Canadian consensus recommendations on the management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Part 1: prophylaxis

Management of Patients Receiving Anticoagulation Therapy in Dental Practice: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulant drugs are a valuable tool for minimizing thrombotic risks in at-risk patients. The purpose of this study is to conduct a literature review highlighting the management of these drugs during daily clinical dental practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We limited our search to English-language papers published between 1 January 1989, and 7 March 2024, in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science that were relevant to our topic. In the search approach, the Boolean keywords "anticoagulant AND dentistry" were used.

RESULTS

Twenty-five clinical trials were included for final review from 623 articles obtained from the databases Web of Science (83), PubMed (382), and Scopus (158), eliminating duplicates and 79 off-topic items, resulting in 419 articles after removing 315 entries and confirming eligibility. Overall, these studies support the use of local hemostatic measures to manage the risk of bleeding in patients on anticoagulant therapy undergoing dental procedures and highlight the importance of greater education and collaboration among healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Research and clinical investigation have improved understanding and management of dental procedures in patients undergoing anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Hemostatic agents, clinical protocols, risk factors, and continuous education are essential for navigating the complexities of anticoagulant therapy, ensuring optimal outcomes and enhancing patient well-being.

Inpatient primary prophylaxis of cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT)

PURPOSE

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) increases morbidity and mortality in oncology patients. The risk of CAT is increased with hospitalization for acute medical illness. The goal of this review will be to examine the available evidence for (1) risk assessment and (2) primary thromboprophylaxis, (3) international published guideline recommendations, and (4) future directions to manage oncology patients admitted for an acute medical illness.

METHODS

A review was performed for each subject to gather information on the available evidence and recommendations available for oncology patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness.

RESULTS

Risk assessments for thrombosis are primarily developed and validated in the general population. There is not a risk assessment that has specifically been developed and validated in oncology patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness. Most evidence for thromboprophylaxis of oncology patients is from sub-group analysis of larger randomized-controlled trials in the general population. Evidence is conflicting and suggests an individualized approach evaluating the risk-benefit of thromboprophylaxis. The strength of recommendations of international guidelines is limited because of the available evidence. Guidelines usually recommend utilizing and/or offering thromboprophylaxis to oncology patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness barring contraindications. Future evidence needs to improve risk assessments and knowledge of the appropriate agent, dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis if indicated.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for risk assessments and primary prophylaxis for oncology patients hospitalized for acute medical illness appears limited, with many research opportunities available to improve understanding on management of this patient population.

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

(1) Background: This review aimed to summarize the indications for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events' prophylaxis in a gynecological cancer population, according to the most recent guidelines. (2) Methods: A systematic review of the guidelines in PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINHAL regarding VTE prevention in gynecological cancer patients was conducted according to PRISMA criteria. We compared the recommendations given by oncological and hematological societies regarding VTE prevention in gynecological cancer patients published from January 2010 through March 2021. We searched for the following keywords: "venous thromboembolism prevention", "cancer", and "guidelines". The AGREE II checklist was used to critically analyze the guidelines' quality. (3) Results: There were 1003 documents available; 14 met the inclusion criteria, 5 were excluded and, eventually, the guidelines of 10 societies were evaluated. (4) Conclusions: The guidelines agree that low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux achieve better results in VTE prevention in gynecological cancer patients. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can be used to prevent VTE in outpatients and high-risk medical patients after discharge. VTE risk scores should be applied to all oncological patients to identify those who would benefit from a prevention program. More attention should be paid to mechanical prophylactic methods due to the high bleeding risk of gynecological cancer patients.

Early warning prevention and control strategies to reduce perioperative venous thromboembolism in patients with gastrointestinal cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of unexpected and perioperative in-hospital deaths. It is characterized by high morbidity, high mortality, high misdiagnosis rate, and high missed diagnosis rates. VTE is a common postoperative complication in cancer patients. VTE is preventable, and early identification of risk factors leading to VTE and appropriate early preventive actions can reduce its occurrence and mortality. Presently, there is no uniform standard for the prevention and control of VTE in clinical practice, and hospitals in China lack mature and effective protocols for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of VTE.

