Successful Model for Guideline Implementation to Prevent Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic

DNA liquid biopsy-based prediction of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major source of oncologic cost, morbidity and mortality. Identifying high-risk patients for prophylactic anticoagulation is challenging and adds to clinician burden. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing assays ('liquid biopsies') are widely implemented, but their utility for VTE prognostication is unknown. Here we analyzed three plasma sequencing cohorts: a pan-cancer discovery cohort of 4,141 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or breast, pancreatic and other cancers; a prospective validation cohort consisting of 1,426 patients with the same cancer types; and an international generalizability cohort of 463 patients with advanced NSCLC. ctDNA detection was associated with VTE independent of clinical and radiographic features. A machine learning model trained on liquid biopsy data outperformed previous risk scores (discovery, validation and generalizability c-indices 0.74, 0.73 and 0.67, respectively, versus 0.57, 0.61 and 0.54 for the Khorana score). In real-world data, anticoagulation was associated with lower VTE rates if ctDNA was detected (n = 2,522, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.81); ctDNA- patients (n = 1,619) did not benefit from anticoagulation (adjusted HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.40-2.0). These results provide preliminary evidence that liquid biopsies may improve VTE risk stratification in addition to clinical parameters. Interventional, randomized prospective studies are needed to confirm the clinical utility of liquid biopsies for guiding anticoagulation in patients with cancer.

Cardio-Oncology: A New Discipline in Medicine and Its Relevance to Hematology

Cardio-oncology, a burgeoning subspecialty, addresses the complex interplay between cardiology and oncology, particularly in light of increased cardiovascular (CV) disease mortality in cancer patients. This review provides a comprehensive overview of cardio-oncology with a focus on the therapies used in hematological malignancies. We explore the bidirectional relationship between heart failure and cancer, emphasizing the need for collaborative care. The review discusses risk stratification, highlighting the importance of baseline CV risk assessment and personalized surveillance regimens. Primary and secondary prevention strategies, including pharmacological interventions, are outlined. The review also delves into the cardiotoxicity associated with hematological cancer therapies, focusing on anthracyclines, Bruton kinase inhibitors, BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors, CAR-T cell therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, multiple myeloma treatments, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We then highlight the high risk of venous and arterial thromboembolisms in cancer patients and the challenges of anticoagulation management in cardio-oncology. Finally, the review touches on the importance of long-term follow-up and appropriate screening in cancer survivors at high risk of CV morbidity and mortality, based on their CV risk profile and the type and dose of cardiotoxic therapies they received such as anthracyclines or high radiation doses.

Venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Disease burden and initiation of ambulatory thromboprophylaxis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Ambulatory thromboprophylaxis (AT) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) reduces venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk and is recommended for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. We evaluated VTE rates, severity, timing, and risk factors in PAC patients as well as AT rates and initiation times.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with PAC were included. Data collected included patient demographics, medical history, PAC diagnosis, development of VTE, AT, and bleeding episodes. VTE was defined as a DVT or a PE. Patients were classified as receiving AT for VTE prevention if they received a prescription for outpatient anticoagulation.

RESULTS

The cohort included 243 PAC patients. VTE occurred in 24 %. Overall, 52 % developing VTE were hospitalized and 5 % died as a result of the VTE. Of those who developed VTE 50 % were diagnosed within the first 2 months of PAC diagnosis. Univariate predictors of elevated VTE risk included an elevated Onkotev score, metastasis at diagnosis, male gender and not receiving AT. Multivariate predictors of elevated VTE risk included male gender (P = 0.014) and not receiving AT (P = 0.001). Overall, 30 % of patients received AT. The median time from diagnosis to initiation of AT was 43 days. Major bleeding occurred in 5.8 %. Patients receiving AT were not at a significantly increased risk of major bleeding (p = 0.5). Patients with intestinal tumor invasion were at significantly increased risk of major bleeding (P = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

VTE risk is significant and morbid in PAC patients. AT rates are low, and initiation is often delayed. Therapeutic endoscopists diagnosing PAC may be helpful in AT initiation.

