers or risk factors have been identified and several prediction models exist. The major limitations inherent in these models include cost-ineffectiveness and lack of systematic stratification of risk factors resulting in the inclusion of clinically insignificant biomarkers in the models. This review aimed to systematically stratify the risk factors of lung cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) and determine the critical point for preemptive intervention.

Methods

This systematic review was structured as per the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, and PsycINFO from the onset to June 2022. We included studies that reported the risk factors of lung cancer-associated VTE and corresponding risk estimates, irrespective of treatment status but studies were excluded if patients were on anti-VTE medications. We employed random effects models of meta-analysis and computed risk stability index and risk weight (Rw) to achieve the review objectives. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022336476).

Results

The clinically significant risk factors of VTE in lung cancer patients were D-dimer (odds ratio [OR] = 5.510, 95% CI = 2.6-11.7; Rw = 5.0), albumin (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.0-4.8; Rw = 1.79), leukocyte (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.9-3.2; Rw = 1.77), histological type (OR = 1.69 , 95% CI = 1.2-2.4; Rw = 1.3), age (OR = 1.56; Rw = 0.99), and hemoglobin (OR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.3-2.6; Rw = 0.92). Based on the distribution of Rw across risk factors, the critical point (upper third of the upper quartile class) was 4.5 and may mark the point at which preemptive intervention should be commenced.

Conclusions

Targeted screening for VTE in lung cancer patients could be patient-specific and should be based on a combination of the most significant risk factors required to meet the critical point, provided that such a combination is affordable as illustrated in the ALBAH model.

Registration

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022336476).

Management of venous thromboembolism in patients with lung cancer: a state-of-the-art review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common and life-threatening in patients with lung cancer. Management of VTE is critical for patients with lung cancer. Risk assessment, thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE constitute the core issues of VTE management in patients with lung cancer. Although its overall principles should follow recommendations in authoritative guidelines, VTE management in patients with lung cancer may be slightly special in some specific aspects. Despite the extensive validation of Khorana score for patients with all cancer types, its value in VTE risk assessment of patients with lung cancer is controversial. It is important to determine the VTE risk assessment score that can accurately and specifically assess the VTE risk of patients with lung cancer. Clinical practice patterns of thromboprophylaxis may vary by cancer types, since different sites of cancer may have different levels of VTE risk. To understand the thromboprophylaxis specific for lung cancer is of vital importance for patients with lung cancer. Although it is essential to comply with authoritative guidelines, the duration and timing of initiation of thromboprophylaxis in surgical patients with lung cancer may need further study. Taken together, the purpose of this review is to provide an overview of state-of-the-art VTE stewardship specific for patients with lung cancer.

[Prophylaxis and management of cancer-associated thrombosis: Practical issues about anticoagulant use]

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication resulting from various vascular mechanisms related to cancer, antitumoral therapy and patient status, and is associated with a poor prognosis. Anticoagulants recommended for CAT treatment or prevention mainly include low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Regarding thromboprophylaxis, a situation for which LMWH is a preferred option due to a lower risk of hemorrhage especially in patients with unresected gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary malignancies, the identification of patients at risk is a major issue. For patients with established CAT, the main issue is the choice of the most appropriate anticoagulant therapy. Because of the convenience of oral formulation, DOACs are an attractive option, and their efficacy has been shown in randomized trials. However, such studies are limited by selection biases, which make the analyzed population not representative of the real-life setting, as for instance cancers associated with a high risk of hemorrhage, or antitumoral therapies (e.g., tyrosine kinase inhibitors) known to interact with DOACs and then modifying their bioavailability. Caution associated with DOAC use is highlighted by most updated guidelines that recommend a case-by-case-based approach. The aim of the present paper is to help the oncologists make the most appropriate decision regarding the choice of anticoagulant therapy in a context of thromboprophylaxis or established CAT management in a patient with a solid tumor. The main issues are addressed through key practical questions, the answers of which are based on the current guidelines and additional published data or expert opinions.

