Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism according to malignancy characteristics in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis: a systematic review of observational and intervention studies

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha L Louzada ◽  
Habeeb Majeed ◽  
Vi Dao ◽  
Philip S Wells
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

scholarly journals Subgroup Analysis of Patients with Cancer in XALIA: A Noninterventional Study of Rivaroxaban versus Standard Anticoagulation for VTE

TH Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. e33-e42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Ageno ◽  
Lorenzo Mantovani ◽  
Sylvia Haas ◽  
Reinhold Kreutz ◽  
Danja Monje ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Good Prognosis ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Noninterventional Study ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Background The noninterventional XALIA study compared rivaroxaban with standard anticoagulation for deep vein thrombosis treatment. This substudy describes the demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of the patients with cancer. Methods Therapy type, dose, and duration were at the physician's discretion. The cohorts identified were rivaroxaban (rivaroxaban alone or after heparin or fondaparinux for ≤48 hours); early switchers (rivaroxaban after heparin or fondaparinux for >48 hours to 14 days and/or a vitamin K antagonist [VKA] for 1–14 days); standard anticoagulation (heparin or fondaparinux and a VKA); low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) alone; and miscellaneous (other heparins, fondaparinux alone, VKA alone). Primary outcomes were major bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality. Results In XALIA, 587 patients (11.4% of the XALIA cohort) were with cancer: 146 (24.9%) rivaroxaban, 30 (5.1%) early switchers, 141 (24.0%) standard anticoagulation, 223 (38.0%) LMWH, and 47 (8.0%) miscellaneous. Patients with gastrointestinal or lung cancer more commonly received LMWH than rivaroxaban; the opposite occurred in patients with breast or genitourinary cancer. Rates of primary outcome in the rivaroxaban group were as follows: major bleeding, 1.4% (n = 2); recurrent venous thromboembolism, 3.4% (n = 5); and all-cause mortality, 4.8% (n = 7). Conclusion In XALIA, physicians treated cancer-associated thrombosis with various anticoagulant regimens, most commonly LMWH. In addition, the choice of anticoagulant varied with cancer type. In rivaroxaban-treated patients, rates for the primary outcomes were low, suggesting that patients administered rivaroxaban were a good prognosis group.

Diagnostic accuracy of D-Dimer testing for recurrent venous thromboembolism: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Nicola Dario Di Minno ◽  
Ilenia Calcaterra ◽  
Antimo Papa ◽  
Roberta Lupoli ◽  
Alessandro Di Minno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
D Dimer

scholarly journals Success of Online CME at Improving Knowledge and Confidence Around Guideline-Directed Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 13-13
Author(s):  
Caroline Padbury ◽  
Margaret Harris ◽  
Michael LaCouture ◽  
Jelena Spyropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Roundtable Discussion ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis ◽  
Post Assessment

Title:Success of Online CME at Improving Knowledge and Confidence Around Guideline-Directed Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Study Objectives:Recent guidance statements recommend the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and in patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism at low risk of bleeding and no drug-drug interactions.[Farge 2019; Key 2020] Yet, many clinicians lack knowledge and confidence with integrating DOACs into management strategies for patients with cancer in accordance to guideline recommendations.[Cushman 2015; Khorana 2016] We sought to determine if online continuing medical education (CME) could improve the knowledge and confidence of hematologists/oncologists regarding guideline-directed use of DOACs in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis. Methods:This CME intervention comprised of a 30-minute online video-based roundtable discussion among experts in the field of cancer-associated thrombosis management. Responses to 3 multiple-choice, knowledge questions and 1 self-efficacy, 5-point Likert scale confidence question were analyzed using a repeated pairs pre-/post-assessment study design. A chi-square test (P <.05 is considered significant) assessed pre- to post-activity change . The activity launched December 23, 2019, and data were collected through February 24, 2020. Results:In total, 71 Hematologists/Oncologists were included in this study. Overall, there were knowledge and confidence improvements seen among all groups from pre- to post-assessment: 27% of hematologists/oncologists (P<.01) improved at identifying guideline-directed therapy regarding recommended thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer per guideline recommendations.27% of hematologists/oncologists (P<.01) improved at selecting guideline-appropriate treatment options for cancer-associated thrombosis.44% of hematologists/oncologists had an increase in confidence in managing thrombosis in patients with cancer. Continued educational gaps: 25% of hematologists/oncologists failed to select guideline recommended DOAC therapy for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients.45% of hematologists/oncologists failed to select guideline recommended DOAC therapy for treatment of thrombosis in cancer patients.66% of hematologists/oncologists still remain at only a rating of 1 to 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 in their confidence managing thrombosis in patients with cancer. Conclusion:This study demonstrates the success of online, CME-accredited, video-based roundtable discussion with experts in the field on significantly improving knowledge and confidence of hematologists/oncologists related to the guideline-recommended use of DOACs in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis. Continued gaps were also identified for future educational targets. Sources of support: Developed through an independent educational grant from Janssen in partnership with the University of Chicago. References: Cushman M, Creager MA. Improving awareness and outcomes related to venous thromboembolism. JAMA. 2015;314(18):1913-4. Farge D, Frere C, Connors JM, et al. 2019 International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. The Lancet Oncology. 2019;20(10):e566-581. Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 10;38(5):496-520. Khorana AA, Yannicelli D, McCrae KR, et al. Evaluation of US prescription patterns: are treatment guidelines for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism being followed? Thromb Res. 2016 Sep;145:51-3. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Recurrent thrombosis followed by Lazarus response in ROS1 rearranged NSCLC treated with crizotinib: a case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. NP41-NP45
Author(s):  
Teresa Beninato ◽  
Giuseppe Lo Russo ◽  
Marina Chiara Garassino ◽  
Filippo De Braud ◽  
Marco Platania
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Genetic Alterations ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Recurrent Thrombosis ◽  
Right Heart ◽  
Thromboembolic Risk ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Progressive Respiratory Failure ◽  
Alk Positive

