Rate of prophylactic anti-Xa achievement and impact on venous thromboembolism following oncologic hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) patients experience competing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding. We sought to evaluate the effect of anti-Xa levels on VTE and bleeding, and to characterize factors associated with subprophylaxis.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study evaluated adult HPB surgical patients; cohorts were described by anti-Xa levels as subprophylactic (<0.2 IU/mL), prophylactic (0.2-0.5 IU/mL), and supraprophylactic (>0.5 IU/mL). Primary outcome evaluated bleeding and VTE complications. Secondary outcomes evaluated factors associated with subprophylaxis.

RESULTS

We included 157 patients: 68 (43.6%) attained prophylactic anti-Xa and 89 (56.7%) were subprophylactic. Subprophylactic patients experienced more VTE compared to prophylactic patients (6.9% vs 0%; p = 0.028) without differences in bleeding complications (14.6% vs 5.9%; p = 0.081). Factors associated with subprophylactic anti-Xa included female sex (OR 2.90, p = 0.008), and Caprini score (OR 1.30, p = 0.035). Enoxaparin was protective against subprophylaxis compared to tinzaparin (OR 0.43, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Many HPB patients have subprophylactic anti-Xa levels, placing them at risk of VTE. Enoxaparin may be preferential, however, studies evaluating optimized prophylaxis are needed.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Can Biomarkers of Coagulation, Platelet Activation, and Inflammation Predict Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Haematological Malignancies?

BACKGROUND

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in haematological malignancies varies according to the type and grade of the disease and clinical variables, and there is a need to develop a tool to predict the occurrence of VTE in cancer patients at diagnosis to tailor prophylactic anticoagulation use during treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To study the incidence of VTE in haematological malignancies and clarify whether vascular and inflammatory biomarkers could be used as predictors of VTE in those patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study. Hypercoagulability and inflammatory biomarkers were assayed in a group of 171 patients with haematological malignancies at diagnosis. These markers included (1) coagulation and fibrinolysis activation markers (D-dimer, fibrinogen, antithrombin, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1), (2) endothelial and platelet activation markers (von Willebrand factor and soluble P-selectin), and (3) inflammatory markers (tumour necrosis factor αand interleukin 6). The end point was mortality or symptomatic VTE.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

The incidence of symptomatic VTE was 7%. None of the tested biomarkers showed statistical significance as predictors for the occurrence of VTE in haematological malignancies. However, there were statistically significant associations between the occurrence of VTE and central venous access device insertion, the prothrombin time, and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. An ESR above 106.5 mm/h is associated with increased VTE occurrence.

Venous Thromboembolism and Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize the epidemiology, current pathophysiologic understanding, and state-of-the-art treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The risk of VTE varies among cancer patients. Recently introduced prediction models better identify those at high risk of VTE. New mechanisms underlying hypercoagulability in cancer have been uncovered. Initial data on the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low-molecular weight heparin to treat VTE in patients with cancer are promising. However, they may be associated with higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. VTE causes significant morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Our understanding of the mechanisms of VTE, including those associated with cancer treatments, has significantly grown. The assessment of the benefit/risk balance of VTE treatment remains challenging in many patients with cancer. The introduction of DOACs has expanded treatment options, but knowledge on their efficacy and safety is incomplete.

