Benefit and risk of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Venous thromboembolism incidence and association with overall survival in pancreatic cancer: A Finnish nationwide cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). We investigated the incidence of VTE before and after the diagnosis of PC and its association with overall survival.

METHODS

We identified PC patients diagnosed in 2013-2016 from the Finnish Cancer Registry. Data on healthcare visits and death were collected, along with follow-up data through the end of 2020. We compared patients who underwent radical-intent surgery (RIS) to those who underwent palliative treatment (PT) alone.

RESULTS

We identified 4086 PC patients, of whom 343 (8.4%) underwent RIS and 3743 (91.6%) received PT. VTE incidence within 1 year before a PC diagnosis was higher in the PT (4.2%, n = 156) than in the RIS group (0.6%, n = 2; p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of VTE at 12 and 24 months after a PC diagnosis was 6% (n = 21) and 9% (n = 31), respectively, within the RIS group, and 8% (n = 286) and 8% (n = 304) within the PT group. In the PT group, a VTE within 1 year before a PC diagnosis was independently associated with a worse survival {hazard ratio, HR 1.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-2.2]}. In both groups, VTE after a PC diagnosis was associated with a worse survival [RIS group: HR 2.6 (95%CI 1.8-3.7) vs. PT group: HR 2.2 (95%CI 1.9-2.4)].

CONCLUSIONS

A VTE within 1 year before a PC diagnosis more often occurred among PT PC patients than among patients who underwent RIS. VTE might serve as a diagnostic clue to detect PC at an earlier stage.

Cancer-associated thrombosis and drug-drug interactions of antithrombotic and antineoplastic agents

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often associated with malignant diseases and notably contributes to morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) brings additional costs to health expenditures and has a negative impact on oncological outcomes. Either the recurrence rate of VTE or bleeding complications are also higher in patients with cancer. Prophylactic anticoagulation has been recommended in peri-surgical periods, inpatient settings, and high-risk ambulatory patients. Although various risk stratification scores are used, none are ideal for identifying patients who can benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis. New risk scoring systems or biomarkers are needed to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from prophylaxis with low bleeding risk. The questions about the patients who will be given prophylaxis and those who develop thromboembolism, with which drug, and how long they will be treated are still not fully answered. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of the treatment, but management of CAT remains complex. Low molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants are effective and safe options for the treatment of CAT. Recognizing adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and accompanying conditions that cause dose adjustment is crucial. Prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer require a multidisciplinary and patient-based approach. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Cancer-associated thrombosis is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer. Chemotherapy, surgery, and/or use of central venous access remarkably increase the risk of thrombosis. Prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered not only in inpatient follow-up and during peri-surgical period but also ambulatory patients with a high risk of thrombosis. Many parameters, such as drug-drug interactions, primary side of cancer, and comorbidities of patients should be considered when selecting anticoagulant drugs. More accurate risk stratification scores or biomarkers are still an unmet need.

Updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on primary outpatient thromboprophylaxis in patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers receiving chemotherapy

Advanced gastric cancer is a highly thrombogenic cancer per Khorana score. Recent clinical practice guidelines suggest primary outpatient thromboprophylaxis (POTP) for patients with a Khorana score ≥2. We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit of POTP in patients with gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction cancers receiving chemotherapy. Randomized controlled trials with reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) as a primary or secondary endpoint were incorporated. A total of 631 patients from subgroups of three randomized controlled trials were included. The VTE incidence was 1.6% and 5.1% in POTP and control groups, respectively (risk ratio 0.31; confidence interval 0.11 to 0.83; P = 0.02), with a number needed to treat of 29 to prevent one VTE event. Even though the recent clinical practice guidelines suggest POTP in patients with gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction cancers, our meta-analysis findings do not support the routine use of POTP in those patients.

A Clinical-Genetic Risk Score for Predicting Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Development and Validation Study Involving Two Independent Prospective Cohorts

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. The Khorana score was developed for assessing the risk of VTE in outpatients with cancer receiving chemotherapy, but its accuracy in identifying patients at high risk has been questioned. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a clinical-genetic score that improves the assessment of VTE risk in oncology outpatients within 6 months of diagnosis.