Mitigating acute chemotherapy-associated adverse events in patients with cancer

Despite the enthusiasm surrounding novel targeted agents and immunotherapies, chemotherapy remains the mainstay treatment for most human malignancies, either alone or in combination. Yet, the burden of chemotherapy-associated adverse events (CAAEs) remains high and, importantly, is associated with considerable morbidity, mortality and costs that affect patients across multiple dimensions, including physical, emotional and social functioning. CAAEs can directly affect patient outcomes and indirectly increase the risk of cancer recurrence by compromising treatment intensity and continuity. Systematic efforts to identify and critically summarize the evidence on management approaches for CAAEs remain limited. Herein, we review the most common acute CAAEs having a major effect on survival, quality of life, function and/or continuation of optimal therapy. We focus on selected acute toxicities that occur during treatment, summarizing their underlying pathophysiology, multifactorial aetiologies, evidenced-based treatments, prevention strategies and management recommendations. We also summarize the available evidence on risk factors, validated risk assessment tools and other efforts to optimize symptom control in patients most likely to benefit in order to personalize the prevention and treatment of acute CAAEs. Finally, we discuss innovative symptom monitoring and supportive care interventions that are under development to further improve the outcomes of patients with cancer.

Central venous catheters-related-thrombosis and risk factors in oncological patients: a retrospective evaluation of recent risk scores

BACKGROUND

Insertions of central venous catheters (CVC) has become a common practice in Onco-Hematologic Units to administer systemic treatments. Unfortunately they can cause complications influencing patient's care-pathway significantly. Oncological patients have a higher thrombotic risk than the general population, therefore specific recent risk scores are spreading through the clinical practice, such as Khorana, Protecht, COMPASS-CAT, and Michigan scores.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 177 out of a total of 3046 outpatients accessing the Medical Day Hospital of Istituto Nazionale Tumori di Milano from March 2019 to February 2021 aged ⩾ 18 years who developed CVC complications was analyzed extracting clinical data from their medical records. Focusing on the risk factors, especially through recent risk scores to estimate the thrombotic risk we used Wilcoxon-test for continuous variables and the Pearson-Chi-Square test for categorical variables.

RESULTS

Anticoagulants resulted a protective factor mostly for partial CVC occlusion (p = 0.0001), preventing CVC occlusions. CVC occlusions were significantly associated with epitelial tumor histotype, (p = 0.0061). Complete CVC occlusions were significantly associated with peripherical inserted central venous catheters (PICC) (p < 0.0001). Catheter-related-thrombosis (CRT) was significantly associated with peripherical-inserted-central-venous-catheter, both when it was diagnosed clinically (p = 0.0121) and radiographically (p = 0.0168).There was a strong association between CRT and a high grade of Khorana Score (p = 0.0195), Protecht Score (p = 0.0412), COMPASS-CAT Score (p = 0.0027). A positive statistical trend was observed between the Michigan Score and CRT in patients carrying PICC (p = 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

There are many different and various factors associated with higher or lower risk of CVC thrombotic complications, so it could be useful to test the recent risk scores to estimate thrombotic risk in oncological patients in clinical practice.

Arteriovenous thrombotic events in a patient with advanced lung cancer following bevacizumab plus chemotherapy: A case report

BACKGROUND

In driver gene-negative non-small cell lung cancer patients who relapse following radical resection, combination chemotherapy using bevacizumab and platinum-based dual drugs is known to increase both progression-free and overall survival. Treatment initially includes bevacizumab, and if patients are able to tolerate it, bevacizumab can continue to be utilized until disease progression. Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal neutralizing antibody that acts against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Various anti-VEGF monoclonal antibodies, such as bevacizumab, can increase the risk of arterial thromboembolism. Current data indicate that VEGF-targeted treatment does not significantly increase the risk of venous thromboembolism events, except for bevacizumab.

CASE SUMMARY

A 55-year-old man underwent radical resection for cancer of the right lung. Six months following surgery, multiple metastases were observed in his left lung. Subsequently, six cycles of bevacizumab combined with pemetrexed/carboplatin chemotherapy was given. Efficacy evaluation continued to be partial relief according to RECIST 1.1 standards, and no noticeable adverse reactions were noted. After three cycles of maintenance therapy using a combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed, the patient developed dizziness and dyspnea. The patient was diagnosed with acute cerebral infarction and pulmonary embolism following head magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography (CT) angiography, and chest enhanced CT. Although the patient received low-molecular-weight heparin anticoagulation and other treatment, the patient eventually died of respiratory failure 1 mo later. This case report may offer some insight into fatal arteriovenous embolism, which has not been previously reported.

CONCLUSION

Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy may also increase the risk of arteriovenous thromboembolism. Accordingly, patients who receive angiogenesis inhibitor therapy should be carefully selected. Furthermore, close monitoring and timely intervention are necessary in order to reduce the risk of such toxicities.

Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Venous Thromboembolism in Lung Cancer Patients Using Machine Learning

Background

There is currently a lack of model for predicting the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with lung cancer. Machine learning (ML) techniques are being increasingly adapted for use in the medical field because of their capabilities of intelligent analysis and scalability. This study aimed to develop and validate ML models to predict the incidence of VTE among lung cancer patients.

Methods

Data of lung cancer patients from a Grade 3A cancer hospital in China with and without VTE were included. Patient characteristics and clinical predictors related to VTE were collected. The primary endpoint was the diagnosis of VTE during index hospitalization. We calculated and compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) using the selected best-performed model (Random Forest model) through multiple model comparison, as well as investigated feature contributions during the training process with both permutation importance scores and the impurity-based feature importance scores in random forest model.

Results

In total, 3,398 patients were included in our study, 125 of whom experienced VTE during their hospital stay. The ROC curve and precision–recall curve (PRC) for Random Forest Model showed an AUROC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.893–0.926) and an AUPRC of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.363–0.500). For the simplified model, five most relevant features were selected: Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), a history of VTE, recombinant human endostatin, EGFR-TKI, and platelet count. We re-trained a random forest classifier with results of the AUROC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.802–0.917) and AUPRC of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.265–0.358), respectively.

Conclusion

According to the study results, there was no conspicuous decrease in the model’s performance when use fewer features to predict, we concluded that our simplified model would be more applicable in real-life clinical settings. The developed model using ML algorithms in our study has the potential to improve the early detection and prediction of the incidence of VTE in patients with lung cancer.

Optimal authoritative risk assessment score of Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism for hospitalized medical patients with lung Cancer

Background

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with primary lung cancer. It has been understudied which authoritative risk assessment score of cancer-associated VTE is optimal for the assessment of VTE development in hospitalized medical patients with lung cancer.

Methods

Patients with lung cancer who had undergone computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), compression ultrasonography (CUS) of lower and upper extremities, and/or planar ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan to confirm the presence or absence of VTE during a medical hospitalization were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the actual prevalence of VTE among all patients, the possibility of VTE were reassessed with the Khorana score, the PROTECHT score, the CONKO score, the ONKOTEV score, the COMPASS-CAT score, and the CATS/MICA score, to compare their assessment accuracy for VTE development.

Results

A total of 1263 patients with lung cancer were incorporated into the final analysis. With respect to assessment efficiency for VTE occurrence, the scores with adjusted agreement from highest to lowest were the ONKOTEV score (78.6%), the PROTECHT score (73.4%), the CONKO score (72.1%), the COMPASS-CAT score (71.7%), the Khorana score (70.9%), and the CATS/MICA score (60.3%). The ONKOTEV score had the highest Youden index which was 0.68, followed by the PROTECHT score (0.58), the COMPASS-CAT score (0.56), the CONKO score (0.55), the Khorana score (0.53), and the CATS/MICA score (0.23).

Conclusions

Among the Khorana score, the PROTECHT score, the CONKO score, the ONKOTEV score, the COMPASS-CAT score, and the CATS/MICA score which are approved by authoritative guidelines, the ONKOTEV score is optimal for the assessment of VTE development in hospitalized medical patients with lung cancer.

Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Lung Cancer Patients: A Provincial Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in surgical patients. Thoracic surgery patients are at increased risk due to inherent technical and disease-specific factors. Other surgical specialties have adopted post-discharge extended VTE prophylaxis; however, evidence is scarce in thoracic surgery. This study aims to identify VTE risk factors and associated mortality among surgical lung cancer patients.

METHODS

Using administrative databases, all patients in the province of Ontario undergoing lung cancer surgery from 2007 to 2017 were identified. Logistic regression identified VTE risk factors at 90-days and one-year postoperatively. A flexible parametric survival analysis compared mortality and survival up to 5 years after surgery between patients with and without VTE.

RESULTS

Of 65,513 patients diagnosed with lung cancer, 12,626 (19.3%) underwent surgery. VTE incidence at 90-days and 1-year postoperatively was 1.3% and 2.7%, respectively. Open and more extensive resections carried an increased VTE-risk, with pneumonectomy conferring the highest risk (OR = 2.36; p<0.001). Stage III and IV disease carried a 3.19 and 4.97-times higher risk of VTE, respectively, compared to stage I (p<0.001). The hazard ratio for mortality at one year for patients with a VTE was 2.01 (p<0.001). Patients suffering a VTE had reduced 5-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing pneumonectomy and those with advanced stage have an increased VTE-risk. Patients suffering a thrombotic complication have an increased risk of mortality, and decreased 5-year survival. Accordingly, strategies to reduce VTE risk should be considered in patients undergoing high risk operations to reduce the mortality of VTEs.