Preventing venous thromboembolism for ambulatory patients with cancer: Developing the form and content of implementation strategies

Background

For ambulatory cancer patients receiving systemic chemotherapy, adherence is low to recommended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention interventions. Previously, we identified implementation strategies to address barriers to adherence, including (1) conducting clinician education and training; (2) developing and distributing educational materials for clinicians; (3) adapting electronic health records to provide interactive assistance; and (4) developing and distributing educational materials for patients. The objective of this study was to develop these implementation strategies' form (i.e., how and when) and content (i.e., information conveyed) as a critical step for implementation and dissemination.

Methods

To design and develop the form and content of the implementation strategies, we conducted multidisciplinary stakeholder panels with oncology clinicians, pharmacists, and hematologists. Over several panel discussions, we developed a low fidelity prototype. Participants performed preliminary usability testing, simulating patient care encounters. We also conducted interviews with three patients who provided additional feedback.

Results

The form and content for each strategy, respectively, included (1) concise training with a slide deck; (2) succinct summary of evidence for the interventions and support for anticoagulation management; (3) automated VTE risk-assessment and clinical decision support, including bleeding risk assessment and anticoagulation options; and (4) patient education resources. During development, audit and feedback was identified as an additional strategy, for which we created report cards to implement.

Conclusion

With stakeholder input, we successfully developed the form and content needed to put the implementation strategies into practice. The next step is to study the effect on the uptake of ambulatory VTE prevention recommendations in oncology clinics.

Novel Insights in Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Methods in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: From the Guidelines to Clinical Practice

Many cancer patients will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE) at some stage, with the highest rate in the initial period following diagnosis. Novel cancer therapies may further enhance the risk. VTE in a cancer setting is associated with poor prognostic, a decreased quality of life, and high healthcare costs. If thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized cancer patients and perioperative settings is widely accepted in clinical practice and supported by the guidelines, it is not the same situation in ambulatory cancer patient settings. The guidelines do not recommend primary thromboprophylaxis, except in high-risk cases. However, nowadays, risk stratification is still challenging, although many tools have been developed. The Khrorana score remains the most used method, but it has many limits. This narrative review aims to present the current relevant knowledge of VTE risk assessment in ambulatory cancer patients, starting from the guideline recommendations and continuing with the specific risk assessment methods and machine learning models approaches. Biomarkers, genetic, and clinical features were tested alone or in groups. Old and new models used in VTE risk assessment are exposed, underlining their clinical utility. Imaging and biomolecular approaches to VTE screening of outpatients with cancer are also presented, which could help clinical decisions.

Care pathways for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis: From diagnosis to long-term follow-up

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is associated with a high risk of bleeding complications and hospitalisation, as well as with increased mortality. Good practice recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer have been developed by a number of professional bodies. Although these guidelines provide consistent recommendations on what treatment should be offered to patients presenting with cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT), many questions remain unanswered, in particular about the modalities of management (Who? When? Where?) and, for this reason, we have developed a consensus proposal for an appropriate multidisciplinary care pathway for patients with CAT, which is presented in this article. The proposal was informed by the recent scientific literature retrieved through a systematic literature review. This proposal is centred on the development of a shared care plan individualised to each patient's needs and expectations, patient information and shared decision-making to promote adherence, involvement of all relevant hospital- and community- based healthcare providers in the development and implementation of the care plan, and regular re-evaluation of the treatment strategy.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Epidemiology, Pathophysiological Mechanisms, Treatment, and Risk Assessment