METHODS

The new score was developed using the data of 364 outpatients belonging to the Spanish ONCOTHROMB 12-01 population. In this cohort, clinical data associated with the risk of VTE were collected at the time of diagnosis, including the Khorana score. These patients were also genotyped for the 51 genetic variants known to be associated with VTE. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the weight of each genetic and clinical variable in relation to VTE risk, allowing a clinical-genetic risk score (the ONCOTHROMB score) to be developed. The Khorana and the ONCOTHROMB scores were then compared via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and the number of patients needed to treat. The new score was then validated in a study of 263 patients in the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study population.

RESULTS

Nine genetic variants, tumor site, TNM stage, and a body mass index of > 25 kg/m2 were found to be associated with VTE and were used to build the ONCOTHROMB score, which better predicted the overall risk of VTE than did the Khorana score (AUC, 0.781 v 0.580; P < .001). Similar AUC results were recorded in the validation study the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study cohort involving patients with the same type of tumor (AUC for the ONCOTHROMB score v the Khorana score: 0.686 v 0.577; P < .001) and with all type of tumors (AUC for the ONCOTHROMB score v the Khorana score: 0.720 v 0.561; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The ONCOTHROMB score for VTE risk in outpatients with cancer, which takes into account both clinical and genetic variables, better identifies patients who might benefit from primary thromboprophylaxis than does the Khorana score.

[Cancer-associated coagulation disorders]

Diagnosis and treatment of paraneoplastic coagulation disorders are a challenge in daily practice. While prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) is standard of care in all surgical and acutely ill medical cancer patients, particularly careful evaluation of risks and benefits using validated risk assessment models is required during outpatient chemotherapy. Low-molecular-weight heparin and direct oral factor Xa inhibitors are available to treat established cancer-associated VTE, adhering to algorithms for bleeding risk stratification. In patients with overt disseminated intravascular coagulation, therapeutic measures should strictly follow clinical symptoms. An acquired von Willebrand syndrome may evoke a severe bleeding tendency in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms or plasma cell dyscrasias. In 15% of cases, acquired hemophilia A, due to the formation of inhibitory autoantibodies against coagulation factor VIII, is associated with malignancy.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on primary ambulatory thromboprophylaxis in patients with nonpancreatic gastrointestinal cancers receiving chemotherapy

Primary ambulatory thromboprophylaxis (PATP) in patients with solid malignancies is not routinely indicated. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the benefit and risk of PATP in patients with nonpancreatic gastrointestinal cancers receiving chemotherapy. RCTs with venous thromboembolism (VTE) reduction as primary or secondary endpoints were included. A total of 1932 patients from subgroups of 3 RCTs were eligible. The VTE incidence was 1.26% and 2.55% in PATP and control arms, respectively (risk ratio 0.49; confidence interval 0.25 to 0.96; P = 0.04), with a number needed to treat of 78 to prevent one VTE event. In gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients, the VTE incidence was 1.37% and 3.40% in PATP and control arms, respectively (risk ratio 0.40; confidence interval 0.13 to 1.24; P = 0.11). PATP should not be recommended in patients with nonpancreatic gastrointestinal cancers on chemotherapy.

The Clinical Applicability of Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Patients With Pancreatic Cancer

ABSTRACT

Thromboembolism is a leading cause of death in ambulatory patients with cancer. Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma have a very high risk of developing venous thromboembolism, especially within the first 6 months of diagnosis. Although primary thromboprophylaxis could reduce this risk, there are unresolved questions concerning choice of agents for anticoagulation, duration of anticoagulation treatment, and criteria for patient selection. Furthermore, the current clinical guidelines on primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with pancreatic cancer are ambiguous. This review seeks out to understand and critically appraise the evidence supporting the use of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with pancreatic cancer and its clinical applicability.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

An update on the efficacy and safety of novel anticoagulants for cancer associated thrombosis