Advances in the Prediction and Risk Assessment of Lung Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

According to the most recent data from the National Cancer Center, venous thromboembolism (VTE) has unsurprisingly become one of the most common complications in lung cancer. VTE not only interferes with the equilibrium of the clotting system but it also affects tumor progression and prognosis. For the identification of high-risk patients, many clinical risk assessment models have been developed and validated based on the risk factors found in previous studies. In this review, we will summarize advances in prediction and risk assessment of VTE, with a focus on early diagnosis and therapy, reduction of mortality, and the burden of medical costs in lung cancer patients.

Combined Effect of MTHFR C677T and PAI-1 4G/5G Polymorphisms on the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Chinese Lung Cancer Patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and potentially fatal complication in cancer patients. Although several genetic risk factors related to thrombophilia have been identified, their contributions for the occurrence of VTE in cancer patients have conflicting results. The aim of this study was to evaluated the gene polymorphisms of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) 4G/5G in lung cancer patients, with and without VTE, and the combined effect on the risk of VTE. 92 lung cancer patients diagnosed with VTE (VTE group) and 122 lung cancer patients without VTE (non-VTE group) were enrolled in the study. The gene polymorphisms were analyzed by the method of polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism. Gene mutation of factor V Leiden was not detected both in non-VTE group and VTE group. The frequency of MTHFR C677T homozygous mutation in VTE group was 25.00%, higher than that in the non-VTE group without statistical difference. It was found that the PAI-1 4G4G genotype is associated with a higher risk of VTE (OR: 2.62, 95%CI: 1.19-5.75). Interestingly, the interaction between MTHFR C677T and PAI-1 4G/5G polymorphisms showed that the coexistence of the 2 homozygous mutation could further increase the risk of VTE. In conclusion, PAI-1 4G/5G polymorphism may be an increased risk factor for VTE among lung cancer patients in Chinese population. The homozygous MTHFR C677T mutation may be not a risk factor for VTE but increases the risk, accompanied with PAI-1 4G5G genotype.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Clinical Scoping Review of the Risk Assessment Models Across Solid Tumours and Haematological Malignancies

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a leading cause of death in cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. The latest guidelines emphasize stratifying the patients in terms of CAT risks periodically. Multiple risk assessment models (RAMs) were developed to classify patients and guide thromboprophylaxis to high-risk patients. This study aimed to discuss and highlight different RAMs across various malignancy types with their related advantages and disadvantages. A scoping review was conducted using predefined search terms in three scientific databases, including Google Scholar, Science Direct, and PubMed. The search for studies was restricted to original research articles that reported risk assessment models published in the last thirteen years (between 2008 and 2021) to cover the most recently published evidence following the development of the principal risk assessment score in 2008. Data charting of the relevant trials, scores, advantages, and disadvantages were done iteratively considering the malignancy type. Of the initially identified 1115 studies, 39 studies with over 67,680 patients were included in the review. In solid organ malignancy, nine risk assessment scores were generated. The first and most known Khorana risk score still offers the best available risk assessment model when used for high-risk populations with a threshold of 2 and above. However, KRS has a limitation of failure to stratify low-risk patients. The COMPASS-CAT score showed the best performance in the lung carcinoma patients who have a higher prevalence of thrombosis than other malignancy subtypes. In testicular germ cell tumours, Bezan et al RAM is a validated good discriminatory RAM for this malignancy subtype. CAT in haematological malignancy seems to be under-investigated and has multiple disease-related, and treatment-related confounding factors. AL-Ani et al score performed efficiently in acute leukemia. In multiple myeloma, both SAVED and IMPEDED VTE scores showed good performance. Despite the availability of different disease-specific scores in lymphoma-related thrombosis, the standard of care needs to be redefined.

