scholarly journals Current status of treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Xiong

AbstractPatients with cancer are prone to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) that is the second leading cause of mortality among them. Cancer patients with VTE may encounter higher rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding complications than patients without cancer. Treatment of established VTE is often complex in patients with cancer. Treatment of cancer-associated VTE basically comprises initial treatment, long-term treatment, treatment within 6 months, treatment beyond 6 months, treatment of recurrent VTE, and treatment in special situations. Decision of antithrombotic therapy, selection of anticoagulants, duration of anticoagulation, decision of adjuvant therapy, and adjustment of regimen in special situations are the major problems in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Therapeutic anticoagulation is the key of the key in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. In addition to the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) that has been fully demonstrated, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly showing its advantages along with the accompanying concern in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. The latest ASCO, ITAC and NCCN guidelines agree with each other on most aspects with respect to the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, whereas differ on a few issues. Encompassing recent randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and meta-analyses, as well as the comparison of the latest authoritative guidelines including the NCCN, ASCO, and ITAC guidelines in this field, the objective of this review is to present current overview and recommendations for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Katalin Makó

Abstract Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of death in oncological patients. The mechanisms of thrombogenesis in cancer patients are not fully established, and it seems to be multifactorial in origin. Also, several risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are present in these patients such as tumor site, stage, histology of cancer, chemotherapy, surgery, and immobilization. Anticoagulant treatment in CAT is challenging because of high bleeding risk during treatment and recurrence of VTE. Current major guidelines recommend low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) for early and long-term treatment of VTE in cancer patients. In the past years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as potential treatment option for VTE and have recently been proposed as a new option for treating CAT. This manuscript will give a short overview of risk factors involved in the development of CAT and a summary on the recent recommendations and guidelines for treatment of VTE in patients with malignancies, discussing also some special clinical situations (e.g. renal impairment, catheter-related thrombosis, and thrombocytopenia).


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 286-295
Author(s):  
К. V. Lobastov ◽  
I. V. Schastlivtsev

This article is a review of epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. In accordance with actual guidelines, the duration of anticoagulant therapy of cancer-related venous thrombosis should be at least 6 months. The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding, so low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), in particular dalteparin, has been the "gold standard" until recently. Compared to VKA, prolonged use of LMWH can reduce the incidence of VTE recurrence without affecting the risk of bleeding or death. The main disadvantage of LMWH is low compliance, leading to premature discontinuation of treatment or switching to alternative anticoagulants. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have changed the situation. Compared to VKA, they demonstrated higher efficacy with a similar (or improved for individual DOACs) safety in patients with cancer-related VTE. Recently, the results of studies comparing the use of DOACs with dalteparin in cancer patients have been published: SELECT-D (rivaroxaban), HOKUSAI-VTE Cancer (edoxaban), ADAM VTE (apixaban), CARAVAGGIO (apixaban). Rivaroxaban showed higher efficacy than dalteparin with a similar risk of major bleeding, but an increased risk of clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding. Edoxaban had the same efficacy as dalteparin but increased risk of major but not CRNM bleeding. Apixaban showed similar efficacy and safety as dalteparin in the CARAVAGGIO study, but did not provide higher safety in the ADAM VTE study. It was noted that gastrointestinal and urogenital bleeding dominated in the structure of hemorrhagic complications of DOACs. The results of published trials are reflected in the current guidelines of the specialized societies. DOACs (particularly, rivaroxaban and edoxaban) are recommended for the VTE treatment in cancer patients.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4964-4964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary Crowther ◽  
Jamie Doyle ◽  
Stanford Taylor ◽  
Nadia Ali

