Factors influencing the use of thromboprophylaxis in cancer outpatients in clinical practice: A prospective study

Safety profile of preoperative administration of low-molecular-weight heparin on minimally invasive lung cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Venous thromboembolism remains a common but preventable complication for cancerous lung surgical patients. Current guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for lung patients at high risk of thrombosis, while a consensus about specific administration time is not reached. This study was designed to investigate the safety profile of preoperative administration of low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) for lung cancer patients.

Methods

From July 2017 to June 2018, patients prepared to undergo lung cancer surgery were randomly divided into the preoperative LMWH-administration group (PRL) for 4000 IU per day and the postoperative LMWH-administration group (POL) with same dosage, all the patients received thromboprophylaxis until discharge. Baseline characteristics including demographics and preoperative coagulation parameters were analyzed, while the endpoints included postoperative coagulation parameters, postoperative drainage data, hematologic data, intraoperative bleeding volume and reoperation rate.

Results

A total of 246 patients were collected in this RCT, 34 patients were excluded according to exclusion criterion, 101 patients were assigned to PRL group and 111 patients belonged to POL group for analysis finally. The baseline characteristic and preoperative coagulation parameters were all comparable except the PRL group cost more operation time (p = 0.008) and preoperative administration duration was significantly longer (p < 0.001). The endpoints including postoperative day 1 coagulation parameters, mean and total drainage volume, drainage duration, intraoperative bleeding volume and reoperation rate were all similar between the two groups. Moreover, coagulation parameters for postoperative day 3 between the two groups demonstrated no difference.

Conclusion

Preoperative administration of low-molecular-weight-heparin demonstrated safety and feasibility for lung cancer patients intended to receive minimally invasive surgery.

Trial registration: ChiCTR2000040547 (www.chictr.org.cn), 2020/12/1, retrospectively registered.

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.

Improvement of appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients with a multiscreen e-alert system: a single-centre experience

PURPOSE

Thromboprophylaxis use among medical inpatients, including cancer patients, is suboptimal. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a novel multiscreen version (v2.0) of an e-alert system for VTE prevention in hospitalised cancer medical patients compared to the original software.

METHODS

Prospective study including 989 consecutive adult cancer patients with high-risk of VTE. Patients were followed-up 30 days post-discharge. Two periods were defined, according to the operative software.

RESULTS

E-alert v2.0 was associated with an increase in the use of LMWH prophylaxis (65.5% vs. 72.0%); risk difference (95% CI) 0.064 (0.0043-0.12). Only 16% of patients in whom LMWH prophylaxis was not prescribed lacked a contraindication. No significant differences in the rates of VTE (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and major bleeding (2.7% vs. 4.0%) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

E-alert v2.0 further increased the use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients, although was not associated with a reduction in VTE incidence.

Facing the challenge of venous thromboembolism prevention in patients undergoing major abdominal surgical procedures for gastrointestinal cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) refers to a hypercoagulable state that remains an important and preventable factor in the surgical treatment of malignancies. VTE includes two identical entities with regards to deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The incidence of VTE after major abdominal interventions for gastro-intestinal, hepato-biliary and pancreatic neoplastic disorders is as high as 25% without prophylaxis. Prophylactic use of classic or low-molecular-weight heparin, anti-Xa factors, antithrombotic stocking, intermittent pneumatic compression devices and early mobilization have been described. Nevertheless, thromboprophylaxis is often discontinued after discharge, although a serious risk may persist long after the initial triggering event, as the coagulation system remains active for at least 14 d post-operatively. The aim of this review is to evaluate the results of the current practice of VTE prevention in cancer patients undergoing major abdominal surgical operations, with special attention to adequately elucidated guidelines and widely accepted protocols. In addition, the recent literature is presented in order to provide an update on the current concepts concerning the surgical management of the disease.

Insights into venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized cancer patients: Lessons from a prospective study

