Adjuvant therapy and thrombosis: How to avoid the problem?

Do breast cancer patients have increased risk of complications after primary total hip and total knee arthroplasty?

Aims

Breast cancer survivors have known risk factors that might influence the results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with breast cancer history after primary THA and TKA.

Methods

Our total joint registry identified patients with breast cancer history undergoing primary THA (n = 423) and TKA (n = 540). Patients were matched 1:1 based upon age, sex, BMI, procedure (hip or knee), and surgical year to non-breast cancer controls. Mortality, implant survival, and complications were assessed via Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes were evaluated via Harris Hip Scores (HHSs) or Knee Society Scores (KSSs). Mean follow-up was six years (2 to 15).

Results

Breast cancer patient survival at five years was 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89% to 95%) after THA and 94% (95% CI 92% to 97%) after TKA. Breast and non-breast cancer patients had similar five-year implant survival free of any reoperation or revision after THA (p ≥ 0.412) and TKA (p ≥ 0.271). Breast cancer patients demonstrated significantly lower survival free of any complications after THA (91% vs 96%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.4); p = 0.017). Specifically, the rate of intraoperative fracture was 2.4% vs 1.4%, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 1.4% and 0.5% for breast cancer and controls, respectively, after THA. No significant difference was noted in any complications after TKA (p ≥ 0.323). Both breast and non-breast cancer patients experienced similar improvements in HHSs (p = 0.514) and KSSs (p = 0.132).

Conclusion

Breast cancer survivors did not have a significantly increased risk of mortality or reoperation after primary THA and TKA. However, there was a two-fold increased risk of complications after THA, including intraoperative fracture and VTE.

Risk of perioperative hormonal breast cancer therapy for microvascular flap complications in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy with selective estrogen modulators (tamoxifen) and aromatase inhibitors is commonly used in the treatment of breast cancer. While the increased risk for thromboembolic events has been known since their early application, the potential risk in microsurgical breast reconstruction is still debated. This study aimed to evaluate the risk for microvascular flap complications in patients with perioperative hormone therapy.

METHODS

All patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) or transverse myocutaneous gracilis flap at our institution between March 2010 and November 2020 were retrospectively identified in our records. Patients were grouped according to the type and use of perioperative hormone therapy. Flap-related thromboembolic events, flap loss, and revision procedures were compared and analyzed between groups. Risk factors associated with postoperative microsurgical complications were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients (656 flaps) were included in our analysis. One hundred ninety-eight patients (224 flaps) received perioperative hormone therapy (35.4%) and 50 (8.9%) postoperative microsurgical events occurred. Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors were not associated with postoperative microsurgical events (p = 0.254), full flap loss (p = 0.702), or partial flap loss (p = 0.916). Patients receiving DIEP flaps had a higher risk for postoperative microsurgical complications (OR 2.36, p = 0.004) and partial flap loss (OR 14.66, p < 0.001). A BMI > 30 was associated with an increased risk for partial flap loss (OR 4.2; p < 0.001) CONCLUSION: This article presents one of the largest single-center datasets for the risks of hormone therapy in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Our results show that perioperative hormone therapy does not increase the risk for microsurgical complications. The findings of our study do challenge the common practice of discontinued hormone therapy before microsurgical breast reconstruction.

Acute arterial thrombosis during adjuvant Adriamycin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in a patient with early breast cancer: A case report

RATIONALE

Cancer and chemotherapy individually confer hypercoagulability and increased risks of thrombosis. Most thromboembolic complication after breast cancer chemotherapy was venous thrombosis after multiagent chemotherapy. Arterial thrombosis is extremely rare in early breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

PRESENTING CONCERNS

A 55-year-old woman with right breast cancer presented to the emergency department with sudden pain, numbness, and swelling in her left hand. She underwent breast conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy 2 months before the visit. She received the second cycle of adjuvant Adriamycin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy 5 days before.