AIM

To explore whether an early warning program could influence the occurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) postoperatively.

METHODS

This is a comparative retrospective cohort study, which enrolled patients who underwent laparotomic or laparoscopic gastrointestinal tumor resection for gastrointestinal cancer between January 2016 and December 2019. Patients were divided into a control group and an early warning group depending on whether or not the early warning program was implemented. A venous thromboembolism prevention and control team was established. The outcomes included the occurrence of DVT, the correct rate of VTE assessment, the coagulation indicators, and the mastery of VTE knowledge by the nurses.

RESULTS

A total of 264 patients were included in this study, with 128 patients in the control group and 136 patients in the early warning group. The occurrence rate of DVT in the early warning group was 6.6% (9/136), compared with 14.1% (18/128) in the control group (P < 0.05). The correct rates of VTE risk assessment by the nurses and standard implementation rate of VTE preventive measures were 86.8% vs 65.6% and 80.2% vs 57.8% in early warning and control groups, respectively (all P < 0.001). The independent factors associated with postoperative DVT occurrence were age (OR = 1.083, 95%CI: 1.070-3.265, P = 0.032), Hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.127, 95%CI: 1.139-2.564, P = 0.042), preoperative high VTE risk (OR = 2.131, 95%CI: 1.085-5.178, P = 0.001), time of operation (OR = 2.268, 95%CI: 2.005-5.546, P = 0.026) and not adoption of early warning prevention (OR = 3.747, 95%CI: 1.523-6.956, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

The early warning strategy was independently associated with the decreasing occurrence of VTE, and it might be suitable for protection from VTE in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

Incidence and risk factors for venous thromboembolism during an acute attack in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) patients may be at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during the acute attack, but evidence is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) patients with an acute attack and to identify the potential risk factors for the development of VTE.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of NMOSD patients with an acute attack between January 1, 2015, and June 31, 2021. Diagnosis of DVT or PE was objectively confirmed by doppler ultrasound or computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) during their acute hospital stay.

RESULTS

We identified 184 attacks in 128 NMOSD patients with the mean age of 46.9 years at the time of the attack and female predominance (152/184, 83.2%). VTE occurred in 22 (12.0%) attacks. Among the 22 attacks, 20 presented with transverse myelitis (TM), 1 cerebral syndrome (CS), and 1 simultaneous TM and brainstem syndrome (BS). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that advanced age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.12, p = 0.000], Nadir Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)>6.5(OR = 3.39, 95% CI = 1.22-10.10, p = 0.029) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment (OR = 3.21, 95% CI = 1.15-8.91, p = 0.025) were independent risk factors for the development of VTE in the total NMOSD cohort. In the subgroup analysis of the NMOSD patients with TM, age at attack (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.03-1.11, p = 0.002) and IVIG treatment (OR = 4.23, 95% CI = 1.44-12.45, p = 0.009) were independent risk factors for the development of VTE in the total NMOSD cohort, but Nadir EDSS>6.5 was not an independent risk factor.

CONCLUSIONS

VTE is a frequent complication in NMOSD patients, especially in patients with TM. Advanced age and IVIG are independent risk factors for VTE. Immobilization is an independent risk factor for VTE in the total NMOSD cohort but not in the subgroup analysis of the patients with TM.

