A Systematic Review of the Guidelines on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Oncology

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Oncology: A MITO-MaNGO Survey

Cancer-associated thrombosis is the second leading cause of death in cancer patients, and its incidence has been increasing in recent years. This survey was aimed at gathering information regarding the management of thromboembolic prophylaxis within the MITO (Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer)-MaNGO (Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology) groups. We designed a self-administered, multiple-choice online questionnaire available only for MITO-MaNGO members for one month, starting in May 2022 and ending in June 2022. We processed one response form per center, and 50 responses were analyzed, with most of the respondents (78%) over 40 years old. We found that 82% of them consider thromboembolic prophylaxis in gynecologic oncology to be relevant. In 82% of the centers, a standardized protocol on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is used, which is applied to both patients undergoing surgery and those undergoing chemotherapy. In the remaining 18% of centers, prophylaxis is used exclusively for patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Prophylaxis of patients undergoing surgery and chemotherapy treatment is managed in most cases by the surgeon (72%) and oncologist (76%), respectively. Only 26% of respondents use a thromboembolic risk assessment scale, and of these, those used are the Caprini Score (6%), Khorana Score (6%), and Wells Score (2%). The respondents have good knowledge of low-molecular-weight heparin (90%) and average knowledge of dicumarolics (40%), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (68%), and antiplatelet agents (40%). The results of our survey indicate that there is a good awareness of thromboembolic prophylaxis in gynecologic oncology. Nevertheless, it is used less in outpatients than in patients undergoing surgery. Moreover, the thromboembolic risk assessment scores are barely used.

Gynecological Cancer and Venous Thromboembolism: A Narrative Review to Increase Awareness and Improve Risk Assessment and Prevention

The prevention and appropriate management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients is of paramount importance. However, the literature data report an underestimation of this major problem in patients with gynecological cancers, with an inconsistent venous thromboembolism risk assessment and prophylaxis in this patient setting. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence regarding the management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients, focusing on the specific context of gynecological tumors, exploring the literature discussing risk factors, risk assessment, and pharmacological prophylaxis. We found that the current understanding and management of venous thromboembolism in gynecological malignancy is largely based on studies on solid cancers in general. Hence, further, larger, and well-designed research in this area is needed.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis, following gynecologic cancer surgery.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for observational studies. We also reviewed reference lists of eligible studies and review articles. We performed separate searches for randomized trials addressing effects of thromboprophylaxis and conducted a web-based survey on thromboprophylaxis practice.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Observational studies enrolling ≥50 adult patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery procedures reporting absolute incidence for at least 1 of the following were included: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding requiring reintervention (including reexploration and angioembolization), bleeding leading to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin <70 g/L.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated risk of bias of eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors. The GRADE approach was applied to rate evidence certainty.

RESULTS

We included 188 studies (398,167 patients) reporting on 37 gynecologic cancer surgery procedures. The evidence certainty was generally low to very low. Median symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk (in the absence of prophylaxis) was <1% in 13 of 37 (35%) procedures, 1% to 2% in 11 of 37 (30%), and >2.0% in 13 of 37 (35%). The risks of venous thromboembolism varied from 0.1% in low venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing cervical conization to 33.5% in high venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. Estimates of bleeding requiring reintervention varied from <0.1% to 1.3%. Median risks of bleeding requiring reintervention were <1% in 22 of 29 (76%) and 1% to 2% in 7 of 29 (24%) procedures.

CONCLUSION

Venous thromboembolism reduction with thromboprophylaxis likely outweighs the increase in bleeding requiring reintervention in many gynecologic cancer procedures (eg, open surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration). In some procedures (eg, laparoscopic total hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy), thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Efficacy, safety, and feasibility of Apixaban for postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following open gynecologic cancer surgery at a comprehensive cancer center

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate safety, efficacy, and feasibility of apixaban for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following open gynecologic cancer surgery at a comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

This retrospective, cohort study included patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent open surgery between 3/2021 and 3/2023 and received 28-day postoperative VTE prophylaxis. Patients on therapeutic anticoagulation preoperatively were excluded. Predictors of 90- and 30-day VTE and 30-day bleeding events were determined using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for known confounders.

RESULTS

452 patients were included in the cohort: 348 received apixaban and 104 received enoxaparin. Those who received enoxaparin were more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists class III/IV (compared to I/II) (p = 0.033), current or former smokers (p = 0.012) and have a higher BMI (p < 0.001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.005), and age (p = 0.046). 30-day VTE rate was significantly lower in the apixaban group (0.6%) compared to the enoxaparin group (6.2%) (adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.56; p = 0.006). 90-day VTE rate was 2.7% and 6.2% in the apixaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38-1.92; p = 0.704). Major bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and minor bleeding complications (0.9% vs. 3.0%) were similar in the apixaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively, on multivariate analyses. The median patient out of pocket cost was $10 (IQR 0.0-40.0) for apixaban and $20 (IQR 3.7-67.7) for enoxaparin (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings along with previously published data suggest that apixaban should be considered the standard of care for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing open surgery for gynecologic malignancies.