Cancer patients represent a growing population with drastically difficult care and a lowered quality of life, especially due to the heightened risk of vast complications. Thus, it is well established so far that one of the most prominent complications in individuals with cancer is venous thromboembolism. Since there are various improved methods for screening and diagnosing cancer and its complications, the incidence of cancer-associated thrombosis has been on the rise in recent years. Therefore, the high mortality and morbidity rates among these patients are not a surprise. Consequently, there is an excruciating need for understanding the mechanisms behind this complex process, as well as the imperative for adequate analysis and application of the most suitable steps for cancer-associated thrombosis prevention. There are various and numerous mechanisms offering potential answers to cancer-associated thrombosis, some of which have already been elucidated in various preclinical and clinical scenarios, yet further and more elaborate studies are crucial to understanding and preventing this complex and harsh clinical entity. This article elaborates on the growing incidence, mortality, morbidity, and risk factors of cancer-associated thrombosis while emphasizing the pathophysiological mechanisms in the light of various types of cancer in patients and summarizes the most novel therapy and prevention guidelines recommendations.

Venous thromboembolism prevention in cancer care: implementation strategies to address underuse

Background

Evidenced-based interventions have been developed to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory patients with cancer, including VTE-risk assessment for all patients and targeted primary thromboprophylaxis for high-risk patients. Despite supportive evidence and recommendations, oncologists rarely assess VTE risk or provide primary prophylaxis. Our previous work identified barriers and facilitators to using VTE prevention interventions in oncology practice.

Objectives

To identify potential strategies that address the identified barriers and leverage facilitators to achieve successful implementation of evidence-based interventions for VTE prevention in oncology practice.

Methods

We used the Implementation Research Logic Model, an implementation science framework, to map the relationships among barriers and facilitators, feasible and effective implementation strategies, and implementation and clinical outcomes that will be used to evaluate the implementation strategies.

Results

We identified 12 discrete implementation strategies (eg, conducting clinician education and training and staged implementation scale-up) that address barriers and leverage facilitators through their mechanisms of action (eg, increased clinician awareness of evidence and targeting the highest effectiveness). We identified key implementation (eg, penetration, adoption, acceptability, fidelity, appropriateness, and sustainability), system (eg, integration of VTE-risk assessment into clinical workflow), and clinical (eg, lower VTE rates) outcomes targeted by the selected strategies.

Conclusion

Using the Implementation Research Logic Model framework and building on our knowledge of barriers and facilitators, we identified implementation strategies and important outcomes to evaluate these strategies. We will use these results to test and measure the strategies to improve the uptake of evidence-based recommendations for VTE prevention in oncology practice.

Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Patients with Cancer: When and How?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer-associated thrombosis is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. Historically, thromboprophylaxis efforts have focused on the highest risk patients with cancer, including post-operative patients and hospitalized patients. This review covers not only thromboprophylaxis for these groups but also emerging data supporting prophylaxis in ambulatory medical oncology patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several leading guidelines, backed by clinical trial data, now support the use of direct oral anticoagulants for select high-risk outpatients for primary thromboprophylaxis. However, uptake of these findings remains low. Pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis strategies continue to improve. However, it remains challenging to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis. The morbidity and mortality associated with cancer associated thrombosis may be preventable. Understanding advancements in risk prediction, anticoagulant options, and implementation of existing data, is critical to provide optimal patient care.

Prediction of venous thromboembolism incidence in the general adult population using two published genetic risk scores

INTRODUCTION

Most strategies for prevention of venous thromboembolism focus on preventing recurrent events. Yet, primary prevention might be possible through approaches targeting the whole population or high-risk patients. To inform possible prevention strategies, population-based information on the ability of genetic risk scores to identify risk of incident venous thromboembolism is needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used proportional hazards regression to relate two published genetic risk scores (273-variants versus 5-variants) with venous thromboembolism incidence in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) cohort (n = 11,292), aged 45-64 at baseline, drawn from 4 US communities.