Management of Myeloma Manifestations and Complications: The Cornerstone of Supportive Care: Recommendation of the Canadian Myeloma Research Group (formerly Myeloma Canada Research Network) Consensus Guideline Consortium

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological cancer associated with significant symptomatic burden. Bone disease, renal insufficiency, cytopenias, infection, and peripheral neuropathy, among other disease manifestations and complications, impair patients' quality of life. The Canadian Myeloma Research Group Consensus Guideline Consortium, formerly Myeloma Canada Research Network Consensus Guideline Consortium, proposes national consensus recommendations for the management of MM-related manifestations and complications. To address the needs of Canadian physicians and people living with MM across the country, this document focuses on the improvement and maintenance of patient care by clarifying best-practice approaches for the prevention, detection and management of disease manifestations and complications. The Canadian Myeloma Research Group Consensus Guideline Consortium will periodically review the recommendations herein and update as necessary.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with Malignancies: Daily Practice Recommendations by the Hemostasis Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO), the Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research (GTH), and the Austrian Society of Hematology and Oncology (ÖGHO)

Patients with cancer, both hematologic and solid malignancies, are at increased risk for thrombosis and thromboembolism. In addition to general risk factors such as immobility and major surgery, shared by non-cancer patients, cancer patients are exposed to specific thrombotic risk factors. These include, among other factors, cancer-induced hypercoagulation, and chemotherapy-mediated endothelial dysfunction as well as tumor-cell-derived microparticles. After an episode of thrombosis in a cancer patient, secondary thromboprophylaxis to prevent recurrent thromboembolism has long been established and is typically continued as long as the cancer is active or actively treated. On the other hand, primary prophylaxis, even though firmly established in hospitalized cancer patients, has only recently been studied in ambulatory patients. This recent change is mostly due to the emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have a shorter half-life than vitamin K antagonists (VKA), and they overcome the need for parenteral application, the latter of which is associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and can be difficult for the patient to endure in the long term. Here, first, we discuss the clinical trials of primary thromboprophylaxis in the population of cancer patients in general, including the use of VKA, LMWH, and DOACs, and the potential drug interactions with pre-existing medications that need to be taken into account. Second, we focus on special situations in cancer patients where primary prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered, including myeloma, major surgery, indwelling catheters, or immobilization, concomitant diseases such as renal insufficiency, liver disease, or thrombophilia, as well as situations with a high bleeding risk, particularly thrombocytopenia, and specific drugs that may require primary thromboprophylaxis. We provide a novel algorithm intended to aid specialists but also family practitioners and nurses who care for cancer patients in the decision process of primary thromboprophylaxis in the individual patient.

Development and validation of a risk assessment nomogram for venous thromboembolism associated with hospitalized postoperative Chinese breast cancer patients

AIM

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an individualized nomogram to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in hospitalized postoperative breast cancer patients.

DESIGN

A single-central retrospective and non-interventional trial.

METHODS

For model development, we used data from 4,755 breast cancer patients between 1 November 2016-30 June 2018 (3,310 patients in the development group and 1,445 in the validation group). Overall, 216 patients developed VTE (150 in development group and 66 in validation group). The model was validated by receiver operating characteristic curves and the calibration plot. The clinical utility of the model was determined through decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

The individualized nomogram consisted of six clinical factors: age, body mass index, number of cardiovascular comorbidities, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgical treatment, hospital length of stay and two pre-operative biomarkers of Homocysteine and D-dimer. The model at the 3.9% optimal cut-off had the area under the curve of 0.854 (95% CI, 0.824-0.884) and 0.805 (95% CI, 0.740-0.870) in the development and validation groups. A p = 0.570 of the calibration test showed that the model was well-calibrated. The net benefit of the model was better between threshold probabilities of 5%-30% in decision curve analysis.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram of VTE risk assessment, is applicable to hospitalized postoperative breast cancer patients. However, multi-central prospective studies are needed to improve and validate the model. Effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients are needed to demonstrate in interventional trials.

IMPACT

This nomogram can be used in clinical to inform practice of physicians and nurses to predict the VTE probability and maybe direct personalized decision making for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized postoperative breast cancer patients.

