Cancer-associated thrombosis in patients with implanted ports: a prospective multicenter French cohort study (ONCOCIP)

Venous Thrombosis Recurrence After Catheter-Related Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis in Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Analysis

Long-term indwelling central venous catheters (CVC) are frequently used to secure vascular access to deliver injectable treatment. Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) occurs in approximately 2-6% of cancer patients. We conducted a single-center retrospective study to assess the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence in cancer patients; 200 patients were included. Mean age was 56 ± 15.15 years, median follow-up duration was 16.5 [range: 10-36] months. The incidence of recurrence was estimated using Gray's method for competing risk with death as the competing event of VTE. Recurrent VTE occurred in 25.5% of patients with a median occurrence time of 6.5 [range: 5-11.25] months. In case of recurrence, 94.6% of patients were treated for cancer and 80.4% of them received anticoagulants; 4 major bleeds and 17 non-major bleeds occurred during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, previous VTE (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.48 (95% CI 1.42-4.32) and presence of CVC (HR 5.56 (95% CI 1.96-15.75) were significant recurrence risk factors. After a first episode of CRT, 25.5% of patients experienced VTE recurrence as UEDVT in 30 cases (55.5%), PE in 17 cases (31.5%), and DVT in 7 cases (13%), mostly during anticoagulation therapy. Anticoagulation therapy does not avoid CRT in case of cancer and must be balanced with hemorrhagic risk.

Predictive model for totally implanted venous access ports‑related long‑term complications in patients with lung cancer

Totally implanted venous access ports (TIVAPs), which are typically used in oncological chemotherapy and parenteral nutritional support, are convenient and safe, and thus offer patients a higher quality of life. However, insertion or removal of the device requires a minor surgical operation. Long-term complications (>30 days post insertion), such as catheter migration, catheter-related thrombosis and infection, are major reasons for TIVAP removal and are associated with a number of factors such as body mass index and hemoglobin count. Since management of complications is typically time-consuming and costly, a predictive model of such events may be of great value. Therefore, in the present study, a predictive model for long-term complications following TIVAP implantation in patients with lung cancer was developed. After excluding patients with a large amount of missing data, 902 patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University (Nanjing, China) were ultimately included in the present study. Of the included patients, 28 had complications, indicating an incidence rate of 3.1%. Patients were randomly divided into training and test cohorts (7:3), and three machine learning-based anomaly detection algorithms, namely, the Isolation Forest, one-class Support Vector Machines (one-class SVM) and Local Outlier Factor, were used to construct a model. The performance of the model was initially evaluated by the Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC), area under curve (AUC) and accuracy. The one-class SVM model demonstrated the highest performance in classifying the risk of complications associated with the use of the intracavitary electrocardiogram method for TIVAP implantation in patients with lung cancer (MCC, 0.078; AUC, 0.62; accuracy, 66.0%). In conclusion, the predictive model developed in the present study may be used to improve the early detection of TIVAP-related complications in patients with lung cancer, which could lead to the conservation of medical resources and the promotion of medical advances.

Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Lack of agreed terminology and definitions in healthcare compromises communication, patient safety, optimal management of adverse events, and research progress. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the terminologies used to describe central venous access devices (CVADs), associated complications and reasons for premature removal in people undergoing cancer treatment. It also sought to identify the definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. The objective was to map language and descriptions used and to explore opportunities for standardisation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.

RESULTS

From a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.

A Comprehensive Review of Risk Factors and Thrombophilia Evaluation in Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which encompasses deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. There are many factors, both acquired and inherited, known to increase the risk of VTE. Most of these result in increased risk via several common mechanisms including circulatory stasis, endothelial damage, or increased hypercoagulability. Overall, a risk factor can be identified in the majority of patients with VTE; however, not all risk factors carry the same predictive value. It is important for clinicians to understand the potency of each individual risk factor when managing patients who have a VTE or are at risk of developing VTE. With this, many providers consider performing a thrombophilia evaluation to further define a patient's risk. However, guidance on who to test and when to test is controversial and not always clear. This comprehensive review attempts to address these aspects/concerns by providing an overview of the multifaceted risk factors associated with VTE as well as examining the role of performing a thrombophilia evaluation, including the indications and timing of performing such an evaluation.

Risk factors for peripherally inserted central catheter-related venous thrombosis in adult patients with cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to understand and analyze the risk factors of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related venous thrombosis in adult patients with cancer.

METHODS

This observational cohort study included adult patients with cancer who underwent color Doppler ultrasound at the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Healthcare Hospital, and Xiangya Changde Hospital, Hunan Province, from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the risk factors of PICC-related venous thrombosis.

