Alok A. Khorana

American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline: Recommendations for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE To develop guideline recommendations for the use of anticoagulation in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. METHODS A comprehensive systematic review of the medical literature on the prevention and treatment of VTE in cancer patients was conducted and reviewed by a panel of content and methodology experts. Following discussion of the results, the panel drafted recommendations for the use of anticoagulation in patients with malignant disease. RESULTS The results of randomized controlled trials of primary and secondary VTE medical prophylaxis, surgical prophylaxis, VTE treatment, and the impact of anticoagulation on survival of patients with cancer were reviewed. Recommendations were developed on the prevention of VTE in hospitalized, ambulatory, and surgical cancer patients as well as patients with established VTE, and for use of anticoagulants in cancer patients without VTE to improve survival. CONCLUSION Recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology VTE Guideline Panel include (1) all hospitalized cancer patients should be considered for VTE prophylaxis with anticoagulants in the absence of bleeding or other contraindications; (2) routine prophylaxis of ambulatory cancer patients with anticoagulation is not recommended, with the exception of patients receiving thalidomide or lenalidomide; (3) patients undergoing major surgery for malignant disease should be considered for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis; (4) low molecular weight heparin represents the preferred agent for both the initial and continuing treatment of cancer patients with established VTE; and (5) the impact of anticoagulants on cancer patient survival requires additional study and cannot be recommended at present.

Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is elevated in cancer, but individual risk factors cannot identify a sufficiently high-risk group of outpatients for thromboprophylaxis. We developed a simple model for predicting chemotherapy-associated VTE using baseline clinical and laboratory variables. The association of VTE with multiple variables was characterized in a derivation cohort of 2701 cancer outpatients from a prospective observational study. A risk model was derived and validated in an independent cohort of 1365 patients from the same study. Five predictive variables were identified in a multivariate model: site of cancer (2 points for very high-risk site, 1 point for high-risk site), platelet count of 350 x 10(9)/L or more, hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (10 g/dL) and/or use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, leukocyte count more than 11 x 10(9)/L, and body mass index of 35 kg/m(2) or more (1 point each). Rates of VTE in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively, were 0.8% and 0.3% in low-risk (score = 0), 1.8% and 2% in intermediate-risk (score = 1-2), and 7.1% and 6.7% in high-risk (score >/= 3) category over a median of 2.5 months (C-statistic = 0.7 for both cohorts). This model can identify patients with a nearly 7% short-term risk of symptomatic VTE and may be used to select cancer outpatients for studies of thromboprophylaxis.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update 2014

PURPOSE To provide current recommendations about the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. METHODS PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines from November 2012 through July 2014. An update committee reviewed the identified abstracts. RESULTS Of the 53 publications identified and reviewed, none prompted a change in the 2013 recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Most hospitalized patients with active cancer require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Routine thromboprophylaxis is not recommended for patients with cancer in the outpatient setting. It may be considered for selected high-risk patients. Patients with multiple myeloma receiving antiangiogenesis agents with chemotherapy and/or dexamethasone should receive prophylaxis with either low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose aspirin. Patients undergoing major surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Extending prophylaxis up to 4 weeks should be considered in those undergoing major abdominal or pelvic surgery with high-risk features. LMWH is recommended for the initial 5 to 10 days of treatment for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as well as for long-term secondary prophylaxis (at least 6 months). Use of novel oral anticoagulants is not currently recommended for patients with malignancy and VTE because of limited data in patients with cancer. Anticoagulation should not be used to extend survival of patients with cancer in the absence of other indications. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk. Oncology professionals should educate patients about the signs and symptoms of VTE.

Thromboembolism is a leading cause of death in cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy

PCI on CEC counts or other endothelial markers were not investigated [5]. Dignat-George et al. [6] reported similar CEC counts in the FV vs. femoral artery following PCI (n 1⁄4 10). In a further small study (n 1⁄4 15), these investigators noted a significant increase in peripheral blood CECs, on comparing blood taken immediately post-PCI (15.9 ± 3.7 cells mL; P 1⁄4 0.001) compared with preprocedural counts (2.4 ± 0.9 CEC mL) [5]. The observed broadly similar rise in CEC counts, following PCI, regardless of the sample site, would appear to suggest that PCI leads either to widespread endothelial perturbation and/or a rapid equilibration of responses. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, we cannot presume that the increased CEC counts represent specific coronary artery endothelial shedding. Passage of the coronary guide catheter, angioplasty guide wire and/or balloon (±stent) into the aorta and coronary vasculature may have resulted in generalized CEC release, but we found no significant change in coronary osCECs/VWFwith contrast. As CECandVWFsamplingwasonlyperformedat two timepoints (immediately pre-PCI and post-PCI) we cannot excluded the possibility that we may have missed an abrupt rise in local release of VWF that may have been detected by more frequent and protracted sampling post-PCI. Finally, the autonomic procedural stress might engender a disseminated endothelial shedding response throughout the endothelium circulation. In conclusion, this study showed no significant differences in baseline CEC counts or VWF levels between the AR, CS and RFV. However, PCI was associated with a significant increase in CECs, but not VWF, across all three sampling sites. Acknowledgements

Frequency, risk factors, and trends for venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) contributes to morbidity and mortality in cancer patients and is a frequent complication of anticancer therapy. In the current study, the frequency, risk factors, and trends associated with VTE were examined among hospitalized cancer patients.