Prophylaxis of thromboembolism during therapy with asparaginase in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

BACKGROUND

The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of treatment delay and premature discontinuation of key anti-leukaemic agents, potentially compromising survival. Yet, the trade-off between benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis for first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adults with ALL receiving asparaginase-based therapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. The secondary objectives were to compare the benefits and harms of different groups of primary systemic thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the main results per type of drug (heparins, vitamin K antagonists, synthetic pentasaccharides, parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and blood-derived products for antithrombin substitution).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search on 02 June 2020, with no language restrictions, including (1) electronic searches of Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase/Ovid; Scopus/Elsevier; Web of Science Core Collection/Clarivate Analytics; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and (2) handsearches of (i) reference lists of identified studies and related reviews; (ii) clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov registry; the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; the World Health Organisation's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and pharmaceutical manufacturers of asparaginase including Servier, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ohara Pharmaceuticals, and Kyowa Pharmaceuticals), and (iii) conference proceedings (from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH); the European Haematology Association (EHA); the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)). We conducted all searches from 1970 (the time of introduction of asparaginase in ALL treatment). We contacted the authors of relevant studies to identify any unpublished material, missing data, or information regarding ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs); including quasi-randomised, controlled clinical, cross-over, and cluster-randomised trial designs) comparing any parenteral/oral preemptive anticoagulant or mechanical intervention with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or comparing two different pre-emptive anticoagulant interventions in adults aged at least 18 years with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens. For the description of harms, non-randomised observational studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using standardised tools (RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies) and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included asymptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, adverse events (i.e. clinically relevant non-major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for trials using heparins), and quality of life. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For non-randomised studies, we evaluated all studies (including studies judged to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains) in a sensitivity analysis exploring confounding.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 non-randomised studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review, of which 10 studies provided no outcome data for adults with ALL. We included the remaining 13 studies in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, in which we identified invalid control group definition in two studies and judged outcomes of nine studies to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains and outcomes of two studies at serious risk of bias. We did not assess the benefits of thromboprophylaxis, as no RCTs were included. In the main descriptive analysis of harms, we included two retrospective non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at serious risk of bias. One study evaluated antithrombin concentrates compared to no antithrombin concentrates. We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.19 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on venous thromboembolism-related mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We do not know whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and quality of life in adults with ALL treated with asparaginase-based chemotherapy, as data were insufficient. The remaining study (224 participants) evaluated prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis. However, this study reported insufficient data regarding harms including all-cause mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and quality of life. In the sensitivity analysis of harms, exploring the effect of confounding, we also included nine non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at critical risk of bias primarily due to uncontrolled confounding. Three studies (179 participants) evaluated the effect of antithrombin concentrates and six studies (1224 participants) evaluated the effect of prophylaxis with different types of heparins. When analysing all-cause mortality; venous thromboembolism-related mortality; and major bleeding (studies of heparin only) including all studies with extractable outcomes for each comparison (antithrombin and low-molecular-weight heparin), we observed small study sizes; few events; wide CIs crossing the line of no effect; and substantial heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Although the observed heterogeneity could arise through the inclusion of a small number of studies with differences in participants; interventions; and outcome assessments, the likelihood that bias due to uncontrolled confounding was the cause of heterogeneity is inevitable. Subgroup analyses were not possible due to insufficient data.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know from the currently available evidence, if thromboprophylaxis used for adults with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is associated with clinically appreciable benefits and acceptable harms. The existing research on this question is solely of non-randomised design, seriously to critically confounded, and underpowered with substantial imprecision. Any estimates of effect based on the existing insufficient evidence is very uncertain and is likely to change with future research.

Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients on Simultaneous and Palliative Care

Simultaneous care represents the ideal integration between early supportive and palliative care in cancer patients under active antineoplastic treatment. Cancer patients require a composite clinical, social and psychological management that can be effective only if care continuity from hospital to home is guaranteed and if such a care takes place early in the course of the disease, combining standard oncology care and palliative care. In these settings, venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a difficult medical challenge, for the requirement of acute treatments and for the strong impact on anticancer therapies that might be delayed or, even, totally discontinued. Moreover, cancer patients not only display high rates of VTE occurrence/recurrence but are also more prone to bleeding and this forces clinicians to optimize treatment strategies, balancing between hemorrhages and thrombus formation. VTE prevention is, therefore, regarded as a double-edged sword. Indeed, while on one hand the appropriate use of antithrombotic agents can reduce VTE occurrence, on the other it significantly increases the bleeding risk, especially in the frail patients who present with multiple co-morbidities and poly-therapy that can interact with anticoagulant drugs. For these reasons, thromboprophylaxis should start while active cancer treatment is ongoing, according to a simultaneous care model in a patient-centered perspective.