RESULTS

Over a median of 28 years, ARIC identified 788 incident venous thromboembolism events. Incidence rates rose more than two-fold across quartiles of the 273-variant genetic risk score: 1.7, 2.7, 3.4 and 4.0 per 1,000 person-years. For White participants, age, sex, and ancestry-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) across quartiles were strong [1 (reference), 1.30 (0.99,1.70), 1.85 (1.43,2.40), and 2.58 (2.04,3.28)] but weaker for Black participants [1, 1.05 (0.63,1.75), 1.37 (0.84,2.22), and 1.32 (0.80,2.20)]. The 5-variant genetic risk score showed a less steep gradient, with hazard ratios in Whites of 1, 1.17 (0.89,1.54), 1.48 (1.14,1.92), and 2.18 (1.71,2.79). Models including the 273-variant genetic risk score plus lifestyle and clinical factors had a c-statistic of 0.67.

CONCLUSIONS

In the general population, middle-aged adults in the highest quartile of either genetic risk score studied have approximately two-fold higher risk of an incident venous thromboembolism compared with the lowest quartile. The genetic risk scores show a weaker association with venous thromboembolism for Black people.

Treatment and prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis in the Netherlands: A national survey

Background

In the recent years, numerous studies on the optimal treatment and prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been published, leading to updated (inter)national guidelines. These include direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the first-line treatment agent in general and the recommendation of primary thromboprophylaxis in selected ambulatory patients.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical practice regarding treatment and prevention of VTE in patients with cancer in the Netherlands and practice variation among different specialties.

Methods

An online survey was conducted between December 2021, and June 2022, among Dutch physicians (oncologists, hematologists, vascular medicine specialists, acute internal medicine specialists, and pulmonologists) treating patients with cancer, in which we explored the treatment of choice for cancer-associated VTE, the use of VTE risk stratification tools, and primary thromboprophylaxis.

Results

A total of 222 physicians participated, of whom the majority (81%) used DOACs as a first-line agent for treating cancer-associated VTE. The treatment varied between the following specialties: hematologists and acute internal medicine specialists more often prescribed low-molecular-weight heparin than physicians of the other specialties (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.80). The minimum duration of anticoagulant treatment was usually 3 to 6 months (87%), and treatment was extended when the malignancy was still active (98%). Regarding the prevention of cancer-associated VTE, no risk stratification tool was used. Three quarters of respondents never prescribed thromboprophylaxis to ambulatory patients, mostly because the thrombosis risk was not perceived high enough to justify prophylaxis.

Conclusion

Dutch physicians largely adhere to the updated guidelines regarding the treatment of cancer-associated VTE but less to the recommendations for its prevention.

Implementing guidelines for risk-stratified thromboprophylaxis among gynecologic oncology patients: A quality improvement initiative

OBJECTIVE(S)

Risk-stratified thromboprophylaxis is recommended for oncology patients with a Khorana risk score (KS) ≥ 2 receiving cancer-directed therapy. We describe a quality improvement (QI) initiative designed to increase adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines for patients with gynecologic malignancies initiating outpatient treatment.

METHODS

Provider awareness and documentation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis eligibility were identified as key QI drivers. Starting May 2021, a KS calculator and thromboprophylaxis algorithm were incorporated into outpatient documentation templates. Patients with gynecologic malignancies initiating outpatient therapy from January - December 2021 were eligible. The primary process measure was the percentage of patients with KS eligibility documented each month during the baseline (Jan - Apr) versus implementation (May - Dec) periods. Rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis initiation and incidence of VTE served as outcome measures. Incidence of adverse bleeding events served as the balancing measure.