Introduction: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) refers to the most common thromboembolic complication of cancer which is venous thromboembolism (VTE). CAT primary prophylaxis, treatment, and secondary prevention are challenging for the complexity of cancer patients, who exhibit hypercoagulability with concomitant-heightened bleeding risk.Areas covered: In this review, the author examines the role of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), which have been the standard of care for CAT treatment for many years. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS) have practical advantages over subcutaneous LMWH, especially for long-term therapy. The author then discusses the results of two RCTs which separately compared the direct oral factor Xa inhibitors, apixaban or rivaroxaban, with placebo for CAT prophylaxis in ambulatory high-risk cancer patients and found that DOACS reduced VTE but increased bleeding. Finally, the author discusses four RCTS separately comparing an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor (edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) with LMWH for CAT treatment. DOACS showed non-inferior efficacy, although rivaroxaban and edoxaban showed higher bleeding rates, especially in gastrointestinal cancers.Expert opinion: DOACS have a convenient route of administration and do not require laboratory monitoring, although choice of anticoagulants for CAT depends on factors such as tumor type, bleeding risk, concomitant drugs, and comorbidities.

Risk Prediction and New Prophylaxis Strategies for Thromboembolism in Cancer

In the general population, the incidence of thromboembolic events is 117 cases/100,000 inhabitants/year, while in cancer patient incidence, it is four-fold higher, especially in patients who receive chemotherapy and who are affected by pancreatic, lung or gastric cancer. At the basis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) there is the so-called Virchow triad, but tumor cells can activate coagulation pathway by various direct and indirect mechanisms, and chemotherapy can contribute to VTE onset. For these reasons, several studies were conducted in order to assess efficacy and safety of the use of anticoagulant therapy in cancer patients, both in prophylaxis setting and in therapy setting. With this review, we aim to record principal findings and current guidelines about thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients, with particular attention to subjects with additional risk factors such as patients receiving chemotherapy or undergoing surgery, hospitalized patients for acute medical intercurrent event and patients with central venous catheters. Nonetheless we added a brief insight about acute and maintenance therapy of manifested venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Pancreatic Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) carry the highest risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) amongst all cancer patients. Appropriate use of primary thromboprophylaxis might significantly and safely reduce its burden. We performed a systematic review of published studies and meeting abstracts using MEDLINE and EMBASE through July 2020 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory PC patients receiving chemotherapy. The Mantel–Haenszel random effect model was used to estimate the pooled event-based risk ratio (RR) and the pooled absolute risk difference (RD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Five randomized controlled studies with 1003 PC patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, thromboprophylaxis significantly decreased the risk of VTE (pooled RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.19–0.51, p < 0.00001, I² = 8%; absolute RD −0.08, 95% CI −0.12–−0.05, p < 0.00001, I² = 0%), with an estimated number needed to treat of 11.9 patients to prevent one VTE event. Similar reductions of VTE were observed in studies with parenteral (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17–0.53) versus oral anticoagulants (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14–0.99) and in studies using prophylactic doses of anticoagulants (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17–0.70) versus supra-prophylactic doses of anticoagulants (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08–0.90). The pooled RR for major bleeding was 1.08 (95% CI 0.47–2.52, p = 0.85, I² = 0%) and the absolute RD was 0.00 (95% CI −0.02–0.03, p = 0.85, I² = 0%). Evidence supports a net clinical benefit of thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory PC patients receiving chemotherapy. Adequately powered randomized phase III studies assessing the most effective anticoagulant and the optimal dose, schedule and duration of thromboprophylaxis to be used are warranted.

Rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with pancreatic cancer: Results from a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the randomized CASSINI study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer patients are at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE); the value of thromboprophylaxis has not been definitively established.

METHODS

This trial randomized cancer patients initiating a new regimen and at high risk for VTE (Khorana score ≥2) to rivaroxaban 10 mg or placebo up to day 180. This analysis examined the subset of pancreatic cancer patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), asymptomatic proximal DVT, any pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related death. The primary safety endpoint was International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined major bleeding.