Incidence of cancer-associated thromboembolism in Japanese gastric and colorectal cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a single-institutional retrospective cohort analysis (Sapporo CAT study)

OBJECTIVE

Few data regarding the incidence of cancer-associated thromboembolism (TE) are available for Asian populations. We investigated the incidence of TE (TEi) and its risk factors among gastric and colorectal cancer (GCC) patients received chemotherapy in a daily practice setting.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A single-institutional study that used data from Sapporo City General Hospital, Japan, on patients treated between January 2008 and May 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Five hundred Japanese GCC patients who started chemotherapy from January 2008 to May 2015.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

TE was diagnosed by reviewing all the reports of contrast-enhanced CT performed during the follow-up period. All types of thrombosis detected by CT or additional imaging tests, such as venous TE, arterial TE and cerebral infarction, were defined as TE. Medical records of all identified patients were reviewed and potential risk factors for TE, including clinicopathological backgrounds, were collected. We defined the following patients as 'active cancer'; patients with unresectable advanced GCC, cancer recurrence during or after completing adjuvant chemotherapy and/or presence of other malignant tumours.

RESULTS

Of the 500 patients, 70 patients (14.0%) developed TE during the follow-up period. TEi was 9.2% and 17.3% in GCC patients, 18.1% and 3.5% in active and non-active cancer patients, and 24.0% and 12.9% in multiple and single primary, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that colorectal cancer (CRC) (OR 2.371; 95% CI 1.328 to 4.233), active cancer (OR 7.593; 95% CI 2.950 to 19.543) and multiple primary (OR 2.527; 95% CI 1.189 to 5.370) were independently associated with TEi.

CONCLUSION

TEi was 14.0% among Japanese GCC patients received chemotherapy, and was significantly higher among patients with CRC, active cancer and multiple primary than among those with gastric cancer, non-active cancer and single primary, respectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000018912.

Recent advances in the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: role of the direct oral anticoagulants and their unique challenges

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer and is associated with poor prognosis. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are the standard of care for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Primary VTE prophylaxis with LMWH is recommended after cancer surgery and in hospitalized patients with reduced mobility. However, owing to wide variations in VTE and bleeding risk, based on disease stage, anti-cancer treatments, and individual patient characteristics, routine primary prophylaxis is not recommended in ambulatory cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Efforts are under way to validate risk assessment models that will help identify those patients in whom the benefits of primary prophylaxis will outweigh the risks. In recent months, long-awaited dedicated clinical trials assessing the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer have reported promising results. In comparison with the LMWHs, the DOACs were reported to be non-inferior to prevent VTE recurrence. However, there was an increased risk of bleeding, particularly in gastrointestinal cancers. Safe and optimal treatment with the DOACs in the patient with cancer will require vigilant patient selection based on patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and the potential for drug-drug interactions.

The incidence and risk factors of thrombosis and the need for thromboprophylaxis in lymphoma and leukemia patients: A 9-year single-center experience

Background

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of thromboembolic complications. There is no evidence-based guideline on the use of routine prophylaxis in hematological malignancies except in patients with multiple myeloma. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors of thrombosis and suggest a rationale for primary thromboprophylaxis in acute leukemia and lymphoma patients.

Patients and methods

A retrospective study was conducted on newly-diagnosed acute leukemia and lymphoma patients who presented at our institution from November 2009 to March 2018. The study included a total of 157 patients with acute leukemia and 238 patients with lymphoma. The groups were analyzed to determine the incidence and risk factors of thromboembolic complications.