RESULTS

337 patients accounted for the initiation of 383 treatment regimens, including 128 in the baseline period and 255 in the implementation period. KS documentation increased significantly between the baseline and implementation periods (7% vs 62.4%, p < 0.001). 73 of the 177 eligible patients (46.2%; 166 unique patients) had appropriate documentation; of these, 57 initiated thromboprophylaxis. There was no difference in VTE rates or adverse bleeding events between eligible patients who initiated thromboprophylaxis compared with those who did not (12.3% vs 15.6%; p = 0.65 and 7.0% vs 8.2%; p = 1.0, respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

This QI initiative resulted in greater adherence to risk-stratified thromboprophylaxis guidelines. No bleeding signals were identified. Studies addressing cost, medication adherence, and long-term outcomes are necessary.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban and rivaroxaban in thromboprophylaxis of cancer patients treated with chemotherapy in Spain

BACKGROUND

Apixaban and rivaroxaban are two direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) recommended for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy in an ambulatory setting. We aimed to assess the cost-utility of thromboprophylaxis with apixaban and rivaroxaban vs no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients starting chemotherapy with an intermediate-to-high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), Khorana score ≥ 2 points.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of Spain's National Health System (NHS) using an analytical decision model in the short-term (180 days) and a Markov model in the long-term (5 years). Transition probabilities were obtained from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of apixaban and rivaroxaban in adult ambulatory patients with cancer at risk for VTE, treated with chemotherapy (AVERT and CASSINI trials). The costs (€2,021) were taken from Spanish sources. The utilities of the model were obtained through the EQ-5D questionnaire. Deterministic (base case) and probabilistic (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban generated a cost per patient of €1,082 ± 187, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of €713-1,442, while no prophylaxis produced a cost per patient of €1,146 ± 218, with a 95% CI of €700-1,491, with a saving of €64 per patient and a gain of 0.008 QALYs. Likewise, rivaroxaban provided a cost per patient of €993 ± 133, with a 95% CI of €748-1,310, while no prophylaxis produced a cost per patient of €872 ± 152, with a 95% CI of €602-1,250, with an additional expense of €121 per patient and a gain of 0.008 QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

In thromboprophylaxis of cancer patients, the use of apixaban and rivaroxaban generated similar costs compared to non-prophylaxis, without the difference found being statistically significant, with a clinically insignificant QALY gain.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review

Background

Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.

Results

We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.

Conclusions

Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4nxpr) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6.

Multidisciplinary Care for the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Impact of Educational Interventions on CAT-Related Events and on Patients' and Clinicians' Awareness

Cancer is a leading cause of death. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an often-overlooked cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients that can be readily prevented and treated. Actions are needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). There is a need to increase awareness of the impact of CAT on cancer patients' morbidity and mortality, on their quality of life and to understand the importance of more effective preventions and treatments of VTE in cancer patients. Moreover, it is of great importance to systematically assess the risk of VTE in regard to patients, cancer and treatment-related factors. Unfortunately, there are unmet clinical needs in the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated VTE. In this review, we discuss an action plan to ensure an increased awareness of and education on the issues that need to be addressed in order to improve the provision of appropriate prevention, early diagnosis and effective and safe treatment of VTE to all cancer patients and, ultimately, to reduce morbidity and mortality.

How well do European patients understand cancer-associated thrombosis? A patient survey