Anticoagulation for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis for people with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of different anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a comprehensive literature search conducted on 14 June 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2018, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with cancer undergoing a surgical intervention and assessed the effects of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to unfractionated heparin (UFH) or to fondaparinux on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, PE, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), asymptomatic DVT, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, health related quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 7670 identified unique citations, we included 20 RCTs with 9771 randomized people with cancer receiving preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. We identified seven reports for seven new RCTs for this update.The meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.07; risk difference (RD) 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 4 more; moderate-certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 3 more; moderate-certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.69; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 7 more; moderate-certainty evidence), asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 23 fewer to 4 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 15 more; moderate-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.33; RD 1 more per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence), reoperation for bleeding (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; RD 4 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 26 more; moderate-certainty evidence), intraoperative transfusion (mean difference (MD) -35.36 mL, 95% CI -253.19 to 182.47; low-certainty evidence), postoperative transfusion (MD 190.03 mL, 95% CI -23.65 to 403.72; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.33; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 82 more; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.92; RD 26 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 39 fewer to 7 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses found the following additional results: outcomes intraoperative blood loss (MD -6.75 mL, 95% CI -85.49 to 71.99; moderate-certainty evidence); and postoperative drain volume (MD 30.18 mL, 95% CI -36.26 to 96.62; moderate-certainty evidence).In addition, the meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with Fondaparinux for the following outcomes: any VTE (DVT or PE, or both; RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.03; RD 57 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 228 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.05; RD 8fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), thrombocytopenia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.30; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 20 fewer to 48 more; low-certainty evidence), any PE (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.64; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and postoperative drain volume (MD -20.00 mL, 95% CI -114.34 to 74.34; low-certainty evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH versus UFH and LMWH compared with fondaparinux in their effects on mortality, thromboembolic outcomes, major bleeding, or minor bleeding in people with cancer. There was a lower incidence of wound hematoma with LMWH compared to UFH.

Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events, especially in people receiving anticoagulation treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a literature search including a major electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching conference proceedings; checking references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we run searches continually, incorporating new evidence after it is identified. Last search date 14 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of long-term treatment with LMWHs, DOACs or VKAs in people with cancer and symptomatic VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on study characteristics and risk of bias. Outcomes included: all-cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (QoL). We assessed the certainty of the evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 15,785 citations, including 7602 unique citations, 16 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 5167 people with cancer and VTE.Low molecular weight heparins versus vitamin K antagonistsEight studies enrolling 2327 participants compared LMWHs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of five studies probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 45 fewer to 48 more; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of four studies did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on major bleeding (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more, moderate-certainty evidence) or minor bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; RD 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 92 fewer to 47 more; low-certainty evidence), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.69). Meta-analysis of five studies showed that LMWHs probably reduced the recurrence of VTE compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; RD 53 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 29 fewer to 72 fewer, moderate-certainty evidence).Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonistsFive studies enrolling 982 participants compared DOACs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of four studies may not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to VKAs on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 51 fewer to 37 more; low-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.31; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 12 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.57, RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 54 fewer to 28 more; low-certainty evidence). One study reporting on DOAC versus VKA was published as abstract so is not included in the main analysis.Direct oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparinsTwo studies enrolling 1455 participants compared DOAC with LMWH. The study by Raskob did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to LMWH on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; RD 27 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 95 more; low-certainty evidence). The data also showed that DOACs may have shown a likely reduction in VTE recurrence up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; RD 36 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 1 more; low-certainty evidence). DOAC may have increased major bleeding at 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.88; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and likely increased minor bleeding up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 92 more; low-certainty evidence). The second study on DOAC versus LMWH was published as an abstract and is not included in the main analysis.Idraparinux versus vitamin K antagonistsOne RCT with 284 participants compared once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) for three or six months. The data probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of idraparinux compared to VKAs on mortality at six months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; RD 31 more per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 167 more; moderate-certainty evidence), VTE recurrence at six months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.32; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 25 more; low-certainty evidence) or major bleeding (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.56; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 98 more; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the long-term treatment of VTE in people with cancer, evidence shows that LMWHs compared to VKAs probably produces an important reduction in VTE and DOACs compared to LMWH, may likely reduce VTE but may increase risk of major bleeding. Decisions for a person with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWHs versus oral anticoagulation should balance benefits and harms and integrate the person's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.Editorial note: this is a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs offer new approaches to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in people with cancer. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis-related morbidity and mortality. This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in May 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux or comparing the effects of two of these anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, symptomatic catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, catheter-related infection, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (23 papers) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 3420 participants. Seven RCTs compared LMWH to no LMWH (six in adults and one in children), six RCTs compared VKA to no VKA (five in adults and one in children), and three RCTs compared LMWH to VKA in adults.LMWH versus no LMWHSix RCTs (1537 participants) compared LMWH to no LMWH in adults. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably decreased the incidence of symptomatic catheter-related VTE up to three months of follow-up compared to no LMWH (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.81; risk difference (RD) 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 52 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the analysis did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH on mortality at three months of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 36 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.28; RD 0 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 35 more; very low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.92; RD 14 more per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 79 more; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 58 more; low-certainty evidence).VKA versus no VKAFive RCTs (1599 participants) compared low-dose VKA to no VKA in adults. The meta-analyses did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of low-dose VKA compared to no VKA on mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.64; RD 31 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 51 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 57.78; RD 12 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 110 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.26; RD 15 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 13 more; low-certainty evidence), premature catheter removal (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 114 fewer to 202 more; low-certainty evidence), and catheter-related infection (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.85; RD 71 more per 1000, 95% CI 109 fewer to 356; low-certainty evidence).LMWH versus VKAThree RCTs (641 participants) compared LMWH to VKA in adults. The available evidence did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH relative to VKA on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59; RD 6 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 41 fewer to 56 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.61; RD 15 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 122 more; very low-certainty evidence), PE (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.92; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 144 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.11; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.61; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably increased the risk of thrombocytopenia compared to VKA at three months of follow-up (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.39; RD 149 more per 1000, 95% CI 43 fewer to 300 more; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was not conclusive for the effect of LMWH on mortality, the effect of VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE, and the effect of LMWH compared to VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE. We found moderate-certainty evidence that LMWH reduces catheter-related VTE compared to no LMWH. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included a major electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and a search for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 15440 identified citations, 7387 unique citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH enrolling 1025 participants, one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH enrolling 477 participants, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin enrolling 113 participants. The meta-analysis of mortality at three months included 418 participants from five studies and that of recurrent VTE included 422 participants from 3 studies. The findings showed that LMWH likely decreases mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence), but did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in VTE recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of fondaparinux on mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; moderate certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; moderate certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; moderate certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence)The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of dalteparin on mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through both an antitumor effect and antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in February 2016 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; a search for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 December 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory people with cancer. These participants are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, target therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8545 identified citations, including 7668 unique citations, 16 papers reporting on 7 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 1486 participants. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The meta-analysis of the studies comparing VKA to no VKA did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of VKA on thrombotic outcomes. The study did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in PE when comparing VKA to no VKA (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low certainty evidence), but found that VKA compared to no VKA likely decreases the incidence of DVT (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 38 fewer to 16 more; low certainty evidence). VKA increased both major bleeding (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate certainty evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study assessing the effect of DOAC compared to no DOAC did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at three months (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.56; RD 51 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 104 more; low certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; RD 93 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 100 fewer to 32 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 79.68; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 8 more; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The existing evidence does not show a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in people with cancer but suggests an increased risk for bleeding.Editorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Venöse Thrombembolien bei Tumorpatienten