RESULTS

After risk adjustment, multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed statistically significant associations between PICC-related venous thrombosis and age > 65 years old (OR: 1.791, CI: 1.343-2.389), male sex (OR: 1.398, CI: 1.057-1.849), white blood cell count > 9.5 × 109 /L (OR: 1.422, CI: 1.041-1.942), APTT < 25 s (OR: 2.006, CI: 1.431-2.811), gastrointestinal tumor (OR: 2.191, CI: 1.406-3.414), infection (OR:7.619, CI: 5.783-10.037), the use of cisplatin (OR: 2.374, CI: 1.714-3.214), vincristine (OR: 2.329, CI: 1.447-3.749), the use of polyurethane (OR: 2.449, CI: 1.863-3.219) and open-ended catheters (OR:1.660, CI: 1.131-2.439), keeping time of the catheter (days) (OR: 1.003, CI: 1.001-1.005) were associated with PICC-related venous thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

We identified that the presence of age > 65 years old, male sex, white blood cell count > 9.5 × 109 /L, APTT < 25 s, gastrointestinal tumor, infection, the use of cisplatin and vincristine, the use of polyurethane, open-ended catheters and keeping time of the catheter (days), were associated with PICC-related venous thrombosis.

Outcome of antithrombotic therapy in cancer patients with catheter-related thrombosis: a systematic review

Introduction

The guidelines' recommendations for anticoagulation in cancer patients with catheter-related thrombosis are unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to assess anticoagulation management in cancer patients with catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) based on previously published studies.

Methods

As of June 10, 2023,we searched databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane and included 11 observational studies that met the criteria. We evaluated 770 adults with active cancer and objectively confirmed patients with CRT who were using drugs including warfarin, LMWH, and new oral anticoagulants as antithrombotic therapy.

Results

We extracted outcome data, including thrombosis recurrence, catheter dysfunction, major bleeding, and death, and performed a meta-analysis.

Discussion

In this study we found that the risk of VTE recurrence was higher with rivaroxaban, the risk of bleeding and death appeared to be greater with warfarin, and although the risk of catheter dysfunction due to LMWH is a concern, it is still a more reasonable option for cancer patients with catheter-related thrombosis.

Systematic Review Registration

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (CRD42022367979).

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Trends in Clinical Features, Treatment, and Outcomes From 2001 to 2020

Background

Despite advances in cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) management, the epidemiology of cancer-associated thrombosis management over time remains unclear.

Objectives

We analyzed data from the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad Trombo Embólica) registry spanning 2001 to 2020 to investigate temporal trends in clinical characteristics and treatments for cancer-associated thrombosis.

Methods

Using multivariable survival regression, we examined temporal trends in risk-adjusted rates of symptomatic VTE recurrences, major bleeding, and death within 30 days after incident VTE.

Results

Among the 17,271 patients with cancer-associated thrombosis, there was a progressive increase in patients presenting with pulmonary embolism (from 44% in 2001-2005 to 55% in 2016-2020; P < 0.001 for trend), lung (from 12.7% to 18.1%; P < 0.001) or pancreatic cancer (from 3.8% to 5.6%; P = 0.003), and utilization of immunotherapy (from 0% to 7.4%; P < 0.001). Conversely, there was a decline in patients with prostate cancer (from 11.7% to 6.6%; P < 0.001) or carcinoma of unknown origin (from 3.5% to 0.7%; P < 0.001). At the 30-day follow-up, a reduction was observed in the proportion of patients experiencing symptomatic VTE recurrences (from 3.1% to 1.1%; P < 0.001), major bleeding (from 3.1% to 2.2%; P = 0.004), and death (from 11.9% to 8.4%; P < 0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed a decreased risk over time for VTE recurrence (adjusted subdistribution HR [asHR]: 0.94 per year; 95% CI: 0.92-0.98), major bleeding (asHR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99), and death (aHR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96-0.98).

Conclusions

In this multicenter study of cancer patients with VTE, there was a decline in thrombotic, hemorrhagic, and fatal events from 2001 to 2020. (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad Trombo Embólica [RIETE]; NCT02832245).

Risk factors for totally implantable access ports-associated thrombosis in pediatric oncology patients

The application of totally implantable access ports (TIAPs) reduces treatment-related discomfort; however, the existence of catheter may cause side effects, with the most common one being the occurrence of TIAPs-associated thrombosis. The risk factors for TIAPs-associated thrombosis in pediatric oncology patients have not been fully described. A total of 587 pediatric oncology patients undergoing TIAPs implantation at a single center over a 5-year period were retrospectively analyzed in the present study. We investigated the risk factors for thrombosis, emphasizing the internal jugular vein distance, by measuring the vertical distance from the highest point of the catheter to the upper border of the left and right extremitas sternalis claviculae on chest X-ray images. Among 587 patients, 143 (24.4%) had thrombosis. Platelet count, C-reactive protein, and the vertical distance from the highest point of the catheter to the upper border of the left and right extremitas sternalis claviculae were demonstrated to be the main risk factors for the development of TIAPs-associated thrombosis. TIAPs-associated thrombosis, especially asymptomatic events, is common in pediatric cancer patients. The vertical distance from the highest point of the catheter to the upper border of the left and right extremitas sternalis claviculae was a risk factor for TIAPs-associated thrombosis, which deserved additional attention.