[Predicting the Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism Using the Khorana Score: A Literature Review]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally. The Khorana score, a VTE prediction model, is calculated using the site of cancer, white blood cell count, hemoglobin level, platelet count, and body mass index. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of the Khorana score, using data available in the literature. On July 28, 2020, we collected papers using the following keywords: "cancer", "venous thromboembolism", "deep vein thrombosis", "pulmonary embolism", and "Khorana score" on PubMed. Papers published after 2016 were eligible. The selection criteria were as follows: "English or Japanese", "original paper", "abstract and full text", and "comply with the clinical question". There were 131 papers that matched the keywords, and 15 of them complied with the selection criteria. In 15 papers, Khorana score was calculated in 8047 patients. In the low- and intermediate-risk groups, 532 of 6812 patients developed VTE [7.8%, 95%confidence intervals (CI) 7.2-8.5], whereas in the high-risk group, 127 of 1235 patients developed VTE (10.3%, 95% CI 8.7-12.1) [odds ratio (OR) 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6] (I²=0%, τ²=0, p=0.50). Venous thromboembolism prediction using the Khorana score might be useful. However, most of the number of VTE patients are in the low- and intermediate-risk groups. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation according to clinical conditions is required, regardless of the risk classification using the Khorana score.

Risk Factors and Prediction Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Patients with Lung Cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of mortality in patients with lung cancer. Despite the availability of a wide range of anticoagulants to help prevent thrombosis, thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients is a challenge due to its associated risk of haemorrhage. As a result, anticoagulation is only recommended in patients with a relatively high risk of VTE. Efforts have been made to develop predictive models for VTE risk assessment in cancer patients, but the availability of a reliable predictive model for ambulate patients with lung cancer is unclear. We have analysed the latest information on this topic, with a focus on the lung cancer-related risk factors for VTE, and risk prediction models developed and validated in this group of patients. The existing risk models, such as the Khorana score, the PROTECHT score and the CONKO score, have shown poor performance in external validations, failing to identify many high-risk individuals. Some of the newly developed and updated models may be promising, but their further validation is needed.

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.

Overview of risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with cancer

A B S T R A C T Important progress has been made in the development of risk assessment models (RAM) for the identification of outpatients on anticancer treatment at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Since the breakthrough publication of the original Khorana risk score (KRS) more than 10 years ago, a new generation of KRS-based scores have been developed, including the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study, PROTECHT, CONKO, ONCOTEV, TicOnco and the CATS/MICA score. Among these the CATS/MICA score showed that a simplified score composed of only two calibrated predictors, the type of cancer and the D-dimer levels, offers a user-friendly tool for the evaluation of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) risk. The COMPASS-CAT score is the first that introduced a more synthetic approach of risk evaluation by combining cancer-related predictors with patient comorbidity in a score which is designed for the types of cancer frequently seen in the community (i.e. breast, lung colon or ovarian cancers) and has been externally validated in independent studies. The Throly score is registered as part of the same group as it has a similar structure to the COMPASS-CAT score and is applicable in patients with lymphoma. The incorporation of specific biomarkers of hypercoagulability to the RAM for CAT offers the possibility to perform a precision medicine approach in the prevention of CAT. The improvement of RAM for CAT with artificial intelligence methodologies and deep learning techniques is the challenge in the near future.

Risk Assessment Models for Thrombosis and Anticoagulant-Related Bleeding in Ambulatory Cancer Patients

Cancer patients have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism and arterial thrombosis, along with an increased risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding with primary and secondary prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. Decisions on initiation, dosing, and duration of anticoagulant therapy for prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis are challenging, as clinicians have to balance patients' individual risk of (recurrent) thrombosis against the risk of bleeding complications. For this purpose, several dedicated risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients have been suggested. However, most of these scores perform poorly and have received limited to no validation. For bleeding and arterial thrombosis, no risk scores have been developed specifically for cancer patients, and treatment decisions remain based on clinical gestalt and rough and unstructured estimation of the risks. The aims of this review are to summarize the characteristics and performance of risk assessment scores for (recurrent) venous thromboembolism and discuss available data on risk assessment for bleeding and arterial thrombosis in the cancer population. This summary can help clinicians in daily practice to make a balanced decision when considering the use of risk assessment models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Future research attempts should aim at improving risk assessment for arterial thrombosis and anticoagulant-related bleeding in cancer patients.

High discrepancy in thrombotic events in non-small cell lung cancer patients with different genomic alterations

Background

Acute complications, such as venous thromboembolism (VTE), are common in patients with advanced severe lung cancers. However, current VTE risk scores cannot adequately identify high-risk patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study proposed to elucidated the incidence of thromboembolism (TE) in patients with different oncogenic aberrations and the impact of these aberrations on the efficacy of targeted therapy in patients with NSCLC.