Venous thrombembolism (VTE) is one of the most frequent complication in cancer patients. The current options in prophylaxis and therapy have to be balanced against the risks of major bleeding and the burden for the patients. The Gesellschaft für Thrombose- und Hämostaseforschung, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin and the German speaking Societies of Hematology and Oncology have recently published guidelines on VTE in cancer patients. Recommendations include diagnostics, individual prophylaxis and treatment.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through a speculated anti-tumour effect, in addition to the antithrombotic effect, although may increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included (1) a major electronic search (February 2016) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2016; accessed via OVID) and Embase (1980 to February 2016; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running searches continually and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August, 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 6947 identified citations, 18 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 9575 participants. Trial registries' searches identified nine registered but unpublished trials, two of which were labeled as 'ongoing trials'. In all included RCTs, the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 10 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 35 fewer to 15 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and mortality at 24 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; RD 8 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 31 fewer to 8 more; moderate certainty of evidence). Heparin therapy reduces the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; RD 30 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 36 fewer to 22 fewer; high certainty of evidence), while it increases in the risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% 0.94 to 1.79; RD 4 more per 1000; 95% CI 1 fewer to 11 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.70; 95% 1.13 to 2.55; RD 17 more per 1000; 95% CI 3 more to 37 more; high certainty of evidence). Results failed to confirm or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on thrombocytopenia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; RD 33 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 66 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty of evidence); quality of life (moderate certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It reduces symptomatic VTE and likely increases major and minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.Editorial note:This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Supportive care in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the cancers with poorest prognosis and represents the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Western countries. Despite advances in diagnostic procedures and treatment, diagnosis is made in most cases when the disease is locally advanced or metastatic. Supportive care aims to improve symptoms, reduce hospital admission rates, and preserve quality of life. Proper symptomatic management is critical to allow administration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Symptomatic management should be accomplished in a multidisciplinary fashion. Its primary aims include relief of biliary or duodenal obstruction, prevention and/or treatment of thromboembolic disease, and control cancer-related pain. Nutritional support and optimal replacement therapy in patients with endocrine and/or exocrine insufficiency, is mandatory. This manuscript highlights the most significant problems faced when caring for patients with advanced PDAC and provides an evidence-based approach to symptomatic management.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis during neoadjuvant therapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer-Is it indicated?