RESULTS

In total, 49/1080 (4.5%) patients enrolled had baseline VTE on screening, with higher rates (24/362 [6.6%]) in pancreatic cancer and they were not randomized. Of 841 randomized patients, 273 (32.5%) had pancreatic cancer; 155/273 (57% in each arm) completed the double-blind period. The primary endpoint occurred in 13/135 (9.6%) patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 18/138 (13.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.34-1.43; P = .328) in up-to-day-180 period and 5/135 (3.7%) patients receiving rivaroxaban and 14/138 (10.1%) receiving placebo in the intervention period (HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.97; P = .034). Major bleeding was similar (2 [1.5%] receiving rivaroxaban and 3 [2.3%] receiving placebo). Correlative biomarker studies demonstrated significant decline in D-dimer (weeks 8 and 16) in patients randomized to rivaroxaban compared to placebo (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In ambulatory pancreatic cancer patients, rivaroxaban did not result in significantly lower incidence of VTE or VTE-related death in the 180-day period. During the intervention period, however, rivaroxaban substantially reduced VTE without increasing major bleeding, suggesting benefit of rivaroxaban prophylaxis in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02555878.

Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Pancreatic Cancer and Factors Associated With Outcomes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with the highest incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of any cancer type. However, little is known about risk factors for VTE or its outcomes in patients with PDAC.

METHODS

We collected data from a prospective, observational study performed at multiple centers in France from May 2014 through November 2018 (the Base Clinico-Biologique de l'Adénocarcinome Pancréatique [BACAP] study) linked to a database of patients with a new diagnosis of PDAC of any stage. Data were collected from 731 patients at baseline and during clinical follow-up or in the event of symptoms. The primary endpoint was the onset of VTE during follow-up. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 19.3 months, 152 patients (20.79%) developed a VTE. The median time from PDAC diagnosis to the onset of VTE was 4.49 months. Cumulative incidence values of VTE were 8.07% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.31-10.29) at 3 months and 19.21% (95% CI, 16.27-22.62) at 12 months. In multivariate analysis, PDAC primary tumor location (isthmus vs head: hazard ratio [HR], 2.06; 95% CI, 1.09-3.91; P = .027) and stage (locally advanced vs resectable or borderline: HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.10-2.51, P = .016; metastatic vs resectable or borderline: HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.64-3.79; P < .001) were independent risk factors for the onset of VTE. Patients who developed VTE during follow-up had shorter times of PFS (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.19-2.54; P = .004) and OS (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.57-2.60; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In an analysis of data from the BACAP study, we found that frequent and early onsets of VTE after diagnoses of PDAC are associated with significant decreases in times of PFS and OS. Studies are needed to determine whether primary prophylaxis of VTE in patients with PDAC will improve morbidity and mortality related to VTE. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: clinicaltrials.gov as number NCT02818829).

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Pancreatic Cancer Patients: Why Clinical Practice Guidelines Should Be Implemented

Exocrine pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, simply referred to as pancreatic cancer (PC) has the worst prognosis of any malignancy. Despite recent advances in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in PC, the prognosis remains poor, with fewer than 8% of patients being alive at 5 years after diagnosis. The prevalence of PC has steadily increased over the past decades, and it is projected to become the second-leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030. In this context, optimizing and integrating supportive care is important to improve quality of life and survival. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common but preventable complication in PC patients. VTE occurs in one out of five PC patients and is associated with significantly reduced progression-free survival and overall survival. The appropriate use of primary thromboprophylaxis can drastically and safely reduce the rates of VTE in PC patients as shown from subgroup analysis of non-PC targeted placebo-controlled randomized trials of cancer patients and from two dedicated controlled randomized trials in locally advanced PC patients receiving chemotherapy. Therefore, primary thromboprophylaxis with a Grade 1B evidence level is recommended in locally advanced PC patients receiving chemotherapy by the International Initiative on Cancer and Thrombosis clinical practice guidelines since 2013. However, its use and potential significant clinical benefit continues to be underrecognized worldwide. This narrative review aims to summarize the main recent advances in the field including on the use of individualized risk assessment models to stratify the risk of VTE in each patient with individual available treatment options.