Hospitalized cancer patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite current recommendations in clinical guidelines, thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is underused. We performed an observational prospective study to analyse factors influencing prophylaxis use, VTE events and mortality in cancer-hospitalized patients. 1072 consecutive adult cancer patients were included in an University Hospital from April 2014 to February 2017, and followed-up for 30 days after discharge. The rate of LMWH prophylaxis was 67.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64.7% to 70.4%), with a 2.8% rate of VTE events (95% CI 1.9% to 3.9%) and 3.5% rate of major bleeding events (95% CI 2.5% to 4.8%). 80% of VTE events occurred despite appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 13.2% (95% CI 11.2% to 15.3%). Active chemotherapy treatment, hospital stay ≥ 4 days, and metastatic disease were associated with a higher use of LMWH. On the contrary, patients with hematologic malignancies, anemia or thrombocytopenia were less prone to receive thromboprophylaxis. The main reasons for not prescribing LMWH prophylaxis were thrombocytopenia (23.9%) and active/recent bleeding (21.8%). The PRETEMED score, used for VTE risk stratification, correlated with 30-day mortality. There is room for improvement in thromboprophylaxis use among hospitalized-cancer patients, especially among those with hematologic malignancies. A relevant number of VTE events occurred despite prophylaxis with LMWH. Therefore, identification of risk factors for thromboprophylaxis failure is needed.

Physicians' decision about long-term thromboprophylaxis in cancer outpatients: CAT AXIS, a case vignette study on clinical practice in France

PURPOSE

Data on long-term venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in cancer outpatients remain scarce. In the absence of clear and consistent treatment guidelines, our objectives were to describe and better understand clinical practice and to identify factors influencing the use of thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

CAT AXIS was a multicentred cross-sectional study based on the completion of physician-profile questionnaires and the assessment of 10 e-mailed credible clinical scenarios of lung, colon and breast cancers by each of participants using the case vignette-validated method.

RESULTS

A total of 224 physicians participated allowing the completion and the analysis of 2085 reviewed case vignettes corresponding to 765, 703 and 617 fictive clinical scenarios on lung, colon and breast cancers, respectively. The overall rate of thromboprophylaxis was 680/2085 (32.6%) among participants with a comparable proportion for the three types of cancer. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the most frequently used, by 92.7, 93.8 and 83.9% of participants for lung, colon and breast cancers, respectively; thromboprophylaxis duration of ≥ 3 months was used by 74.4% of participants. Multivariate analyses revealed that the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group index, metastatic malignancy, chemotherapy and history of thrombosis were significantly associated with the therapeutic decision unlike Khorana score and anaemia.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of clear guidance, the use of thromboprophylaxis remains low and rather empiric even though the selection of LMWH by the majority of participants and treatment duration seems appropriate based on available data to date. Specific guidelines with corresponding awareness are required.

Clinical practice guidelines for prophylaxis of venous thomboembolism in cancer patients

Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs 4-7 times more frequently in cancer patients as compared to non-cancer patients. A significant number of risk factors, which can be subcategorised as patient-, cancer- or treatment-related, have been shown to influence the risk of VTE during malignancy and further incorporated in risk-assessment models. Safe and efficient thromboprophylaxis regimens allow substantial decreased in VTE rates, since VTE is most often a largely preventable disease, but thromboprophylaxis remains underused in cancer compared to non-cancer patients. If thromboprophylaxis is warranted in cancer patients undergoing surgery or hospitalised for acute medical illness or with a lower mobility in the absence of contraindications to anticoagulants, its benefit remains controversial in outpatients and may be limited to locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic or lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer-CME free mobile app (ios and android), based on the International Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), facilitates their implementation and dissemination of knowledge worldwide so as to improve VTE treatment and prophylaxis in cancer patients.

Rivaroxaban for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Ambulatory Patients with Cancer: Rationale and Design of the CASSINI Trial. Rationale and Design of the CASSINI Trial

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of cancer associated with morbidity, mortality, increased hospitalizations and higher health care costs. Cancer patients at increased risk for VTE can be identified using a validated risk assessment score, and the incidence of VTE can be reduced in high-risk settings using anticoagulation. Rivaroxaban is a potent, oral, direct, factor Xa inhibitor approved for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events, including VTE. CASSINI is a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing rivaroxaban with placebo in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers who are initiating systemic cancer therapy and are at high risk of VTE (Khorana score ≥ 2). Patients with primary brain tumours or those at risk for bleeding are excluded. Approximately 700 patients will be randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily or placebo for up to 6 months if there is no evidence of VTE from compression ultrasonography (CU) during screening or from routine care imaging within 30 days prior to randomization. Mandatory CU will also be performed at weeks 8 and 16 (±7 days), and at study end (±3 days). The primary efficacy hypothesis is that anticoagulation with rivaroxaban reduces the composite of objectively confirmed symptomatic or asymptomatic, lower-extremity, proximal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT); symptomatic, upper-extremity DVT; symptomatic or incidental pulmonary embolism; and VTE-related death compared with placebo. The primary safety objective is to assess major bleeding events (Clinical trial information: NCT02555878).