Pulmonary Embolism in the Cancer Associated Thrombosis Landscape

In cancer patients, pulmonary embolism (PE) is the second leading cause of death after the cancer itself, most likely because of difficulties in diagnosing the disease due to its nonclassical presentation. The risk of PE recurrence and possibly the case-fatality rate depends on whether the patient presents a symptomatic PE, an unsuspected PE, a subsegmental PE, or a catheter-related PE. Choosing the best therapeutic option is challenging and should consider the risk of both the recurrence of thrombosis and the occurrence of bleeding. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical characteristics and the treatment of cancer-associated PE, which could benefit clinicians to better manage the deadliest form of thrombosis associated with cancer. After a brief presentation of the epidemiological data, we will present the current attitude towards the diagnosis and the management of cancer patients with PE. Finally, we will discuss the perspectives of how the medical community can improve the management of this severe medical condition.

Edoxaban: front-line treatment for brachiocephalic vein thrombosis in primitive mediastinal seminoma: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Venous thromboembolism is a feared frequent complication of cancer with a 2-way relationship. Low molecular weight heparin is the mainstay of treatment. The use of direct oral anticoagulants is supported by established evidence for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis also in active cancer and they are prioritized over low molecular weight heparin for cancer-associated thrombosis according to current guidelines. However, upper limb deep vein thrombosis is poorly studied with scant data on the use of direct oral anticoagulants in noncatheter-related deep vein thrombosis. We report the case of a patient with noncatheter-related deep vein thrombosis and a rare tumor site effectively and safely treated with a direct oral anticoagulant, edoxaban, after lack of efficacy with low molecular weight heparin.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 35-year-old man with primitive mediastinal seminoma presented at our Cardio-Oncology Unit for prechemotherapy assessment.

DIAGNOSIS

Persistent brachiocephalic deep vein thrombosis, despite full-dose enoxaparin, was detected at ultrasonography.

INTERVENTION

We decided to switch the anticoagulant treatment from enoxaparin to edoxaban.

OUTCOME

The 3-month ultrasonography showed almost total regression of the deep vein thrombosis without any adverse effects and a good patient compliance.

LESSONS

We conducted a literature review on upper limb deep vein thrombosis, since its management is challenging due to inconsistency of evidence. This report highlights the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants compared to low molecular weight heparins in cancer-associated thrombosis therapy in terms of efficacy, safety and ease of use.

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with solid tumors: a narrative review and clinical guidance for daily care

Central venous access devices (CVADs) including central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are essential in the treatment of cancer. Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is the most frequent non-infectious complication associated with the use of central lines. The development of CRT may cause to delays in oncologic treatment and increase morbidity leading to potentially life-threatening complications. Several local and systemic risk factors are associated with the development of CRT and should be taken into account to prevent CRT by standardizing appropriate catheter placement and maintenance. The use of primary pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in order to avoid CRT is not routinely recommended, although it can be considered in selected cases. Recommendations for the management of established CRT are based on the extrapolation of anticoagulation for lower limb venous thrombosis. The present review summarizes the current evidence and recommendations for the prevention and management of CRT and identifies areas that require further research.

Characteristics and predictors of venous thrombosis recurrence in patients with cancer and catheter-related thrombosis

Background

Central venous catheters raise the risk of catheter‐related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with cancer, typically affecting the upper extremity. Management of CRT involves catheter removal and anticoagulation. However, robust evidence is lacking on the optimal timing of anticoagulation relative to catheter removal.

Objectives

Our goal is to provide a better understanding of the factors that increase the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients with cancer in our hospital affected by CRT between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. We measured recurrence of VTE as thrombosis in any vascular bed or pulmonary embolism, for up to 2 years after diagnosis. Logistic and competing risk regression analyses were used to determine the association between different clinical factors and any VTE recurrence in patients with cancer and CRT.

Results

Of the 257 individuals meeting the inclusion criteria, 80.2% had their catheter removed; of these, 50.5% did not receive anticoagulation before the removal. Patients who did not receive anticoagulation before the removal had increased 3‐month and 1‐year risks of recurrent VTE (odds ratio, 5.07 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53–23.18]; and hazard ratio, 3.47 [95% CI, 1.34–9.01]), respectively.

Conclusions

Our study supports the use of anticoagulants before catheter removal in patients with CRT. Randomized clinical trials are recommended to establish stronger evidence pertaining to the long‐term risk of VTE recurrence and the effect of catheter reinsertion.