Ongoing concerns regarding the morbidity and mortality from cancer-associated thrombosis led the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), the voice of cancer patients across Europe, to create a pan-European cancer-associated awareness patient survey to assess cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) knowledge among a large population of patients with cancer. The ECPC survey represents the largest of its kind among patients/caregivers with CAT. It identified significant gaps in patient awareness and knowledge of CAT as well as a need for educational CAT-related discussions and interventions between healthcare professionals and patients with cancer and their caregivers. The aim of this paper is to highlight these gaps and to provide awareness of what/when information should be shared with patients/caregivers. Notably, the importance of providing information on how to reduce their risk of CAT, the role of anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment (short- and long-term) including possible side-effects, and finally how to identify CAT symptoms early. Here we outline what type of information should be provided, as well as when and how to best discuss CAT with our oncology patients and their caregivers along the cancer care continuum, to reduce the risk of CAT and associated complications with a goal of improving patient outcomes.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Cancer-associated thrombosis (including venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial events) is highly consequential for patients with cancer and is associated with worsened survival. Despite substantial improvements in cancer treatment, the risk of VTE has increased in recent years; VTE rates additionally depend on the type of cancer (with pancreas, stomach and primary brain tumours having the highest risk) as well as on individual patient's and cancer treatment factors. Multiple cancer-specific mechanisms of VTE have been identified and can be classified as mechanisms in which the tumour expresses proteins that alter host systems, such as levels of platelets and leukocytes, and in which the tumour expresses procoagulant proteins released into the circulation that directly activate the coagulation cascade or platelets, such as tissue factor and podoplanin, respectively. As signs and symptoms of VTE may be non-specific, diagnosis requires clinical assessment, evaluation of pre-test probability, and objective diagnostic testing with ultrasonography or CT. Risk assessment tools have been validated to identify patients at risk of VTE. Primary prevention of VTE (thromboprophylaxis) has long been recommended in the inpatient and post-surgical settings, and is now an option in the outpatient setting for individuals with high-risk cancer. Anticoagulant therapy is the cornerstone of therapy, with low molecular weight heparin or newer options such as direct oral anticoagulants. Personalized treatment incorporating risk of bleeding and patient preferences is essential, especially as a diagnosis of VTE is often considered by patients even more distressing than their cancer diagnosis, and can severely affect the quality of life. Future research should focus on current knowledge gaps including optimizing risk assessment tools, biomarker discovery, next-generation anticoagulant development and implementation science.

Building a CAT clinic - real-world systems approaches to prevention and treatment

Cancer patients have an increased risk of developing venous thrombosis. The implementation of a cancer associated thrombosis clinic can be instrumental for the prevention, early recognition, and management of venous thromboembolism in this vulnerable population. Cancer thrombosis clinics rely on a multidisciplinary approach to care and require standardization along with a dedicated team of healthcare professionals. Cancer thrombosis clinics have the potential to improve patient outcomes and lower healthcare expenditure. Herein, we describe a successful model of a cancer thrombosis clinic and highlight the potential impact on clinical outcomes.

A mixed-methods study to evaluate a patient-designed tool to reduce harm from cancer-associated thrombosis: The EMPOWER study

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and serious complication of systemic anticancer therapies. Delays in presentation increase risk of death or long-term morbidity.

BACKGROUND

A patient charity developed an information video for patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy including what to do if they developed symptoms of VTE. This was introduced into clinical practice in a regional cancer center and its impact compared with a district general hospital where the video was not used.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used, comprising clinical audit data, patient surveys, and key informant interviews. The time between development of VTE symptoms and seeking medical evaluation was routinely recorded on patients attending a regional cancer-associated thrombosis service with systemic anticancer therapy-provoked VTE. The video was then embedded into clinical practice at the regional cancer center for 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in time to presentation with VTE symptoms, between patients attending the regional cancer center and the district general hospital (which acted as control). Other outcomes included impact on radiology resources, patient knowledge, and perspectives of chemotherapy nurses.

RESULTS

Addition of the video was associated with a lower mean time to presentation from 8.9 to 2.9 days (0.33 hazard ratio; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-7.4; P < .0001). This may reflect greater awareness of VTE, resulting in earlier clinical presentation when they developed attributable symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The video was associated with reduced delays in diagnosis of systemic anticancer therapy-associated VTE by 6 days, thereby reducing long-term complications.