Methods

A systemic review was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library to evaluate the incidence of TE in different molecular subtypes of NSCLC. Data from patients diagnosed of advanced NSCLC who harboring anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) or ROS proto-oncogene 1 receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1) rearrangements since 2016 to 2019 were also retrospectively collected. A meta-analysis with random-effects model, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were performed. The principal summary measure was incidence of thrombotic events in NSCLC patients. And the efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy was compared between the two subgroups.

Results

A total of 5,767 cases from 20 studies were included in the analysis of the incidence of thrombosis in patients with different oncogenic alterations. The pooled analysis showed a higher risk of thrombosis in ROS1-fusion types (41%, 95% CI: 35-47%) and ALK-fusion types (30%, 95% CI: 24-37%) than in EGFR-mutation (12%, 95% CI: 8-17%), KRAS-mutation (25%, 95% CI: 13-50%), and wild-type (14%, 95% CI: 10-20%) cases. A high prevalence of thrombosis (ALK: 24.4%; ROS1: 32.6%) was observed in the Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital (SPH) cohort of 224 patients with ALK or ROS1 fusion. Furthermore, patients with embolism had significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) after TKI therapy than those without embolism, both in the ALK+ cohort (5.6 vs. 12.9 months, P<0.0001) and in the ROS1+ cohort (9.6 vs. 17.6 months, P=0.0481).

Conclusions

NSCLC patients with ALK/ROS1 rearrangements are more likely to develop thrombosis than patients with other oncogenic alterations. Thrombosis may also be associated with an inferior response and PFS after TKI therapy.

Do lung cancer patients require routine anticoagulation treatment? A meta-analysis

Objective

We conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the utility of anticoagulant treatment in lung cancer patients.

Method

We retrieved studies focused on thrombosis and lung cancer by searching electronic databases. We evaluated the impact of thrombosis on the prognosis of lung cancer patients, assessed the efficacy and effect of anticoagulation treatment in lung cancer patients, and investigated risk factors for thrombosis in lung cancer patients.

Result

Lung cancer patients with thrombosis have a significantly worse overall survival. Anticoagulant treatment did not improve the prognosis of lung cancer patients. Although anticoagulant treatment was associated with a reduced incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism, there was an increased risk of hemorrhage in this population. The risk factors for thrombosis in lung cancer patients are adenocarcinoma, advanced tumor stage, and high serum levels of d-dimer.

Conclusion

Anticoagulation treatment in lung cancer patients should be more individualized. Routine anticoagulant treatment is not recommended.

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in 2020 and Beyond

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common cause of vascular mortality worldwide and comprises deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). In this review, we discuss how an understanding of VTE epidemiology and the results of thromboprophylaxis trials have shaped the current approach to VTE prevention. We will discuss modern thromboprophylaxis as it pertains to genetic risk factors, exogenous hormonal therapies, pregnancy, surgery, medical hospitalization, cancer, and what is known thus far about VTE in COVID-19 infection.

Could venous thromboembolism and major bleeding be indicators of lung cancer mortality? A nationwide database study

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is highly prevalent in cancer patients and can cause severe morbidity. VTE treatment is essential, but anticoagulation increases the risk of major bleeding. The purpose was to evaluate the impact of VTE and major bleeding on survival and to identify significant risk factors for these events in lung cancer patients.

Methods

Data were extracted from a permanent sample of the French national health information system (including hospital and out-of-hospital care) from 2009 to 2016. All episodes of VTE and major bleeding events within one year after cancer diagnosis were identified. A Cox model was used to analyse the effect of VTE and major bleeding on the patients’ one-year survival. VTE and major bleeding risk factors were analysed with a Fine and Gray survival model.

Results

Among the 2553 included patients with lung cancer, 208 (8%) had a VTE episode in the year following diagnosis and 341 (13%) had major bleeding. Almost half of the patients died during follow-up. Fifty-six (60%) of the patients presenting with pulmonary embolism (PE) died, 48 (42%) of the patients presenting with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) alone died and 186 (55%) of those presenting with a major bleeding event died. The risk of death was significantly increased following PE and major bleeding events. VTE concomitant with cancer diagnosis was associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrence beyond 6 months after the first VTE event (sHR = 4.07 95% CI: 1.57–10.52). Most major bleeding events did not appear to be related to treatment.