Management of cancer-related thrombosis in the era of direct oral anticoagulants: A comprehensive review of the 2019 ITAC-CME clinical practice guidelines. On behalf of the Groupe Francophone Thrombose et Cancer (GFTC)

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common disease complication in cancer patients and the second cause of death after cancer progression. VTE management and prophylaxis are critical in cancer patients, but effective therapy can be challenging because these patients are at higher risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding under anticoagulant treatment. Numerous published studies report inconsistent implementation of existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG), including underutilization of thromboprophylaxis, and wide variability in clinical practice patterns across different countries and various practitioners. This review aims to summarize the 2019 ITAC-CME evidence-based CPGs for treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-related VTE, which include recommendations on the use of direct oral anticoagulants specifically in cancer patients. The guidelines underscore the gravity of developing VTE in cancer and recommend the best approaches for treating and preventing cancer-associated VTE, while minimizing unnecessary or over-treatment. Greater adherence to the 2019 ITAC guidelines could substantially decrease the burden of VTE and improve survival of cancer patients.

SEOM clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer (2019)

In 2011, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) first published a clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer. This guideline was updated in 2014, and since then, multiple studies and clinical trials have changed the landscape of the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in cancer patients. To incorporate the most recent evidence, including data from direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) randomized clinical trials, SEOM presents a new update of the guideline.

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.

Use of Viscoelastography in Malignancy-Associated Coagulopathy and Thrombosis: A Review

The relationship between malignancy and coagulopathy is one that is well documented yet incompletely understood. Clinicians have attempted to quantify the hypercoagulable state produced in various malignancies using common coagulation tests such as prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet count; however, due to these tests' focus on individual aspects of coagulation during one specific time point, they have failed to provide clinicians the complete picture of malignancy-associated coagulopathy (MAC). Viscoelastic tests (VETs), such as thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), are whole blood analyses that have the advantage of providing information related to the cumulative effects of plasma clotting factors, platelets, leukocytes, and red cells during all stages of the coagulation and fibrinolytic processes. VETs have gained popularity in the care of trauma patients to objectively measure trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC), but the utility of VETs remains yet unrealized in many other medical specialties. The authors discuss the similarities and differences between TIC and MAC, and propose a mechanism for the hypercoagulable state of MAC that revolves around the thrombomodulin-thrombin complex as it switches between activating the protein C anticoagulation pathway or the thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor coagulation pathway. Additionally, they review the current literature on the use of TEG and ROTEM in patients with various malignancies. Although limited research is currently available, early results demonstrate the utility of both TEG and ROTEM in the prediction of hypercoagulable states and thromboembolic complications in oncologic patients.

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill

Background

Clinical practice shows that venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a substantial burden in medical patients, and awareness and advocacy for its primary and secondary prevention remains inadequate. Specific patient populations, such as those with cancer and the critically ill, show elevated risk for VTE, bleeding or both, and significant gaps in VTE prophylaxis and treatment exist in these groups.

Objective

To present novel insights and consolidated evidence collected from experts, clinical practice guidelines and original studies on the unmet needs in thromboprophylaxis, and on the treatment of VTE in two high-risk patient groups: patients with cancer and the critically ill.

Methodology

To identify specific unmet needs in the management of VTE, a methodology was designed and implemented that assessed gaps in prophylaxis and treatment of VTE through interviews with 44 experts in the field of thrombosis and haemostasis, and through a review of current guidelines and seminal studies to substantiate the insights provided by the experts. The research findings were then analysed, discussed and consolidated by a multidisciplinary group of experts.

Results

The gap analysis methodology identified shortcomings in the VTE risk assessment tools, patient stratification approaches for prophylaxis, and the suboptimal use of anticoagulants for primary prophylaxis and treatment.

Conclusions

Specifically, patients with cancer need better VTE risk assessment tools to tailor primary thromboprophylaxis to tumour types and disease stages, and the potential for drug–drug interactions needs to be considered. In critically ill patients, unfractionated heparin is not advised as a first-line treatment option, and the strength of evidence is increasing for direct oral anticoagulants as a treatment option over low-molecular-weight heparins.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12959-019-0196-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients, can we do better?

Patients with cancer are at a much higher risk of thromboembolic events. Such events are occasionally associated with significant complications that can negatively affect patients' quality of life. Thromboprophylaxis is widely practiced, but much of the emphasis is given for those admitted with acute medical illnesses or following major surgical procedures. However, a significant percentage of thrombotic events encountered in routine clinical practice are among ambulatory patients where current guidelines do not recommend routine thromboprophylaxis.

Biomarkers for the risk of thrombosis in pancreatic adenocarcinoma are related to cancer process

Background

Venous thrombo-embolic events (VTE) frequently occur in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and contribute to high morbidity and mortality.