Results

The incidence of all thrombotic complications was 10.12% (40/395) including 11.4% (18/157) in patients with acute leukemia and 9.2% (22/238) in patients with lymphoma. The majority of events occurred in the first 6 months. Acute leukemia patients with thrombosis had a higher number of comorbidities than those without thrombosis ( p < 0.05). Lymphoma patients with thrombotic complications had significantly higher beta-2-microglobulin and lactate dehydrogenase levels compared to those without thrombosis ( p < 0.05). Major bleeding events developed in five (3.1%) acute leukemia patients and two (0.8%) lymphoma patients. All the major bleeding events occurred when the patients were thrombocytopenic (platelet < 50,000/mm3).

Conclusions

Acute leukemia patients with any comorbidity and lymphoma patients with higher lactate dehydrogenase and beta-2-microglobulin are at high risk of developing thromboembolic complications. The prophylactic use of anticoagulant should be considered for those patients especially in the first 6 months.

Management of anticoagulation in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving abiraterone + prednisone

PURPOSE

Abiraterone has been proven to be an effective agent used in the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, significantly improving overall and progression-free survival. Due to the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of abiraterone, concurrent use with anticoagulation may pose a challenge for clinicians. Thrombosis within the cancer setting continues to increase patient mortality; therefore, appropriate anticoagulation through the use of a management algorithm can reduce adverse events and increase quality of life.

METHODS

A review of the literature was preformed by a medical oncologist, haematologist and pharmacists to identify relevant randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and retrospective studies. Major society guidelines were reviewed to further aid in developing the anticoagulation protocol for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism within this patient population. After reviewing the literature, a clinical framework was designed to aid clinicians in the management of those patients receiving abiraterone concurrently with an anticoagulant.

RESULTS

In this review, we describe the potential interactions between abiraterone and various anticoagulants and provide management strategies based on the most recent literature for atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism and mechanical heart valves to avoid potential drug-drug interactions.

CONCLUSION

Abiraterone therapy has become a mainstay of the management of advanced prostate cancer and is often used over prolonged years. In this review, we have summarized a framework of how to use abiraterone in men with prostate cancer on anticoagulants. Evidence available to date suggests that patients with an indication for anticoagulation such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism and mechanical heart valves can be treated safely with abiraterone in the appropriate setting, with appropriate monitoring.

A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines on the use of low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: Implications for research and policy decision-making

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major global cause of morbidity and mortality. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux (FDP) are frequently used to treat and prevent VTE and have a variety of safety and practical advantages over other anticoagulants, including use in outpatient settings. These medications are commonly listed on drug formularies, which act as a gateway for health plan prescription coverage by outlining the circumstances under which patients will be covered for specific drugs and drug products. Because patient access to medications is impacted by the nature of their listing on formularies, they must be rigorously reviewed and modernized as new evidence emerges.

Methods

As part of a broader drug class review team, we completed a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines to determine whether the recommendations they reported aligned with the indications listed for the coverage of LMWH and FDP in an outpatient drug formulary. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. Recommendation matrices were used to systematically compare, categorize, and summarize included recommendations.

Results

Twenty-seven guidelines were included from which 168 eligible recommendations were identified. Generally, AGREE II domains were adequately addressed; however, domain five (applicability) was poorly addressed. Most recommendations were based on moderate- to low-quality/limited evidence and reported on the use of LMWHs generally; few reported on specific agents.

Conclusions

Our findings contributed to the recommendation that the formulary listing for LMWH and FDP be streamlined to include coverage for specific outpatient indications. The paucity of available evidence on the comparative efficacy of specific LMWH agents against each other and FDP limited agent-specific listing recommendations, highlighting the need for high-quality comparative studies on this topic.