Venous thromboembolism associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: From pathophysiology to thromboprophylaxis, areas for future studies

Symptomatic catheter related thrombosis (CRT) occurs in 4%-8% of cancer patients. The mean incidence of CRT, detected either by echography or Doppler ranges between 12 and 14% with a high negative predictive value of about 95%, allowing the subsequent occurrence of CRT (symptomatic and asymptomatic) to be safely excluded. Despite its frequency and its medico-economic consequences, no thromboprophylaxis has been validated to date. In most patients, CRT occurs immediately after catheter insertion, most often within the first week and almost all within the first month after insertion. Meta analyses show a reduction of asymptomatic and symptomatic CRT incidence by about 55%-60% using either vitamin K antagonists or low molecular weight heparins without an increased risk of major bleeding. This pharmacological prophylaxis is only effective when started before the central venous catheter insertion at prophylactic doses and thereafter continued at subtherapeutic doses. Since no population at high risk of CRT has been identified, this review focuses on pathophysiology, epidemiology and clinical supportive data that could lead to a new CRT prophylaxis strategy.

Venous Thromboembolism in Pediatric Cancer Patients with Central Venous Catheter-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Pediatric cancer patients hold an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to their cancer. Central venous catheters (CVCs) further increase the VTE risk. This systematic literature review elucidates the VTE incidence in pediatric cancer patients with CVC. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in August 2020 without time limits. We included studies reporting original data on patients ≤18 years with any CVC type and any cancer type, who were examined for VTE with ≥7 days follow-up. In total, 682 unique records were identified, whereof 189 studies were assessed in full text. Altogether, 25 studies were included, containing 2,318 pediatric cancer patients with CVC, of which 17% suffered VTE. Fifteen studies (n = 1,551) described CVC-related VTE and reported 11% CVC-related VTE. Concerning cancer type, 991 children suffered from acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and 616 from solid tumors. Meta-analysis revealed VTE incidence (95% confidence interval) of 21% (8-37) for ALL and 7% (0.1-17) for solid tumors. Additionally, 20% of children with tunneled or nontunneled CVC and 12% of children with implantable ports suffered VTE. In conclusion, pediatric cancer patients with CVC have substantial VTE risk. Children with ALL and CVC have higher VTE incidence than children with solid tumors and CVC. Implantable port catheter should be preferred over tunneled or nontunneled CVC to reduce VTE risk. Thrombophilia investigation does not seem relevant in pediatric cancer patients with CVC and VTE. To prevent VTE, intensified catheter care is recommended, especially in children with ALL.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with solid cancers in Japan: retrospective study of 2735 patients

BACKGROUND

The incidence of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) in Japan has not been fully investigated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Clinicopathological information from patients with solid malignancies who first visited our department between November 2011 and March 2018 were retrospectively reviewed from medical records. The primary outcome was incidence of CA-VTE, defined as deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE). On median follow-up of 187 days, 91 of 2735 patients (3.3%) developed CA-VTE during their clinical course, giving an incidence rate of 40.7 per 1000 person-years. Of the 91 patients, 75 (82%) were diagnosed with DVT alone, 6 (7%) with PE alone, and 10 (11%) with both DVT and PE. CA-VTE was most frequent in non-small cell lung cancer (10.8%), followed by cancer of unknown origin (5.8%). Forty-four patients (48%) had one or more symptoms at the initial diagnosis of VTE. Five patients (6%) had a normal D-dimer level (≤ 1.0 µg/mL); of these, 2 were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, the incidence of CA-VTE in Japanese patients with cancer was equivalent to that in Western populations. Approximately half of CA-VTE patients were asymptomatic and 6% had normal D-dimer levels, indicating the need for closer attention to occult CA-VTE.

A review of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

This review aims to describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, presentation, complications, evaluation/diagnosis, and treatment of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT). Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for 6% of cases of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It can lead to swelling and discomfort in that extremity and can be complicated by pulmonary embolism, post-thrombotic syndrome, and recurrence of DVT. Evaluation can begin with a dichotomized Constans score and fibrin degradation product testing. Diagnosis is typically made with compression ultrasound. Anticoagulation is the mainstay of therapy. Primary UEDVT is known as Paget Schroetter Syndrome (PSS) which occurs due to venous thoracic outlet syndrome (vTOS). Anticoagulation, thrombolysis, and decompression of the venous thoracic outlet are used for treatment but the optimal strategy remains to be elucidated. Secondary UEDVT are most commonly caused by indwelling catheters and malignancy. There is an ongoing realization that UEDVT are more than simply 'leg clots in the arm.' Given the increasing incidence, research needs to be done to further our understanding of this disease state, its evaluation, and its treatment.

Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: Risk Factors and Prevention

Ambulatory cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy are at a substantial risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) over the course of therapy and beyond it. Factors accounting for this risk include the activation of extrinsic and intrinsic coagulation pathways, platelet activation, impaired fibrinolysis, use of catheters, infusion of blood products, and thrombogenic potential of several chemotherapeutic drugs. A few stratification models can help identify patients at a higher risk of chemotherapy-associated VTE, who may benefit from preventive strategies. Although low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) effectively reduce the risk of VTE, current guidelines recommend against their routine use. Based on the results of recent randomized controlled clinical trials, the administration of prophylactic doses of the novel direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to ambulatory cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy has the potential to offer an effective and safe protection against VTE, obviating the inconveniences of heparins. Except for patients in whom the novel drugs are unsuitable or are contraindicated, in all other patients LMWHs should be replaced by low-dose DOACs.

Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients

Purpose: To describe how central venous access devices (CVADs) are utilized for ambulatory oncology patients and to evaluate the rate of complications. Method: Single institution retrospective study of oncology patients with CVADs who received systemic treatment at the Walker Family Cancer Centre (WFCC) between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Results: A total of 480 CVADS were placed in 305 patients, of which 408 (85%) were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 72 (15%) were implanted vascular access devices (PORTs). The incidence of early and late complications was 9% and 24%, respectively. For the entire cohort, the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 16%, of which 9% were CVAD-related thrombosis (CRTs) and 7% were distant VTE. The CRT rates were similar for PICCs and PORTs (9% vs. 7%). A total of 6% of CVADs were complicated by infection (i.e., localized infections and bacteremia), with a total infection rate of 0.43 and 0.26 per 1000 indwelling days for PICCs and PORTs, respectively. The incidence of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was greater for PICCs than PORTs, at a rate of 0.22 compared with 0.08 per 1000 indwelling days, respectively. The premature catheter removal rate was 26% for PICCs and 18% for PORTs. PORTs required more additional hospital visits. Conclusions: PICCs were utilized more frequently than PORTs and had a higher rate of premature removal. The rates of VTE and CRT were similar for both CVAD types. PORTs had a lower rate of infection per 1000 indwelling days. However, the management of PORT related complications required more visits to the hospital and oncology clinic.

Management of superficial venous thrombosis in unevaluated situations: Cancer, severe renal impairment, pregnancy and post-partum

BACKGROUND

Information is lacking as to the management of patients with superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) whose profile has been excluded from trials, such as patients with active cancer, severe renal impairment, or pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency and management of SVT occurring in these situations.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the frequency, management and evolution of all patients with isolated SVT associated with either active cancer, severe renal impairment, or pregnant or postpartum women, diagnosed in 2 university hospital between January 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2016.

RESULTS

Of the 594 isolated SVTs individualized from the 7941 reports screened, 149 SVTs (105 in the upper extremity, 44 in the lower extremity) were analyzed: 94 (63%) associated with active cancer, 27 (18%) with severe renal impairment and 30 (20%) pregnant or postpartum women. SVT was treated with anticoagulant in 34 (36%) patients with cancer, 3 (11%) patients with severe renal impairment and 19 (63%) pregnant or postpartum women. At 3-month, 16 patients (10.8%) had a further venous thromboembolic event, 8 (5.4%) major bleeding, and 9 (6.1%) died.

CONCLUSION

SVT in patients with active cancer, severe renal impairment and pregnant or postpartum women represents a quarter of isolated SVTs diagnosed. Heterogeneity of treatment patterns mainly affects patients with cancer and severe renal impairment. Poor outcomes, although probably linked to morbidity, call for dedicated research in these specific situations.

Development and Validation of a New Clinical Prediction Model of Catheter-Related Thrombosis Based on Vascular Ultrasound Diagnosis in Cancer Patients

Background: Central venous catheters are convenient for drug delivery and improved comfort for cancer patients, but they also cause serious complications. The most common complication is catheter-related thrombosis (CRT). Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for CRT in cancer patients and develop an effective prediction model for CRT in cancer patients. Methods: The development of our prediction model was based on a retrospective cohort (n = 3,131) from the National Cancer Center. Our prediction model was confirmed in a prospective cohort from the National Cancer Center (n = 685) and a retrospective cohort from the Hunan Cancer Hospital (n = 61). The predictive accuracy and discriminative ability were determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration plots. Results: Multivariate analysis demonstrated that sex, cancer type, catheter type, position of the catheter tip, chemotherapy status, and antiplatelet/anticoagulation status at baseline were independent risk factors for CRT. The area under the ROC curve of our prediction model was 0.741 (CI: 0.715-0.766) in the primary cohort and 0.754 (CI: 0.704-0.803) and 0.658 (CI: 0.470-0.845) in validation cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. The model also showed good calibration and clinical impact in the primary and validation cohorts. Conclusions: Our model is a novel prediction tool for CRT risk that accurately assigns cancer patients into high- and low-risk groups. Our model will be valuable for clinicians when making decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis.