PURPOSE

To describe venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) during neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

Factors associated with VTE were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression modeling in patients with resectable and BLR PC treated with neoadjuvant therapy between 2009 and 2014.

RESULTS

Prevalent VTEs were detected in 13 (5%) of the 260 patients. Incident VTEs were detected in 26 patients (10%); 9 (8%) of the 109 resectable and 17 (11%) of the 151 BLR patients (P = 0.53). Of the 26 incident events, 9 (35%) were PEs, 9 (35%) were extremity DVTs, and 8 (31%) involved the SMV/PV. VTEs were catheter-related in 7 (27%) of the 26 patients. Rh(D) antigen positivity was associated with a decreased risk of incident VTE (OR:0.32, 95%CI:0.11-0.85, P = 0.02). Completion of neoadjuvant therapy to include surgery occurred in 176 (75%) of the 234 patients without incident VTE as compared to 14 (54%) of the 26 patients with incident VTE (P = 0.02). The median survival for all 260 patients was 24.3 months: 17.0 months versus 24.6 months for patients who did and did not develop incident VTE during neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with localized PC who receive neoadjuvant therapy are at significant risk of VTE and thromboprophylaxis may be warranted. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:581-586. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[Recommendations for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of pre-malignant lesions and pancreatic adenocarcinoma]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clinical management of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is complex, and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The same applies for the premalignant lesions that are increasingly being diagnosed. The current document is an update on the diagnosis and management of premalignant lesions and adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A conference to establish the basis of the literature review and manuscript redaction was organized by the Grupo Español Multidisciplinar en Cáncer Digestivo. Experts in the field from different specialties (Gastroenterology, Surgery, Radiology, Pathology, Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology) met to prepare the present document.

RESULTS

The current literature was reviewed and discussed, with subsequent deliberation on the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Final recommendations were established in view of all the above.

VTE risk assessment in cancer. Who needs prophylaxis and who does not?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality, and its prevention is of major clinical importance. However, the VTE rates in the cancer population vary between 0.5% - 20%, depending on cancer-, treatment- and patient-related factors. The most important contributors to VTE risk are the tumor entity, stage and certain anti-cancer treatments. Cancer surgery represents a strong risk factor for VTE, and medical oncology patients are at increased risk of developing VTE, especially when receiving chemotherapy or immunomodulatory drugs. Also biomarkers have been investigated for their usefulness to predict risk of VTE (e.g. elevated leukocyte and platelet counts, soluble P-selectin, D-dimer, etc.). In order to identify cancer patients at high risk of VTE and to improve risk stratification, risk assessment models have been developed, which contain both clinical parameters and biomarkers. While primary thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) is recommended postoperatively for a period of up to 4 weeks after major cancer surgery, the evidence is less clear for medical oncology patients. Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical oncology patients is advocated, and is based on results of randomized controlled trials which evaluated the efficacy and safety of LMWH for prevention of VTE in hospitalized medically ill patients. In recent trials the benefit of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the ambulatory setting has been investigated. However, at the present stage primary thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE in these patients is still a matter of debate and cannot be recommended for all cancer outpatients.