Objectives

To determine whether VTE biomarkers are related to cancer, inflammation or precancerous states and to assess their relevance to predict VTE in PDAC.

Patients and Methods

We compared VTE biomarkers in patients with PDAC (n = 42), intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas (IPMN, n = 48) or chronic pancreatitis (n = 50). PDAC patients were followed-up for 6 months.

Results

Factor VIII, D-dimers, von Willebrand factor, free tissue factor pathway inhibitor and microvesicle-tissue factor (MV-TF) activity were higher in PDAC patients compared to patients with IPMN or chronic pancreatitis. PDAC patients with metastasis presented higher D-dimers and MV-TF activity compared to patients with localized lesions, but elevation of D-dimers was dependent on tumor size. In multivariate analysis, elevated D-dimers (≥2.16 µg/mL) or MV-TF activity (≥2.37 pg/mL) were significant risk factors for VTE in PDAC patients, after adjustment for age and sex (HR 4.9 [1.0-23.1] or HR 10.5 [1.5-72.4], mean [interquartile range], respectively). Cumulative probability of VTE at 6 months was higher in patients with elevated D-dimers (56.3% vs 15.6%, p = 0.009) and in patients with high MV-TF activity (74.3% vs 21.7%, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

VTE biomarkers including D-dimers and MV-TF activity are not related to inflammation but rather to cancer process and dissemination. D-dimers and MV-TF activity are associated to future VTE in PDAC patients and could help identify patients who could benefit from thromboprophylaxis.

Utility of Viscoelastic Assays Beyond Coagulation: Can Preoperative Thrombelastography Indices Predict Tumor Histology, Nodal Disease, and Resectability in Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Hypercoagulability and malignancy have been linked since the 1860s. However, the impact of different neoplasms on multiple components of the coagulation system remains poorly understood. Thrombelastography (TEG) enables measurement of coagulation incorporating clotting through fibrinolysis. We hypothesize that specific TEG indices that are associated with hypercoagulability can be appreciated in patients with adenocarcinoma undergoing pancreatic resection.

STUDY DESIGN

Blood samples were obtained from patients undergoing pancreatic resection before surgical incision and assayed with TEG. The 4 indices of coagulation measured by TEG included in the analysis were R time, angle, maximum amplitude, and lysis at 30 minutes. Patient tumor type, nodal disease, and mass resectability were contrasted with TEG indices.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were enrolled over 18 months. The majority (63%) of patients had adenocarcinoma. Patients with adenocarcinoma had increased angle compared with other lesions (49 degrees [interquartile range {IQR} 37 to 59 degrees] vs 43 degrees [IQR 32 to 49 degrees]; p = 0.011). When excluding patients that underwent neoadjuvant therapy, patients with adenocarcinoma had shorter R times (13 minutes [IQR 9 to 16 minutes] vs 14 minutes [IQR 12 to 18 minutes]; p = 0.051), steeper angles (49 degrees [IQR 40 to 59 degrees] vs 43 degrees [IQR 32 to 49 degrees]; p = 0.010), and higher maximum amplitude (67 mm [IQR 61 to 69 mm] vs 62 mm [IQR 57 to 67 mm]; p = 0.017). Nodal disease was associated with a significantly increased angle (49 degrees [IQR 42 to 59 degrees] vs 40 degrees [IQR 32 to 50 degrees]; p = 0.002) and maximum amplitude (64 mm [IQR 61 to 69 mm] vs 62 mm [IQR 56 to 67 mm]; p = 0.017). Patients who underwent successful mass resection had longer R times (14 minutes [IQR 11 to 17 minutes] vs 10 minutes [IQR 9 to 15]; p = 0.033) and shorter angles (44 degrees [IQR 35 to 55 degrees] vs 58 degrees [IQR 45 to 66 degrees]; p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with adenocarcinoma undergoing pancreatic resection have multiple TEG abnormalities consistent with hypercoagulability. These TEG outputs are associated with tumor type, nodal disease, and probability of a successful resection. The use of preoperative TEG has the potential to aid surgeon and patient discussions on anticipated disease burden and prognosis before resection.