Incidence of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Acute Leukemia and Effect on Mortality

The cumulative incidence, risk factors, rate of subsequent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding and impact on mortality of isolated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE DVT) in acute leukemia are not well-described. The California Cancer Registry, used to identify treated patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) diagnosed between 2009 and 2014, was linked with the statewide hospitalization database to determine cumulative incidences of UE DVT and subsequent VTE and bleeding after UE DVT diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association of UE DVT on the risk of subsequent pulmonary embolism (PE) or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LE DVT) and subsequent bleeding, and the impact of UE DVT on mortality. There were 5,072 patients identified: 3,252 had AML and 1,820 had ALL. Three- and 12-month cumulative incidences of UE DVT were 4.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.1–5.6) and 6.6% (95% CI: 5.8–7.5) for AML and 4.1% (95% CI: 3.2–5.1) and 5.9% (95% CI: 4.9–7.1) for ALL, respectively. Twelve-month cumulative incidences of subsequent VTE after an incident UE DVT diagnosis were 5.3% for AML and 12.2% for ALL. Twelve-month cumulative incidences of subsequent bleeding after an incident UE DVT diagnosis were 15.4% for AML and 21.1% for ALL. UE DVT was associated with an increased risk of subsequent bleeding for both AML (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.60–2.68) and ALL (HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.02–2.57) but was not an independent risk factor for subsequent PE or LE DVT for either leukemia subtype. Isolated incident UE DVT was associated with increased leukemia-specific mortality for AML (HR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.16–1.73) and ALL (HR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.31–2.47). UE DVT is a relatively common complication among patients with AML and ALL and has a significant impact on bleeding and mortality. Further research is needed to determine appropriate therapy for this high-risk population.

Consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer

Up to 20% of cancer patients will develop some manifestation of venous thromboembolic disease (VTD) during their clinical course. VTD greatly impacts morbidity, mortality, quality of life and pharmaceutical expenditure. In addition, both thrombotic relapse and major haemorrhages derived from VTD treatment are more likely in oncological patients. To make the decision to establish secondary thromboprophylaxis as an indefinite treatment in these patients, it is important to review all the risk factors involved, whether related to the disease, the patient or the prior thrombotic event. The objectives of this consensus of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna-SEMI) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica-SEOM) are to establish recommendations that help assess the risk of recurrence of VTD and haemorrhagic risk in patients with cancer, as well as to analyse the evidence that exists on the currently available drugs, which will allow the establishment of a protocol for shared decision-making with the informed patient.

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) for chemotherapy are associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to quantify the incidence of TIVAP-associated VTE and compare it with external central venous catheters (CVCs) in cancer patients through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Studies reporting on VTE risk associated with TIVAP were retrieved from medical literature databases. In publications without a comparison group, the pooled incidence of TIVAP-related VTE was calculated. For studies comparing TIVAPs with external CVCs, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess the risk of VTE.

RESULTS

In total, 80 studies (11 with a comparison group and 69 without) including 39 148 patients were retrieved. In the noncomparison studies, the overall symptomatic VTE incidence was 2.76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.24-3.28), and 0.08 (95 CI: 0.06-0.10) per 1000 catheter-days. This risk was highest when TIVAPs were inserted via the upper-extremity vein (3.54%, 95% CI: 2.94-4.76). Our meta-analysis of the case-control studies showed that TIVAPs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09-0.43), and a trend for lower VTE risk compared with Hickman catheters (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50). Meta-regression models suggested that regional difference may significantly impact on the incidence of VTE associated with TIVAPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that the cancer patients with TIVAP are less likely to develop VTE compared with external CVCs. This should be considered when choosing the indwelling intravenous device for chemotherapy. However, more attention should be paid when choosing upper-extremity veins as the insertion site.

Latest advances in preventing thromboembolic disease in the ambulatory oncology patient