INTERVENTIONS

Computed tomography angiography revealed acute arterial thrombosis in the left brachial, radial, and ulnar arteries. Unfractionated heparin was initiated immediately, followed by brachial and radial-ulnar thrombectomy, restoring perfusion to the extremity. The postoperative course was uncomplicated; she was discharged on warfarin at a daily dose of 4 mg.

OUTCOMES

Chemotherapy was discontinued. Anticoagulation with warfarin was continued. She subsequently received adjuvant endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor and adjuvant radiotherapy.

MAIN LESSONS

Despite the low risks of arterial thrombosis in breast cancer, it is a devastating complication with significant morbidity and mortality. Thromboprophylaxis should be considered in those at risk. Immediate anticoagulant therapy and surgical intervention should be considered in affected cases.

The use of concurrent hormonotherapy and radiotherapy does not deteriorate radiation-induced cardiac toxicity

Postmenopausal patients with breast cancer have two options for adjuvant endocrine therapy, tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) as well as radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy. However, there is limited data regarding the optimal sequencing of RT and tamoxifen/AIs. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tamoxifen and AIs on radiation-induced cardiotoxicity. Eighty ovariectomized rats were divided into eight groups (G). G1 was defined as a control group; G2, G3, G4, and G5 were RT, tamoxifen, anastrozle, and letrozole groups, respectively; G6, G7, and G8 were RT plus tamoxifen, anastrozle, and letrozole groups, respectively. Drugs were started 1 week before RT and continued until the animals were killed 16 weeks after RT. The heart tissues were then dissected and examined with light microscopy to determine endocardial thickness and cardiac fibrosis. The endocardial thickness scores of both RT alone and the tamoxifen groups as well as the cardiac fibrosis score of RT alone were higher than that the control group ( p < 0.05 for all). There was no difference in the endocardial thickness and cardiac fibrosis scores of the RT-only group and the RT plus hormonotherapy groups ( p > 0.05 for all). Concurrent administration of RT and hormonal therapy with either tamoxifen or AIs did not further amplify radiation-induced cardiac toxicity. This issue warrants further study.

Management of chemotherapy-induced thromboembolism in breast cancer

Thromboembolic events are common in cancer patients and, apart from contributing to significant morbidity, are regarded as the second leading cause of death in this population. Breast cancer patients are considered low risk for venous thromboembolism; however, the presence of advanced disease and use of chemotherapy and/or other adjunct treatments significantly raises this risk by altering the balance of pro- and anti-coagulant proteins. Low molecular weight heparin is central to the management of venous thromboembolism in this context, whether for prophylaxis, acute management or prevention of recurrences. Risk stratification models need to be incorporated to guide decision making where available.

Investigation of Proposed Mechanisms of Chemotherapy-Induced Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) during chemotherapy is common, with 7% mortality in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In a prospective cohort study of patients with breast cancer, we investigated whether vascular endothelial cell activation (VECA), and whether apoptosis, is the cause of chemotherapy-induced VTE. Methods: Serum markers of VECA, E-selectin (E-sel), vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) and d-dimer (fibrin degradation and hypercoagulability marker) were measured prechemotherapy and at 1, 4, and 8 days following chemotherapy. Clinical deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism and occult DVT detected by duplex ultrasound imaging were recorded as VTE-positive (VTE+). In patients with MBC, hypercoagulable response to chemotherapy was compared between patients with and without cancer progression. Development of VTE and cancer progression was assessed 3 months following starting chemotherapy. Results: Of the 134 patients, 10 (7.5%) developed VTE (6 [17%] of 36 MBC receiving palliation, 0 of 11 receiving neoadjuvant to downsize tumor, and 4 [5%] of 87 early breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, P = .06). Levels of E-sel and VCAM-1 decreased in response to chemotherapy ( P < .001) in both VTE+ and patients not developing VTE (VTE−). However, decrease in VECA markers was similar in VTE+ and VTE− patients, implying this is not the cause of VTE. In patients with MBC following chemotherapy, d-dimer (geometric mean) increased by 36% in the 21 patients with MBC responding to chemotherapy but steadily decreased by 11% in the 15 who progressed (day 4, P < .01), implying patients with tumor response (apoptosis) had an early hypercoagulable response. Conclusions: During chemotherapy for breast cancer, VECA is induced; however, this is not the primary mechanism for VTE. Chemotherapy-induced apoptosis may enhance hypercoagulability and initiate VTE.

