Risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding after major surgery for ovarian cancer: standard in-hospital versus extended duration of thromboprophylaxis

Bleeding Risk in Patients with Cancer

The hemostatic system and cancer display a tight interconnection, and hemostatic imbalance frequently occurs in patients with cancer. While extensive knowledge about thrombotic risk has been generated, less is known about bleeding risk and associated risk factors. However, bleeding risk is of high significance as patients with cancer frequently receive therapeutic anticoagulation for various indications and/or are candidates for primary thromboprophylaxis. The risk of bleeding in patients with cancer is variable and difficult to assess in clinical practice. Certain clinical settings such as hospitalization, specific underlying risk factors (e.g., tumor type), and medications (e.g., anticoagulation) can contribute to the individual bleeding risk of a patient with cancer. In addition, some dynamic factors such as platelet count or kidney function have an impact. Particularly, data on baseline risk of bleeding are lacking to allow for risk assessment in cancer patients without anticoagulation. In contrast, risk assessment models for the prediction of bleeding events in cancer patients receiving anticoagulation have been developed; however, these have yet to be validated. The recognition of the importance of bleeding risk in cancer patients is growing, leading to an increasing number of studies investigating and reporting bleeding complications. As study designs and reporting of bleeding events vary, it is challenging to offer a clear synthesis of evidence. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of currently available data about incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact of bleeding events in patients with cancer, and critically review risk assessment models for bleeding in cancer patients during anticoagulant therapy.

Extended-duration thromboprophylaxis following major abdominopelvic surgery - For everyone or selected cases only?

Major abdominopelvic surgery is an important risk factor for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTE is the leading cause of 30-day postoperative mortality in patients with cancer undergoing major abdominopelvic surgery. Randomized controlled trials have shown that extended duration thromboprophylaxis using a low molecular weight heparin or a direct oral anticoagulant significantly decreases the risk of overall VTE (symptomatic events and asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis). Hence, several clinical practice guidelines suggest the use of extended duration thromboprophylaxis for all high-risk patients undergoing major abdominopelvic surgery. Despite these recommendations by clinical practice guidelines, adoption of extended duration thromboprophylaxis in clinical practice remains low and clinical equipoise seems to persist. In this narrative review, we aim is to highlight and summarize the reasons that may explain discrepancy between clinical guideline recommendations and current practice regarding extended duration thromboprophylaxis in this patient population. We also aim to review different personalized approaches based on patients' individualized risk of VTE that may foster shared decision making and improve patient outcomes by reducing decisional conflict, increasing patient knowledge, and increasing risk perception accuracy.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) use for prolonged venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following surgery for gynaecological malignancies in Australia and New Zealand - A clinician survey

BACKGROUND

Current international guidelines recommend 28 days of enoxaparin as venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after surgery for gynaecologic cancer. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been investigated as an alternative to enoxaparin for post-operative VTE prophylaxis. High-quality evidence to demonstrate safety and efficacy is lacking.

AIMS

We aim to investigate the current practice regarding VTE prophylaxis among gynaecological oncologists in Australia and New Zealand following laparotomy for gynaecological malignancy, in particular the use of DOACs for VTE prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-seven practising gynaecologic oncologists (GO) were identified through Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists database and emailed online surveys that asked about VTE prophylaxis practice and views of DOACs in this setting. Data were then collected through Survey Monkey and evaluated.

RESULTS

The majority (77.1%) routinely prescribed 28 days of enoxaparin following laparotomy for gynaecological malignancies. In clinical circumstance such as laparoscopy for gynaecological malignancies and surgery for vulva malignancies, there was variation in thromboprophylaxis practices. No GO reported routine use of DOACs in any clinical circumstance. There were 56% of GOs who used a DOAC in their practice at some point. Barriers to routine use of DOACs in current practice included insufficient evidence (68%), issue with cost (40.4%) and concerns about safety (29.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Enoxaparin prescribed for 28 days remains the current clinical practice in preventing VTE following laparotomy for gynaecological malignancy. The main barrier to routine DOAC use as post-operative thromboprophylaxis is a lack of evidence which reflects the need for a larger prospective study.

High rates of venous thromboembolism among deliveries complicated by cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is increased independently by both cancer and pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate VTE risk in the postpartum period among patients delivering with a cancer diagnosis, stratified by cancer type and delivery route.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study utilizing the large, all-payer Nationwide Readmissions Database from October 2015 through December 2020. We identified delivery hospitalizations, cancer diagnoses, and VTE using patient demographics and diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was VTE incidence at 42 and 330 days from delivery admission date, comparing patients with and without cancer diagnoses. A secondary analysis included VTE risk stratified by cancer diagnosis and delivery route. Outcomes were compared using inverse probability-weighted survival curves.

RESULTS

The study population included 9 793 503 delivery hospitalizations (weighted estimate, 18 207 346), with a weighted estimate of 10 428 (0.06%) pregnant patients with cancer. Individuals with cancer were older, with higher rates of comorbid conditions, than those without cancer. VTE incidence in individuals with cancer at 42 and 330 days was 1.11% and 2.19%, respectively, vs 0.11% and 0.14%, respectively, in those without cancer. At 330 days, this finding was significant in both unadjusted (relative risk, 15.52; 95% CI, 11.54-19.51) and adjusted (relative risk, 9.68; 95% CI, 7.18-12.18) models. Stratification by cancer type and delivery route demonstrated elevated VTE risk across cancer types, with cesarean delivery conferring a greater risk.

CONCLUSION

Cancer in pregnancy confers excess thromboembolic risk extending beyond the immediate postpartum period. Further study is needed to identify optimal VTE prophylactic strategies for this population.