Guidelines for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism among patients with cancer

The association between cancer and thrombosis has been recognized for more than 150 years. Not only are patients with cancer at a substantially increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), the link between several coagulation factors and tumor growth, invasion, and the development of metastases has been established. Reported rates of VTE in patients with cancer have increased in recent years likely reflecting, in part, improved diagnosis with sophisticated imaging techniques as well as the impact of more aggressive cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment. Various therapeutic interventions, such as surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapeutic strategies as well as the frequent use of indwelling catheters and other invasive procedures also place cancer patients at increased risk of VTE. The increasing risk of VTE, the multitude of risk factors, and the greater risk of VTE recurrence and death among patients with cancer represent considerable challenges in modern clinical oncology. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) originally developed guidelines for VTE in patients with cancer in 2007. ASCO recently updated clinical practice guidelines on the treatment and prevention of VTE in patients with cancer following an extensive systematic review of the literature. Revised 2013 guidelines have now been presented and will be discussed in this review. Although several new studies were identified and considered, many important questions remain regarding the relationship between thrombosis and cancer and the optimal care of patients at risk for VTE.

New strategies of VTE prevention in cancer patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer. VTE is a main cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer and has a significant impact on their quality of life. Preventing VTE in cancer patients reduces both morbidity and mortality. The level of evidence for antithrombotic prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer varies for hospitalized and ambulatory patients. Hospitalized patients with active cancer (for both medical or surgical indication) and reduced mobility should receive thromboprophylaxis throughout hospital stay. Prophylaxis of VTE is not routinely recommended for outpatients with cancer on chemotherapy. For these patients, current guidelines suggest that clinicians should consider antithrombotic prophylaxis on a case-by-case basis in highly selected outpatients. Different strategies for identification of high-risk outpatients with cancer who could benefit of thromboprophylaxis are under consideration. The new oral anticoagulants could have a role for VTE prevention in ambulatory patients with cancer who are on chemotherapy, as they are administered at a fixed dose without routine laboratory monitoring and may have fewer drug interactions with anticancer agents.

The effect of low molecular weight heparin on survival in cancer patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Tumors may exploit the coagulation system to enhance the survival and dissemination of cancer cells. Some studies have suggested that heparin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) have antitumor effects. We reported a previous meta-analysis that suggested a modest improvement in overall survival with the use of LMWH in patients with cancer. Herein, we present the results of an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of LMWH as compared with placebo or no anticoagulant on the overall survival in patients with solid cancers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the use of LMWH vs. placebo or no anticoagulant in cancer patients without venous thrombosis. A meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model, and data were analyzed by the use of odds ratios (ORs) and relative risks (RRs) calculated for 1-year overall mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 724 potentially relevant studies, nine of which met our inclusion criteria, and reported data on 1-year overall mortality. Studies were heterogeneous regarding types of cancer and interventions, and included 5987 patients, 98.4% of whom had advanced-stage disease (III and IV). There was no discernible effect on mortality with the use of LMWH (pooled OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70-1.08; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86-1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the previous study, these results did not show a survival benefit in cancer patients receiving LMWH. The effect of LMWH on overall survival in patients with limited-stage disease still is unknown.

[Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. Clinical value of low-molecular-weight heparins]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer. Because of their improved subcutaneous bioavailability and reliable antithrombotic efficiency low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) are preferably used for prevention and treatment of cancer-related VTE. Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH is well established in patients undergoing cancer surgery and hospitalized cancer patients, while outpatient prophylaxis remains contentious. LMWH are recommended over unfractionated heparins and vitamin K antagonists for initial treatment and secondary prophylaxis (3-6 months) after cancer-related VTE. Long-term secondary prophylaxis should be considered for patients with ongoing active malignancy and low bleeding risk. Due to absence of clinical studies in cancer patients, the use of novel oral anticoagulants is currently not recommended.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. Prophylaxis in the outpatient, inpatient, and perioperative settings was considered, as were treatment and use of anticoagulation as a cancer-directed therapy.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published from December 2007 to December 2012 was completed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed evidence to determine which recommendations required revision.

RESULTS

Forty-two publications met eligibility criteria, including 16 systematic reviews and 24 randomized controlled trials.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Most hospitalized patients with cancer require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for outpatients with cancer. It may be considered for selected high-risk patients. Patients with multiple myeloma receiving antiangiogenesis agents with chemotherapy and/or dexamethasone should receive prophylaxis with either low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose aspirin. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis, starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Extending prophylaxis up to 4 weeks should be considered in those with high-risk features. LMWH is recommended for the initial 5 to 10 days of treatment for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as well as for long-term (6 months) secondary prophylaxis. Use of novel oral anticoagulants is not currently recommended for patients with malignancy and VTE. Anticoagulation should not be used for cancer treatment in the absence of other indications. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk. Oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.