The use of prophylactic anticoagulation during induction and consolidation chemotherapy in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in adults confers a high risk of venous thromboembolic (VTE) complications. We describe the implementation and results of prophylactic anticoagulation guidelines in adults (18-50 years) treated on a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute ALL pediatric inspired consortium protocol from 2007 to 2013. A high rate of asparaginase related toxicity events, including thrombosis, resulted in a protocol amendment adding guidelines for prophylactic anticoagulation and a modified asparaginase dose and schedule. After excluding patients with Philadelphia positive ALL, a cohort of 36 patients were treated after the protocol amendment with prophylactic anticoagulation and compared to 49 patients who received no prophylactic anticoagulation. Bleeding complications were not significantly different in those treated with prophylactic anticoagulation compared with those enrolled prior to the amendment (p = 0.26). No patients on prophylactic anticoagulation had grade ≥ 3 bleeding. Prior to the amendment, the 2 year cumulative incidence of VTE post-induction was 41% compared to 28% while on prophylactic anticoagulation (p = 0.32). The 2 year cumulative incidence pulmonary embolus pre-amendment was 16% compared with 8% post-amendment (p = 0.34). Prophylactic anticoagulation can be safely administered to adults with ALL without increasing the number or severity of bleeding events and, in addition to modifications in the asparaginase regimen, resulted in a reduction in the cumulative incidence of VTE.

Clinical practice guidelines for prophylaxis of venous thomboembolism in cancer patients

Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs 4-7 times more frequently in cancer patients as compared to non-cancer patients. A significant number of risk factors, which can be subcategorised as patient-, cancer- or treatment-related, have been shown to influence the risk of VTE during malignancy and further incorporated in risk-assessment models. Safe and efficient thromboprophylaxis regimens allow substantial decreased in VTE rates, since VTE is most often a largely preventable disease, but thromboprophylaxis remains underused in cancer compared to non-cancer patients. If thromboprophylaxis is warranted in cancer patients undergoing surgery or hospitalised for acute medical illness or with a lower mobility in the absence of contraindications to anticoagulants, its benefit remains controversial in outpatients and may be limited to locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic or lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer-CME free mobile app (ios and android), based on the International Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), facilitates their implementation and dissemination of knowledge worldwide so as to improve VTE treatment and prophylaxis in cancer patients.

International clinical practice guidelines including guidance for direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at an increased risk of developing VTE and are more likely to have a recurrence of VTE and bleeding while taking anticoagulants. Management of VTE in patients with cancer is a major therapeutic challenge and remains suboptimal worldwide. In 2013, the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC-CME), established to reduce the global burden of VTE in patients with cancer, published international guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE and central venous catheter-associated thrombosis. The rapid global adoption of direct oral anticoagulants for management of VTE in patients with cancer is an emerging treatment trend that needs to be addressed based on the current level of evidence. In this Review, we provide an update of the ITAC-CME consensus recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature ranked according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scale. These guidelines aim to address in-hospital and outpatient cancer-associated VTE in specific subgroups of patients with cancer.

Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: The ONKOTEV Study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of risk model scores to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory cancer patients is under investigation, aiming to stratify on an individual risk basis the subset of the cancer population that could mostly benefit from primary thromboprophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively assessed 843 patients with active cancers, collecting clinical and laboratory data. We screened all the patients with a duplex ultrasound (B-mode imaging and Doppler waveform analysis) of the upper and lower limbs to evaluate the right incidence of VTE (both asymptomatic and symptomatic). The efficacy of the existing Khorana risk model in preventing VTE was also explored in our population. Several risk factors associated with VTE were analyzed, leading to the construction of a risk model. The Fine and Gray model was used to account for death as a competing risk in the derivation of the new model.

RESULTS

The risk factors significantly associated with VTE at univariate analysis and further confirmed in the multivariate analysis, after bootstrap validation, were the presence of metastatic disease, the compression of vascular/lymphatic structures by tumor, a history of previous VTE, and a Khorana score >2. Time-dependent receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed a significant improvement in the area under the curve of the new score over the Khorana model at 3 months (71.9% vs. 57.9%, p = .001), 6 months (75.4% vs. 58.6%, p < .001), and 12 months (69.8% vs. 58.3%, p = .014).