Platelets and cancer: a casual or causal relationship: revisited

Human platelets arise as subcellular fragments of megakaryocytes in bone marrow. The physiologic demand, presence of disease such as cancer, or drug effects can regulate the production circulating platelets. Platelet biology is essential to hemostasis, vascular integrity, angiogenesis, inflammation, innate immunity, wound healing, and cancer biology. The most critical biological platelet response is serving as "First Responders" during the wounding process. The exposure of extracellular matrix proteins and intracellular components occurs after wounding. Numerous platelet receptors recognize matrix proteins that trigger platelet activation, adhesion, aggregation, and stabilization. Once activated, platelets change shape and degranulate to release growth factors and bioactive lipids into the blood stream. This cyclic process recruits and aggregates platelets along with thrombogenesis. This process facilitates wound closure or can recognize circulating pathologic bodies. Cancer cell entry into the blood stream triggers platelet-mediated recognition and is amplified by cell surface receptors, cellular products, extracellular factors, and immune cells. In some cases, these interactions suppress immune recognition and elimination of cancer cells or promote arrest at the endothelium, or entrapment in the microvasculature, and survival. This supports survival and spread of cancer cells and the establishment of secondary lesions to serve as important targets for prevention and therapy.

Primary venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and review current medical literature regarding the efficacy and safety of antithrombotic therapy for primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in various ambulatory cancer populations.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted in PubMed (1966-September 2012) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-September 2012) using the terms venous thromboembolism, primary prophylaxis, anticoagulation, antithrombotic agents, cancer, and ambulatory. The bibliographies of pertinent studies and topic articles were reviewed for additional references.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language articles were evaluated for inclusion. All randomized trials were included in the review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Malignancy has been identified as a major independent risk factor for the development of VTE in the surgical, medically ill, and ambulatory populations. Primary VTE prophylaxis has been identified as an area of great impact in cancer patients because of the difficulties associated with the treatment of VTE and the greater risk for its recurrence in this population. Although primary VTE prophylaxis is recommended in all surgical and hospitalized cancer patients without contraindications to anticoagulants, its role in ambulatory cancer patients is less certain because of varying patient, cancer, and treatment-related factors. Fourteen randomized studies have investigated the use of antithrombotic agents for primary VTE prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients. Strong evidence for primary prophylaxis exists for several populations with advanced or metastatic cancer considered to be at high risk, including those with pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, or multiple myeloma. Evidence is inconsistent or lacking for lower risk cancer populations, such as those with breast cancer, or for those with malignant glioma, which carries a high risk for VTE and bleeding relative to the general ambulatory cancer population.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of antithrombotic agents has reduced the rate of primary VTE, with minimal increases in bleeding risk in specific ambulatory cancer populations. Further investigation is needed to guide and narrow recommendations for primary VTE prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients.

Epidemiology, risk and outcomes of venous thromboembolism in cancer

Cancer is associated with a fourfold increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk of VTE varies according to the type of malignancy (i. e. pancreatic cancer, brain cancer, lymphoma) and its disease stage and individual factors (i. e. sex, race, age, previous VTE history, immobilization, obesity). Preventing cancer-associated VTE is important because it represents a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. In order to identify cancer patient at particularly high risk, who need thromboprophylaxis, risk prediction models have become available and are under validation. These models include clinical risk factors, but also begin to incorporate biological markers. The major American and European scientific societies have issued their recommendations to guide the management of VTE in patients with cancer. In this review the principal aspects of epidemiology, risk factors and outcome of cancer-associated VTE are summarized.