Administration of chemotherapy by an arteriovenous fistula in a patient with metastatic rectal cancer after life-threatening, port thrombosis-associated cava superior syndrome. An option for patients without possibility of peripheral or central venous access

BACKGROUND

Patients with solid tumors have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, potentially related to a venous port system. In case of catheter-related thrombosis despite full anticoagulation, further treatment administration is difficult.

CASE REPORT

A 41-year-old female patient with a K-Ras wild-type adenocarcinoma of the rectum was diagnosed with systemic disease in June 2008 after several local recurrences treated with surgery and additive chemotherapy. To administer chemotherapy with FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan) and bevacizumab, a venous port system into the vena subclavia was implanted. In April 2009, the computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a portassociated thrombosis with cava superior syndrome, despite treatment with phenprocoumon and an international normalized ratio (INR) of 3.75 at the time of the event. The port system was explanted. According to the possible relationship to bevacizumab, treatment was discontinued, followed by rapid disease progression. Access to peripheral veins became virtually impossible. Therefore, a radiocephalic fistula was established. For 9 months, the patient has been receiving several therapeutic agents with 20 punctures of the fistula, revealing no locoregional events (e.g. arterial, venous or cutaneous).

CONCLUSION

The application of current therapeutic agents by an arteriovenous fistula seems to be a feasible option for patients with restricted peripheral or central vein status and/or medical history of thrombotic events disabling the use of a port system.

Treating venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer. Although much is known about the factors that contribute to VTE risk, pre-emptive therapy in high-risk populations is clearly indicated in only a few clinical situations. Low-molecular-weight heparin is still the recommended class of anticoagulants for cancer-associated VTE. Management of VTE in patients with renal failure, hemorrhagic brain metastases, thrombocytopenia and coagulopathy remains challenging with few safe and effective alternatives. Novel oral agents are currently being investigated and may play a role in the future in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

[Chemotherapy of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: challenges and encouraging results]

The outcome for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is dismal. In this article, we will review current first-line treatments for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma focusing on phase III randomized studies. Single-agent gemcitabine, the reference treatment since 1995, offers only slight benefit. Numerous trials using gemcitabine in combination with different cytotoxic agents have resulted in no major improvement compared to gemcitabine alone. Only the gemcitabine-erlotinib combination has shown a small, but statistically improvement in survival. In selected patients with good performance status ECOG 0-1, no cardiac ischemia and almost normal bilirubin level, the Folfirinox regimen, when compared to gemcitabine as single agent, was associated with more toxicities, but also with significant increased survival and delay in the degradation of quality of life. So, Folfirinox is a new more toxic and more efficient regimen that may be considered in patients with good performance status.

Systemic treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer belongs to the most malignant gastrointestinal cancers and, in its advanced stage, remains a deadly disease for nearly all affected patients. Treatment of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas not only involves chemotherapy and targeted therapy, but also requires attention to accompanying comorbidities as well as frequently intensive supportive treatment and psychosocial support. Gemcitabine-based combinations with fluoropyrimidines and platin analogs have essentially failed to provide a substantial prolongation of survival and may constitute a treatment option only in patients with a good performance status. Among targeted therapies, only the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib has shown activity which is marginal in the overall population, but clinically relevant in patients developing skin rash. New avenues of polychemotherapy are presently explored since the gemcitabine-free FOLFIRINOX-regimen (infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus irinotecan and oxaliplatin) was shown to be markedly superior to gemcitabine in selected good-performance patients. Pancreatic cancer is notably characterized as a hypovascular tumor rich in desmoplastic stromal tissue. An innovative approach to treatment therefore focuses on peritumoral fibroblasts and aims to induce a depletion of the stroma either by inhibition of the hedgehog pathway or by targeting SPARC (secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine) via application of albumin-bound paclitaxel.

Analysis of incidence and clinical outcomes in patients with thromboembolic events and invasive exocrine pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is among the most common malignancies associated with thromboembolic events (TEs); however, reported incidence figures vary significantly and contain small patient cohorts. Pancreatic cancer-specific thrombosis studies examining the correlation between clinical variables, including thrombosis timing and the impact of thrombosis on survival, have not been reported.