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often cited as a major cause of death and morbidity in cancer patients. Even a non-lethal VTE causes distress and is commonly perceived by patients as a set-back in the cancer journey and a threat to the cancer treatment. It is also known that the risk of VTE varies between cancers (cancer-related risk factors), between patients (patient-related risk factors), and also within the cancer journey of a single patient. Risk can increase during treatments like surgery and chemotherapy and decline during remission. Neither the low molecular weight heparins nor the vitamin K analogues have gained an established role in thromboprevention guidance other than in 'the high risk' patient, who remains a rather ambiguous entity. The recently published randomised studies of rivaroxaban and apixaban in moderate- to high-risk thrombosis patients, assigned by the Khorana Risk Score, has seen the inclusion of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in recent guidelines (e.g. the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2019 guidelines) for this indication. The ease of administration and the demonstrated greater patient adherence to oral agents has heightened the expectation that a practice-changing thromboprevention study in cancer patients should be realizable. However, key unmet needs that pose familiar challenges remain and as yet do not have satisfactory solutions. Anticoagulants carry risks of bleeding that are higher in the cancer population. There is therefore the challenge of sufficient risk reduction of VTE from the intervention balanced against the number of patients that may be harmed from bleeding. There is also the challenge of penetrating the risk threshold beyond which oncologists would deem thromboprevention a clinically meaningful praxis. Thus, identifying the high-risk groups of patients or targeting the length or timing of the thromboprevention to when the risks are highest are major questions that remain the subject of ongoing research. Notably all this is taking place against a backdrop of changing therapeutics for many cancers (e.g. targeted agents, checkpoint inhibitors and combinations) and their assorted impact on VTE incidence. In this review, past data for the ambulatory cancer patient are summarised, the latest evidence for the direct oral anticoagulants apixaban and rivaroxaban are analysed and the challenges of identifying the high-risk patients that have the greater chance of benefiting from thromboprophylaxis are discussed.

Surgical complications in colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic sciences have allowed early diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Colorectal cancer is one of the most commonly reported cancers, particularly in elderly patients.

METHODS

Open and laparoscopic surgeries are used for the removal of the tumor, along with chemotherapy, depending on the stage of cancer. However, colorectal cancer surgery is associated with a great number of complications, that affect the efficacy of the surgery and overall health and survival of the patient.

RESULTS

Prevalence of these complications have shown discrepancies depending on the condition of the patient and disease and surgical skills of the surgeon. Preoperative evaluation, intraoperative care and postoperative measures can reduce the incidence of these complications.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights some frequently reported complications associated with colorectal cancer surgery, their risk factors and subsequent therapeutic measures to treat them.

Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the complication rates between arm and chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Design and Data Sources. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang database were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications published from the inception of the database to 11, October 2019. Our search generated a total of 22 articles published from 2011 to 2019, including 6 comparative studies and 16 single-arm articles, involving 4131 cases and 5272 controls. Single-arm studies combined with comparative studies were also pooled and analyzed. Finally, subgroup analysis was performed to compare the rates of infection and thrombosis between these two ports. Eligibility Criteria. Included articles were research studies comparing complication rates of arm ports with chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Any review or meta-analysis article would be removed. Data Extraction and Synthesis. Demographic data and information for the following analysis were extracted. DerSimonian and Laird random effect meta-analysis was conducted to analyze comparative studies while Begg's and Egger's tests were used for assessment of publication bias. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explain the sources of heterogeneity.

Results

There was no difference in the risk of overall complications between arm and chest ports for comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with.

Conclusions

This study indicated that the arm port might increase the risk of overall complication risks as well as the risk of catheter-related thrombosis compared with the chest port. However, these reported findings still need to be verified by large randomized clinical trials.

Direct oral anticoagulant for the prevention of thrombosis in ambulatory patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) is efficacious and safe for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory patients with cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL. Inclusion criteria included adult ambulatory patients with cancer, prophylactic use of DOAC, and randomized controlled trials. Exclusion criteria included pediatric patients, inpatient or postoperative setting, therapeutic indication of DOAC, or non-phase III randomized controlled trial. Two authors screened/reviewed articles and abstracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model. Efficacy outcome included overall and symptomatic VTE incidence during the first 6 months. Safety outcomes included major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) incidence during the on-treatment period. Subgroup analysis was performed for intermediate- and high-risk Khorana score.

RESULTS

A total of 202 records were identified and 28 full-text articles were assessed. Two studies with 1415 participants were included for meta-analysis. For DOAC vs placebo, the relative risks for overall and symptomatic VTE incidence by 6 months were 0.56 (0.35-0.89) and 0.58 (0.29-1.13), respectively. The relative risks for major bleeding and CRNMB while on-treatment were 1.96 (0.80-4.82) and 1.28 (0.74-2.20), respectively. Patients with high-risk Khorana score (3+) derived the largest absolute risk reduction of VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose DOAC reduces the rate of overall VTE in higher risk cancer patients starting systemic chemotherapy. It may reduce the rate of symptomatic VTE but increase the likelihood of bleeding.

Oncologic Emergencies: Too Much Clotting-Venous Thromboembolism in Malignancy

BACKGROUND

Malignancy predisposes patients to higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review evaluates VTE in malignancy and the emergency medicine investigation and management of this patient population.