Introduction: Patients with cancer have higher risk of thrombosis compared to the general population and particularly lung adenocarcinoma is considered at high risk for venous thromboembolism. Some targetable oncogenic drivers are supposed to further increase this risk. Case description: A 35-year-old man who had developed a recurrent venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism (PE) was diagnosed with ROS1 rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While molecular examinations were ongoing, he developed progressive respiratory failure. For PE and thrombosis worsening with detection of right heart thrombus, he underwent therapy with unfractionated heparin. Despite initial good radiologic results, only with the start of crizotinib did the patient’s clinical condition significantly improve to configure a Lazarus response. Conclusions: Cancer diagnosis should always be considered in patients with unprovoked thrombosis and, if NSCLC is diagnosed, genetic alterations should be always sought after. A possible relation between venous thromboembolism and oncogenic drivers, particularly for ALK translocations, has been hypothesized. Similarly to ALK-positive NSCLC, ROS1 rearranged disease has been associated with an increased thromboembolic risk. Further studies are needed to better evaluate this relation and to evaluate the potential benefit of a prophylactic anticoagulating treatment in this subset of patients.

Predictors of the Indefinite-Duration Anticoagulation Treatment Strategy In Patients with Cancer-Associated Thrombosis.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1097-1097
Author(s):  
David Spirk ◽  
Wolfgang Korte ◽  
Marc Husmann ◽  
Beat Frauchiger ◽  
Martin Banyai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Medical Attention ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Anticoagulation Treatment ◽  
Recurrent Vte ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Abstract Abstract 1097 Background: In patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), current consensus guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy for an indefinite duration or until the cancer is resolved. Methods and results: Among 1’247 patients with acute VTE enrolled in the Swiss Venous Thromboembolism Registry (SWIVTER) from 18 hospitals, 315 (25%) had cancer of whom 179 (57%) had metastatic disease, 159 (50%) ongoing or recent chemotherapy, and 83 (26%) tumor surgery within 6 months. Patients with cancer were older (66±14 vs. 60±19 years, p<0.001), more often hospitalized at the time of VTE diagnosis (46% vs. 36%, p=0.001), immobile for >3 days (25% vs. 16%, p<0.001), and more often had thrombocytopenia (6% vs. 1%, p<0.001) than patients without cancer. The 30-day rate of VTE-related death or recurrent VTE was 9% in cancer patients vs. 4% in patients without cancer (p<0.001), and the rates of bleeding requiring medical attention were 5% in both groups (p=0.57). Cancer patients received indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment more often than patients without cancer (47% vs. 19%, p<0.001), and LMWH mono-therapy during the initial 3 months was prescribed to 45% vs. 8%, p<0.001, respectively. Among patients with cancer, prior VTE (OR 4.0, 95%CI 2.0–8.0), metastatic disease (OR 3.0, 95%CI 1.7–5.2), outpatient status at the time of VTE diagnosis (OR 3.8, 95%CI 1.9–7.6), and inpatient treatment (OR 4.4, 95%CI 2.1–9.2) were independently associated with the prescription of indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment. Conclusions: Less than half of the cancer patients with acute VTE received a prescription for indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment. Recurrent VTE, metastatic cancer, outpatient VTE diagnosis, and VTE requiring hospitalization were associated with an increased use of this strategy. Disclosures: Spirk: sanofi-aventis (suisse) sa: Employment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document