METHODS

Survival analyses were performed relating to the development and timing of a TE in 1915 patients administered chemotherapy at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center with invasive exocrine pancreatic cancer from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009. TE timing, relative to clinical parameters including laboratory data, erythropoietin-stimulating agent use, and body mass index (BMI), were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A thrombosis was identified in 690 (36%) patients. After adjusting for patients with pancreatic surgery and thrombosis (n = 127), developing a TE significantly increased the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-2.8; P < .01). Patients with an early TE (within 1.5 months from pancreatic cancer diagnosis) had a significantly higher risk of death (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.7-2.5; P < .01) compared with patients with late TE or no TE. Erythropoietin-stimulating agent use and an elevated international normalized ratio were associated with significantly shorter time to thrombosis. Low BMI was associated with significantly longer time to thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

TEs are common in exocrine pancreatic cancer, with coagulopathy, erythropoietin-stimulating agent use, and underweight BMI influencing thrombosis timing. TEs, particularly early ones, confer a significantly worse prognosis, suggesting a biological significance, underscoring the relevance of ongoing prophylaxis trials, and raising the question of whether early TEs should be considered a stratification factor for clinical trials.

High incidence of thromboembolic events in patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a large retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

This study was designed to determine the incidence of venous and arterial thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy and to analyze the prognostic value of patients' baseline and treatment characteristics in predicting TEE occurrence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a large retrospective analysis of all patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for any type of malignancy at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in 2008. A TEE was cisplatin-associated if it occurred between the time of the first dose of cisplatin and 4 weeks after the last dose.

RESULTS

Among 932 patients, 169 (18.1%) experienced a TEE during treatment or within 4 weeks of the last dose. TEEs included deep vein thrombosis (DVT) alone in 49.7%, pulmonary embolus (PE) alone in 25.4%, DVT plus PE in 13.6%, arterial TEE alone in 8.3%, or DVT plus arterial TEE in 3.0%. TEEs occurred within 100 days of initiation of treatment in 88% of patients. By univariate analysis, sex, age, race, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), exposure to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, presence of central venous catheter (CVC), site of cancer, stage of cancer, leukocyte and hemoglobin levels, and Khorana score were all identified as risk factors. However, by multivariate analysis, only age, KPS, presence of CVC, and Khorana score retained significance.

CONCLUSION

This large retrospective analysis confirms the unacceptable incidence of TEEs in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In view of the controversy associated with prophylactic anticoagulation in patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy, randomized studies are urgently needed in this specific cancer population treated with cisplatin-based regimens.

The impact of thromboprophylaxis on cancer survival: focus on pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is still a clinical challenge due to its predominantly late diagnosis and the chemoresistance to cytotoxic and target drugs. One of the major complications of pancreatic cancer is venous thromboembolism (VTE). Both ambulatory and hospitalized pancreatic cancer patients are at higher risk of developing VTE. Among patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, the occurrence of VTE may be associated with a poor prognosis. Furthermore, emerging clinical data strongly suggest that anticoagulant treatment may improve patient survival by decreasing thromboembolic complications as well as by anticancer activity. Given the clinical relevance for both physicians and basic scientists, this article focuses on the experimental and clinical evidence supporting the relation between the coagulation cascade and the invasive and metastatic potential of pancreatic cancer, and suggests that anticoagulant therapy may represent a useful strategy to improve the prognosis of pancreatic cancer patients.

The Hemostasis Apparatus in Pancreatic Cancer and Its Importance beyond Thrombosis

Laboratory evidence of aberrant coagulation is found in the majority of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and a clinical consequence of this is the high incidence and prevalence of vascular thromboembolic events. Other sequelae are hypothesized to be the facilitation and acceleration of mechanisms that define the malignant phenotype, such as invasion, trafficking and anchoring, establishing the metastatic niche and inducing angiogenesis. We review the in vitro and preclinical evidence that supports the role of the coagulation apparatus in the metastatic process of pancreatic cancer, with a particular emphasis on interaction of this pathway with clinically-targeted growth factor receptor pathways. Links between hemostasis, angiogenesis and epidermal growth factor pathways and their significance as therapeutic targets are considered.