Conclusion

VTE is frequent after a diagnosis of lung cancer, but so are major bleeding events. Both PE and major bleeding are associated with an increased risk of death and could be indicators of lung cancer mortality.

Do we need prophylactic anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with lung cancer? A review

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of malignancy. Lung cancer is considered one of the most thrombogenic cancer types. Primary thromboprophylaxis is not currently recommended for all ambulatory patients with active cancer. In the present narrative review we aim to summarize recent data on the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis as well as on venous thromboembolism risk assessment, focusing on ambulatory patients with lung cancer. A potential benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparins in terms of venous thromboembolism risk reduction and increased overall survival in patients with lung cancer, without a significant increase in bleeding risk, has been reported in several studies. Recent studies also reveal promising results of direct oral anticoagulants regarding their efficacy as primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer, including those with lung cancer. However, the use of different study methodologies and the heterogeneity of study populations among the trials limit the extraction of definite results. More randomized, controlled trials, restricted to a well-characterized population of patients with lung cancer, are greatly anticipated. The use of risk assessment tools for stratification of venous thromboembolic risk is warranted. The development of an accurate and practical risk assessment model for patients with lung cancer represents an unmet need.

A multicenter study of thromboembolic events among patients diagnosed with ROS1-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe the longitudinal thromboembolism (TE) risk relative to the natural history of disease and clinical course of ROS1 rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cases of ROS1-rearranged NSCLC from six Australian hospitals were pooled and evaluated for incidence, timing, predictors and outcomes of venous or arterial TE, as well as objective response rate (ORR) to active therapy and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of 42 patients recruited, 20 (48%) experienced TE; one (2%) arterial, 13 (31%) a pulmonary emboli (PE), and 12 (29%) a deep vein thrombosis. Among those with TE, six (30%) experienced multiple events, three as concurrent and three as recurrent diagnoses. The cumulative incidence of TE over time, adjusted for death as a competing risk factor, approached 50%. TE occurred prior to, during and post the peri-diagnostic period and occurred irrespective of treatment strategy. A thrombophilia was identified in n = 3/10 (30%) cases screened: in two factor V Leiden and in one anti-thrombin III (ATIII) deficiency. Median OS was 21.3 months in those with TE vs. 28.8 months in those without; hazard ratio 1.16 (95%CI 0.43-3.15). Respective ORR to first-line therapy with TE was 50% vs. 44% without TE in the chemotherapy arm and 67% vs. 50% in the targeted therapy arm.

CONCLUSION

In the rare cancer subtype, ROS1, these real-world data demonstrate sustained TE risk beyond the diagnostic period irrespective of therapeutic strategy. High incidence of PE, concurrent TE, and recurrent TE warrant validation in larger cohorts. Consideration of primary thromboprophylaxis in ROS1 populations is recommended.

Risk for Venous Thromboembolic Events in Patients With Advanced Urinary Tract Cancer Treated With First-Line Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) frequently occur in cancer patients. Risk assessment models (RAMs) for cancer-associated thrombosis have been proposed. However, advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) was not adequately represented in these models. We studied the incidence of VTEs, the risk factors, and the applicability of recently described RAMs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 335 patients with aUTC treated with chemotherapy between April 1995 and September 2015 in a single institution were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 95.2% received platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. Twenty-nine patients (8.7%) experienced VTEs. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month VTE incidence was 7.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-10.6), 8.1% (95% CI, 5.4-11.5) and 9.4% (95% CI, 6.4-13.1), respectively. No significant association of VTE incidence with the Khorana risk score was observed. History of vascular event (VTE and/or arterial thromboembolic event) was significantly associated with the development of VTE. Patients with such history had a 6-, 12-, and 24-month VTE incidence of 16.2% (95% CI, 6.6-29.7), 19.2% (95% CI, 8.4-33.3), and 25.2% (95% CI, 12.5-40.1) compared to 6.2% (95% CI, 3.7-9.4), 6.6% (95% CI, 4.1-10), and 7.1% (95% CI, 4.4-10.6) of those who did not. The discriminatory ability of this factor adjusted for leucocyte count, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and type of chemotherapy reached 0.79 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87) compared to the 0.58 (95% CI, 0.49-0.66) for the Khorana risk score.

CONCLUSION

Development of tumor-specific algorithms for the risk of VTEs is advisable. Patients with aUTC and a history of vascular events are at high risk for VTE development, and prophylaxis should be prospectively studied in this group.