Illustrated State-of-the-Art Capsules of the ISTH 2020 Congress

This year's Congress of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) was hosted virtually from Philadelphia July 17-21, 2021. The conference, now held annually, highlighted cutting-edge advances in basic, population and clinical sciences of relevance to the Society. Despite being held virtually, the 2021 congress was of the same scope and quality as an annual meeting held in person. An added feature of the program is that talks streamed at the designated times will then be available on-line for asynchronous viewing. The program included 77 State of the Art (SOA) talks, thematically grouped in 28 sessions, given by internationally recognized leaders in the field. The SOA speakers were invited to prepare brief illustrated reviews of their talks that were peer reviewed and are included in this article. The topics, across the main scientific themes of the congress, include Arterial Thromboembolism, Coagulation and Natural Anticoagulants, COVID-19 and Coagulation, Diagnostics and Omics, Fibrinogen, Fibrinolysis and Proteolysis, Hemophilia and Rare Bleeding Disorders, Hemostasis in Cancer, Inflammation and Immunity, Pediatrics, Platelet Disorders, von Willebrand Disease and Thrombotic Angiopathies, Platelets and Megakaryocytes, Vascular Biology, Venous Thromboembolism and Women's Health. These illustrated capsules highlight the major scientific advances with potential to impact clinical practice. Readers are invited to take advantage of the excellent educational resource provided by these illustrated capsules. They are also encouraged to use the image in social media to draw attention to the high quality and impact of the science presented at the congress.

Risk and Management of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with COVID-19

Background

One of the most pronounced and poorly understood pathological features of COVID-19 infection has been high risk for venous and arterial thromboembolic complications. An increasing number of thromboembolic events are being reported almost on a daily basis, and the medical community has struggled to predict and mitigate this risk. We aimed to review available literature on the risk and management of COVID-19 related venous thromboembolism (VTE), and provide evidence-based guidance to manage these events.

Methods

A literature review of VTE complications in patients with COVID-19 was performed, in addition to a summary of the societal guidelines and present pathways implemented at our institution for the management of both in- and outpatient COVID-19 related VTE.

Results

Although a significant VTE risk has been confirmed in patients with COVID-19, literature addressing best ways to mitigate this risk is lacking. Furthermore, there has been very limited guidance provided by societal guidelines to help prevent and manage VTE associated with the COVID-19 infection. In light of the available data, we advise that all patients admitted with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 receive pharmacological prophylaxis if bleeding risk is acceptable. For patients with COVID-19 who have been discharged from the emergency department or hospital, we suggest extended thromboprophylaxis (up to 39 days) as long as bleeding risk is low.

Conclusions

We believe that this literature summary along with our center recommendations and algorithms provide valuable guidance to providers caring for patients with COVID-19 related VTE. More research is needed to standardize prophylaxis and management protocols for these patients.

Prediction and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism

Venous and arterial thromboembolism are prevalent, highly burdensome, and associated with risk of worse outcomes for patients with cancer. Risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies widely across specific cancer subpopulations. The ability to predict risk of cancer-associated VTE is critical because an optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy is best achieved by targeting high-risk patients with cancer and avoiding prophylaxis in patients with cancer at low risk for VTE. A validated risk tool for solid tumors has been available for a decade. Newer tools have focused on specific populations, such as patients with multiple myeloma. Emerging studies continue to optimize risk prediction approaches in patients with cancer. Recent randomized trials have specifically addressed risk-adapted thromboprophylaxis using direct oral anticoagulants, and revised guidelines have included these new data to formulate recommendations for outpatient thromboprophylaxis. Implementation science approaches to enhance use of outpatient prophylaxis in the context of these guideline changes are under way. However, major knowledge gaps remain, including a lack of data for inpatient thromboprophylaxis in the cancer setting and a lack of formal tools for identifying risk of bleeding. This review describes optimal approaches to risk prediction and patient selection for primary pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis of cancer-associated VTE, addresses barriers to implementing these practices, and highlights strategies to overcome them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies widely among patients with cancer. Individual risk can be determined using validated approaches. Inpatient and postsurgical thromboprophylaxis is more widely accepted. However, most patients with cancer develop VTE in the outpatient setting. Recent randomized trials have demonstrated benefit to risk-adapted outpatient thromboprophylaxis. High-risk patients may therefore be considered for outpatient thromboprophylaxis as recommended by recently updated guidelines. System-wide implementation approaches are necessary to improve compliance with prophylaxis.