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in multiple myeloma (MM) patients for several reasons; hematologic malignancy itself is a VTE risk factor and standard of care immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) in combination with dexamethasone (Dex) increase the risk further. This combination therapy has a mean VTE incidence of 21.5% in studies that did not use thromboprophylaxis and is recommended for all patients on IMiDs, although the optimal thromboprophylactic regimen remains uncertain. In clinical practice, aspirin (ASA) is commonly prescribed for VTE prophylaxis due to the ease of use. Despite this, the incidence of VTE remains between 7-14%. There is a growing body of literature supporting the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in cancer populations. We wanted to assess the incidence of VTE despite ASA prophylaxis at our institution and to further characterize the role of DOACs in the MM population. To do this, we performed a chart review of all MM patients who had been treated with lenalidomide and a DOAC, assessing for VTE development and patient outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with the diagnosis of MM treated with lenalidomide therapy at Fox Chase Cancer Center at Temple University Hospital or Cottman Avenue after Jan 1st, 2015 to July 2019. Eligible patients were identified through electronic medical record data mining for patients that had been diagnosed with MM, had been prescribed lenalidomide, had been taking ASA while on lenalidomide, and switched to rivaroxaban, edoxaban or apixaban. For comparison, the number of patients treated with lenalidomide and ASA who did not switch to a DOAC were also identified. Patient charts were reviewed for VTE development and bleeding complications after DOAC administration. Results: 132 patients were identified who had a diagnosis of MM and had been prescribed lenalidomide between Jan 1, 2015 and July 31, 2019. These patients were also prescribed aspirin except for three who were already on a DOAC prior to starting lenalidomide. Of the total 132 patients, only 17 were prescribed a DOAC. Six of the patients were on DOACs for reasons other than VTE (atrial fibrillation N=4, atrial flutter N=1, marantic endocarditis N=1). Eleven patients were started on DOACs for VTE; incidence of 8.3% in our myeloma population. However three of these VTEs occurred within one month of high dose melphalan chemotherapy and autologous stem cell rescue. These three patients had been off lenalidomide for over one month prior to VTE. Eight of the 17 patients with VTE developed clots in the setting of active MM and concurrent therapy with IMiD/Dex, independent of hospitalizations or other provoking factors. This is an incidence of 6.0% for VTE directly attributed to therapy. Six patients were on lenalidomide and Dex, while two patients developed VTE while on pomalidomide and Dex. No patients on lenalidomide experienced recurrent VTEs after being switched to therapeutic dose DOAC. One patient on pomalidomide/Dex did experience recurrent VTE. We examined all 17 patients who were on DOACs, 16 of which had been on IMiD and DOACs concurrently. Three had minor bleeding events which all resolved spontaneously. One patient had a major bleeding event, which was a fatal ruptured cerebral aneurysm while on a DOAC and ASA concurrently. Conclusion: The incidence of VTE in our patient population receiving IMiD/Dex while on ASA prophylaxis therapy was similar to what has been previously reported in the literature. We examined the clinical outcomes of 16 patients treated with IMiDs and DOACs concurrently and found few bleeding events. The one major bleed was likely precipitated by malignant hypertension and not a direct result of being on a DOAC. Taken together these results further support the growing body of evidence that DOACs are effective and safe treatments for VTE in cancer patients, including MM. Moving forward, our clinical experience with treatment dose DOACs supports the use of prophylactic dose DOACs to potentially further reduce the incidence of VTE in this high-risk population. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-363
Author(s):  
Samantha M. Vogel ◽  
Leticia V. Smith ◽  
Evan J. Peterson

Objective: To review evidence behind anticoagulants in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) with a focus on low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and the role of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Data Sources: PubMed was searched using terms “venous thromboembolism,” “cancer,” and “anticoagulation.” This search was restricted to clinical trials, meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses. Additional references were identified from reviewing literature citations. Study Selection: English-language prospective and retrospective studies assessing the efficacy and safety of LMWH and DOACs in patients with cancer. Data Analysis: Several trials were analyzed that compared anticoagulation therapies for prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer. Many studies comparing LMWH and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) found nonsignificant differences between therapies. A single study demonstrated that LMWHs are superior to VKAs. This evidence supporting LMWH for long-term VTE treatment in patients with cancer is based on comparison to VKA, but results are limited by methodological issues, and the benefit of LMWH may be driven by poor control. Subanalyses of DOAC trials suggest these are equally or more effective as VKA in cancer, but this conclusion is underpowered. Conclusion: DOACs have the potential to bypass many challenges with traditional therapy. After analyzing the evidence available, we conclude that after careful consideration of risks and benefits, use of DOACs for VTE treatment are a reasonable option in patients with cancer.


2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 959-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Aggarwal ◽  
Annemarie van de Geer ◽  
Charles Faselis ◽  
Harry R. Büller ◽  
Marcello Di Nisio ◽  
...  

SummaryLow-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) is recommended as the preferred anticoagulant treatment over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. However, there is uncertainty about the duration and dose of LMWH treatment. Therefore, we designed this multinational survey to assess the current approach to the treatment of patients with cancer and VTE. An electronic survey tool was used to disseminate a survey containing 49 questions on different aspects of the treatment of patients with cancer and VTE, among both thrombosis and non-thrombosis specialists. A total of 229 invitations were sent, and 141 completed the survey (60% of the total). Fifty-eight percent of the respondents were from Europe, 35% from the US and the remaining 7% from other countries. Respondent’s specialties included haematology (23%), oncology (18%), pulmonology (15%) and general internal medicine (15%). LMWH was indicated as the first choice for the long-term treatment by 82% of the respondents, of whom 60% used full therapeutic doses and 40% chose a dose reduction. When continuing anticoagulants after the long-term treatment period, 44% of respondents preferred LMWH, 10% VKA, while the remaining 45% chose per individual patient for either LMWH or VKA. In conclusion, we observed a relatively high observance rate of the guidelines with respect to the use of LMWH for the long-term treatment of VTE in cancer. In contrast, the dose of LMWH and the type of anticoagulant chosen after the initial 3–12 months varied substantially, probably reflecting the limited available evidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document