DISCUSSION

Patients with malignancy are at higher risk of VTE, including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Risk factors include the underlying cancer, other hematologic disorders, cancer therapies, and underlying comorbidities. While patients with malignancy and VTE can present similarly to those without malignancy, incidental VTE is more common in cancer patients. Existing scores such as the Wells and Revised Geneva score can assist in risk stratification in patients with malignancy. A negative D-dimer result in the appropriately risk-stratified patient can be used to exclude VTE, though D-dimer is more commonly elevated at baseline in patients with malignancy. Several scoring systems may be useful to predict recurrent risk of VTE, including the Khorana and Ottawa scores. Treatment includes anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Outpatient therapy may be appropriate in select patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This narrative review provides key updates in the assessment and management of cancer patients with VTE.

Risk factors of catheter-related thrombosis in early-stage breast cancer patients: a single-center retrospective study

Purpose

Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) are widely used in cancer patients. The main purpose of our study is to observe the incidence and identified risk factors of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in breast cancer patients with TIVAD.

Patients and methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive breast cancer patients who received the ultrasound-guided TIVAD implantation for the administration of chemotherapy from 2013 to 2016. The primary outcome was CRT (both symptomatic and asymptomatic detected by ultrasound). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the risk factors for breast cancer TIVAD-related CRT.

Results

A total of 209 breast cancer patients with a newly implanted TIVAD for chemotherapy were included in this study. The average time of port duration was 7 months. Of the enrolled 209 patients, 33 patients (15.8%) had CRT, 2 of the 33 cases were symptomatic (1 pulmonary embolism, 1 deep-venous thrombosis [DVT]), the other 31 cases were asymptomatic detected by routine ultrasound examination of the catheter-associated vein before TIVAD removal with all cycles of chemotherapy completed. In total, 19 (57.6%) of CRT patients underwent directly TIVAD removal without any further treatments, 14 patients received anticoagulation treatments for 3–30 days followed by TIVAD removal. No DVT event was observed within at least 1.5 years of follow-up. In the multiple-variable analysis, tumor size >2 cm (OR 2.735, 95% CI 1.042–7.177; P=0.032), positive HbsAg (OR 2.803 95% CI 1.027–7.856; P=0.047) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) >3.6 mmol/L (OR 2.360, 95% CI 1.059–5.351; P=0.040) were the significant independent risk factors of breast cancer TIVAD-related CRT.

Conclusion

CRT is a common complication in breast cancer patients with TIVAD for chemotherapy. Tumor size, HbsAg status and LDL level were independent predictors of breast cancer for TIVAD-related CRT. Removal of the port without anticoagulation treatments might be a feasible choice for asymptomatic TIVAD-related CRT.

Placement of Subcutaneous Central Venous Ports in Breast Cancer Patients: Does Side Matter?

BACKGROUND

Central venous ports placed for breast cancer treatment have traditionally been placed contralateral to the disease. This is done out of concern for the possibility of an increased risk of complications with ipsilateral port placement. There have been only a few small studies evaluating complication rates between ports placed ipsilateral versus contralateral to the breast cancer. We sought to determine if there was a difference in port complications or lymphedema rates by location.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective review was conducted of adult (aged >18 y) females undergoing central venous port placement for breast cancer treatment from 2012 to 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 581 females were identified with a mean age of 52.9 ± 11.7 y. Ipsilateral ports were placed in 41 patients (7.1%). Ipsilateral ports were more likely to be placed via the internal jugular vein (56.1%), whereas contralateral ports were more likely to be placed in the subclavian vein (67.2%; P = 0.002). There was no difference between stage at diagnosis (P = 0.059), type of breast surgery (P = 0.999), axillary surgery (P = 0.087), or administration of radiation therapy (P = 0.684) between the groups. Ipsilateral ports were more likely to be on the right side, 73.2% versus 51.1% (P = 0.006). Port complications requiring intervention occurred in 3 patients (7.3%) with ipsilateral port and 33 patients (6.1%) with contralateral ports (P = 0.73). Lymphedema occurred in 8 patients (20%) with ipsilateral ports and 118 patients (21.9%) with contralateral ports (P = 0.639). On multivariable analysis, the type of axillary surgery (P = 0.003) was associated with upper extremity lymphedema, whereas port sidedness (P = 0.26) was not.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in port complications or lymphedema rates between patients who had ports placed on the ipsilateral side compared with the contralateral side for breast cancer treatment.

How I treat cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a common complication of cancer and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several cancer-related risk factors contribute to the development of VTE including cancer type and stage, chemotherapy, surgery, and patient-related factors such as advanced age and immobilization. Patients with cancer frequently undergo diagnostic imaging scans for cancer staging and treatment response evaluation, which is increasing the underlying risk of VTE detection. The management of cancer-associated VTE is challenging. Over the years, important advances have been made and, recently, randomized controlled trials have been published helping clinicians' management of this patient population. In this review, we will discuss common cancer-associated VTE scenarios and critically review available evidence to guide treatment decisions.