Association between the Khorana score and pulmonary embolism risk in patients with advanced stage lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The Khorana score may help physicians to identify patients at high risk of Pulmonary embolism (PE) and decide who is eligible for thromboprophylaxis, however, its role in lung cancer patients remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate association between the Khorana score and risk of PE development among advanced stage lung cancer inpatients treated with chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included 2008-2017 year data of 217 lung cancer inpatients with IIIB and IV clinical stages receiving chemotherapy. The Khorana score was evaluated and patients were divided in two groups: a group of patients with 1 point and a group of patients with 2 or more points of the Khorana score.

RESULTS

The study population included 46 (21.2%) female and 171 (78.8%) male patients whose median age was 62. During median observation period of 308.5 days 26 (11.9%) patients developed PE. Study included 137 patients with 1 point and 80 patients with 2 or more points of the Khorana score. The frequency of PE was 17 (12.4%) among patients with 1 point and 9 (11.3%) among patients with 2 points of the Khorana score. The relative risk of PE for patients with 2 or more points was 0.895 (95% CI = 0.379-2.114), P = 0.800.

CONCLUSION

The Khorana score was not associated with PE development risk among advanced stage lung cancer inpatients treated with chemotherapy.

[Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism in 283 Patients with Lung Cancer during Systemic Therapy]

背景与目的

肺癌患者是静脉血栓栓塞症（venous thrombo-embolism, VTE）的高危人群，合并VTE者具有较高的死亡率。本研究旨在明确接受系统性治疗肺癌患者的VTE发生情况及影响因素。

方法

回顾性分析2016年1月-2018年12月在北京大学第三医院肿瘤化疗与放射病科接受系统性治疗的283例肺癌患者，卡方检验分析VTE与临床特征间的关系，多因素回归分析影响VTE的高危因素。

结果

283例肺癌患者中，VTE发生率为12.01%（34/283）。有下肢静脉曲张组的VTE发生率为50.00%（5/10），显著高于无下肢静脉曲张组的9.89%（27/273）（P=0.001）。远处转移患者的VTE发生率为14.05%（26/185），高于带瘤但无远处转移患者的14.00%（7/50），且高于无瘤患者的2.08%（1/48）（P=0.024）。肿瘤活动组的VTE发生率为16.93%（21/124），显著高于稳定组的8.18%（3/159)（P=0.025）。首次药物治疗前白蛋白 < 35g/L组VTE发生率为22.00%（11/50），显著高于≥35 g/L组的9.87%（23/233）（P=0.017）；D-二聚体 > 0.3 μg/mL组VTE发生率为17.93%（26/145），显著高于≤0.3 μg/mL组的5.80%（8/138）（P=0.006）。接受PICC的患者上肢静脉血栓的发生率为9.71%（17/175），显著高于未行PICC组的1.85%（2/108）（P=0.010）。肺癌病理类型、白细胞、血红蛋白、血小板计数及是否接受抗血管生成药物治疗等因素与VTE的发生率无关。多因素分析显示下肢静脉曲张、低白蛋白血症、D-二聚体升高是VTE的独立影响因素。

结论

有无下肢静脉曲张、血白蛋白和D-二聚体水平或许是预测肺癌患者系统性治疗期间发生VTE更为有效的因子，可进一步建立新的预测模型并进行前瞻性验证。

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.

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Khorana score in predicting venous thromboembolic events in ambulatory cancer patients. Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2008 to June 2018 for studies which evaluated the Khorana score. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Additional data on the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism were sought by contacting corresponding authors. The incidence in each Khorana score risk group was estimated with random effects meta-analysis. A total of 45 articles and eight abstracts were included, comprising 55 cohorts enrolling 34,555 ambulatory cancer patients. For 27,849 patients (81%), 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall, 19% of patients had a Khorana score of 0 points, 64% a score of 1 or 2 points, and 17% a score of 3 or more points. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in the first six months was 5.0% (95%CI: 3.9-6.5) in patients with a low-risk Khorana score (0 points), 6.6% (95%CI: 5.6-7.7) in those with an intermediate-risk Khorana score (1 or 2 points), and 11.0% (95%CI: 8.8-13.8) in those with a high-risk Khorana score (3 points or higher). Of the patients with venous thromboembolism in the first six months, 23.4% (95%CI: 18.4-29.4) had been classified as high risk according to the Khorana score. In conclusion, the Khorana score can be used to select ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism for thromboprophylaxis; however, most events occur outside this high-risk group.