CONCLUSION

ONKOTEV score steps into history of cancer-related-VTE as a promising tool to drive the decision about primary prophylaxis in cancer outpatients. The validation represents the goal of the prospective ONKOTEV-2 study, endorsed and approved by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Young Investigators Program. The Oncologist 2017;22:601-608 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Preventing venous thromboembolism in cancer outpatients with a risk model score will drive physicians' decision of starting thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients.

FOTROCAN Delphi consensus statement regarding the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in areas of uncertainty and low quality of evidence

INTRODUCTION

Decision-making in cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often founded on scant lines of evidence and weak recommendations. The aim of this work is to evaluate the percentage of agreement surrounding a series of statements about complex, clinically relevant, and highly uncertain aspects to formulate explicit action guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Opinions were based on a structured questionnaire with appropriate scores and were agreed upon using a Delphi method. Questions were selected based on a list of recommendations with low evidence from the Spanish Society of Oncology Clinical Guideline for Thrombosis. The questionnaire was completed in two iterations by a multidisciplinary panel of experts in thrombosis.

RESULTS

Of the 123 statements analyzed, the panel concurred on 22 (17%) and another 81 (65%) were agreed on by qualified majority, including important aspects of long-term and prolonged anticoagulation, major bleeding and rethrombosis management, treatment in special situations, catheter-related thrombosis and thromboprophylaxis. Among them, the panelists agreed the incidental events should be equated to symptomatic ones, long-term and extended use of full-dose low-molecular weight heparin, and concluded that the Khorana score is not sensitive enough to uphold an effective thromboprophylaxis strategy.

CONCLUSION

Though the level of consensus varied depending on the scenario presented, overall, the iterative process achieved broad agreement as to the general treatment principles of cancer-associated VTE. Clinical validation of these statements in genuine practice conditions would be useful.

Management of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism in the Emergency Department

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and emergency physicians can play a significant role in addressing one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in this patient population. However, there are no comprehensive guidelines addressing the approach to cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the emergency department. Here, we review the guidelines put forth by various national and international cancer societies and highlight how emergency physicians can help institute appropriate treatment and prevent the recurrence of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. We also address areas of controversy and highlight topics that require further research.

High risk of deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in lymphoma

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are widely used in cancer patients. Although PICC is a convenient tool, its use is associated with an obvious increase in the incidence of venous thrombosis. The risk factors for deep vein thrombosis associated with the use of PICCs in cancer patients are largely unexplored. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of PICC-associated thrombosis in lymphoma compared with its incidences in other types of cancer. A total of 8028 adult cancer patients inserted with PICC between June 2007 and June 2015 were included in this study. A total of 249 of the 8028 included patients (3.1%) inserted with PICC developed upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (PICC-UEDVT). Patients with lymphoma were more likely to have PICC-UEDVT than those with other types of malignancies (7.1% vs. 2.80%; P < 0.001). Logistic analysis revealed that a lymphoma diagnosis was a risk factor for UEDVT in cancer patients inserted with PICC (OR: 3.849, 95% CI: 2.334-6.347). Patients with lymphoma may be more predisposed to developing PICC-UEDVT than those with other types of malignancies. Identifying the mechanism underlying the relationship between PICC-UEDVT and lymphoma requires further study.

A critical balance: managing coagulation in patients with glioma

Cancer-associated thrombosis, including both arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE), is a significant source of morbidity and mortality in patients with glioma. This risk is highest in the immediate postoperative period and is increased by chemotherapy, radiation, and corticosteroids. Systemic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin is the treatment of choice in both the therapeutic and prophylactic settings. However, these patients are also at risk of intracranial hemorrhage, a potentially catastrophic complication of anticoagulation, and this risk must be carefully balanced against the risk of VTE. In this review we outline the incidence, pathophysiology and management of thrombosis in patients with glioma, with a focus on clinical considerations including perioperative management, chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia, and end-of-life management.