Exploring Opportunities for Primary Prevention of Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism: Ready for Prime Time?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important vascular disease and public health problem. Prevention of VTE has focused mainly on using thromboprophylaxis to avoid provoked VTE or recurrent VTE, with little attention paid to the possibility of preventing the one third to one half of VTEs that are unprovoked. We review growing research suggesting that unhealthy lifestyle risk factors may cause a considerable proportion of unprovoked VTE. Using epidemiologic data to calculate population attributable risks, we estimate that in the United States obesity may contribute to 30% of VTEs, physical inactivity to 4%, current smoking to 3%, and Western dietary pattern to 11%. We also review possibilities for VTE primary prevention either through a high-risk individual approach or a population-wide approach. Interventions for outpatients at high VTE risk but without VTE provoking factors have not been fully tested; yet, improving patient awareness of risk and symptoms, lifestyle counseling, and possibly statins or direct oral anticoagulants may prove useful in primary prevention of unprovoked VTE. A population approach to prevention would bolster awareness of VTE and aim to shift lifestyle risk factors downward in the whole population using education, environmental changes, and policy. Assuming the epidemiological associations are accurate, causal, and independent of each other, a reduction of obesity, physical inactivity, current smoking, and Western diet by 25% in the general population might reduce the incidence of unprovoked VTE by 12%. We urge further research and consideration that primary prevention of unprovoked VTE may be a worthwhile public health aim.

Preventing venous thromboembolism in oncology practice: Use of risk assessment and anticoagulation prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Expert consensus recommends a risk-based approach to guide prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent VTE in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. However, oncology practice patterns for VTE prevention remain unclear.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We conducted (i) a retrospective, single-center cohort study of patients with pancreatic and gastric cancers to examine rates of prophylactic anticoagulation prescription for eligible patients at high risk of VTE based on the validated Khorana score, and (ii) a 15-question survey of oncology clinicians at the same institution to assess current practice patterns and knowledge regarding VTE risk assessment and primary thromboprophylaxis in February 2020.

RESULTS

Of 437 patients who met study criteria, 181 (41%) had a score of ≥ 3 (high-risk), and none had an anticoagulation prescription for prophylaxis without an alternate treatment indication. In a survey sent to 98 oncology clinicians, of which 34 participated, 67% were unfamiliar with the Khorana score or guideline recommendations regarding risk-based VTE prophylaxis, and 90% "never" or "rarely" used VTE risk assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite available evidence and existing guideline recommendations for VTE risk assessment for ambulatory patients with cancer, and primary prophylaxis for high-risk patients, this study demonstrates that there is limited uptake in clinical practice.

Systems-based hematology: highlighting successes and next steps

Systems-based hematology is dedicated to improving care delivery for patients with blood disorders. First defined by the American Society of Hematology in 2015, the idea of a systems-based hematologist arose from evolving pressures in the health care system and increasing recognition of opportunities to optimize the quality and cost effectiveness of hematologic care. In this review, we begin with a proposed framework to formalize the discussion of the range of initiatives within systems-based hematology. Classification by 2 criteria, project scope and method of intervention, facilitates comparison between initiatives and supports dialogue for future efforts. Next, we present published examples of successful systems-based initiatives in the field of hematology, including efforts to improve stewardship in the diagnosis and management of complex hematologic disorders (eg, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombophilias), the development of programs to promote appropriate use of hematologic therapies (eg, blood products, inferior vena cava filters, and anticoagulation), changes in care delivery infrastructure to improve access to hematologic expertise (eg, electronic consultation and disorder-specific care pathways), and others. The range of projects illustrates the broad potential for interventions and highlights different metrics used to quantify improvements in care delivery. We conclude with a discussion about future directions for the field of systems-based hematology, including extension to malignant disorders and the need to define, expand, and support career pathways.