Phase III Study Comparing Gemcitabine Plus Cetuximab Versus Gemcitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Southwest Oncology Group–Directed Intergroup Trial S0205

PURPOSE Patients with advanced pancreas cancer present with disease that is poorly responsive to conventional therapies. Preclinical and early clinical evidence has supported targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway in patients with pancreas cancer. This trial was conducted to evaluate the contribution of an EGFR-targeted agent to standard gemcitabine therapy. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody against the ligand-binding domain of the receptor. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine alone or gemcitabine plus cetuximab. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, objective response, and toxicity. RESULTS A total of 745 eligible patients were accrued. No significant difference was seen between the two arms of the study with respect to the median survival time (6.3 months for the gemcitabine plus cetuximab arm v 5.9 months for the gemcitabine alone arm; hazard ratio = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.23; P = .23, one-sided). Objective responses and progression-free survival were similar in both arms of the study. Although time to treatment failure was longer in patients on gemcitabine plus cetuximab (P = .006), the difference in length of treatment was only 2 weeks longer in the combination arm. Among patients who were studied for tumoral EGFR expression, 90% were positive, with no treatment benefit detected in this patient subset. CONCLUSION In patients with advanced pancreas cancer, the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab did not improve the outcome compared with patients treated with gemcitabine alone. Alternate targets other than EGFR should be evaluated for new drug development.

Risk factors for chemotherapy-associated venous thromboembolism in a prospective observational study

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increased in cancer, but little information is available about risk factors in cancer patients on chemotherapy.

International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Summary.  Background: Guidelines addressing the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients are heterogeneous and their implementation has been suboptimal worldwide. Objectives: To establish a common international consensus addressing practical, clinically relevant questions in this setting. Methods: An international consensus working group of experts was set up to develop guidelines according to an evidence‐based medicine approach, using the GRADE system. Results: For the initial treatment of established VTE: low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended [1B]; fondaparinux and unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be also used [2D]; thrombolysis may only be considered on a case‐by‐case basis [Best clinical practice (Guidance)]; vena cava filters (VCF) may be considered if contraindication to anticoagulation or pulmonary embolism recurrence under optimal anticoagulation; periodic reassessment of contraindications to anticoagulation is recommended and anticoagulation should be resumed when safe; VCF are not recommended for primary VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients [Guidance]. For the early maintenance (10 days to 3 months) and long‐term (beyond 3 months) treatment of established VTE, LMWH for a minimum of 3 months is preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) [1A]; idraparinux is not recommended [2C]; after 3–6 months, LMWH or VKA continuation should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit‐risk ratio, tolerability, patient preference and cancer activity [Guidance]. For the treatment of VTE recurrence in cancer patients under anticoagulation, three options can be considered: (i) switch from VKA to LMWH when treated with VKA; (ii) increase in LMWH dose when treated with LMWH, and (iii) VCF insertion [Guidance]. For the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE in surgical cancer patients, use of LMWH o.d. or low dose of UFH t.i.d. is recommended; pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 12–2 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days; there are no data allowing conclusion that one type of LMWH is superior to another [1A]; there is no evidence to support fondaparinux as an alternative to LMWH [2C]; use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH is recommended [1A]; extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) after major laparotomy may be indicated in cancer patients with a high risk of VTE and low risk of bleeding [2B]; the use of LMWH for VTE prevention in cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery may be recommended as for laparotomy [Guidance]; mechanical methods are not recommended as monotherapy except when pharmacological methods are contraindicated [2C]. For the prophylaxis of VTE in hospitalized medical patients with cancer and reduced mobility, we recommend prophylaxis with LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux [1B]; for children and adults with acute lymphocytic leukemia treated with l‐asparaginase, depending on local policy and patient characteristics, prophylaxis may be considered in some patients [Guidance]; in patients receiving chemotherapy, prophylaxis is not recommended routinely [1B]; primary pharmacological prophylaxis of VTE may be indicated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic [1B] or lung [2B] cancer treated with chemotherapy and having a low risk of bleeding; in patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide combined with steroids and/or chemotherapy, VTE prophylaxis is recommended; in this setting, VKA at low or therapeutic doses, LMWH at prophylactic doses and low‐dose aspirin have shown similar effects; however, the efficacy of these regimens remains unclear [2C]. Special situations include brain tumors, severe renal failure (CrCl < 30 mL min−1), thrombocytopenia and pregnancy. Guidances are provided in these contexts. Conclusions: Dissemination and implementation of good clinical practice for the management of VTE, the second cause of death in cancer patients, is a major public health priority.

Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Neutropenic Cancer Patients

PURPOSE Cancer is associated with thrombosis, but the frequency of thromboembolism in hospitalized cancer patients receiving current chemotherapy regimens is not known. We investigated venous and arterial thromboembolism and associated outcomes in hospitalized cancer patients actively receiving therapy, as identified by neutropenia. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the discharge database of the University HealthSystem Consortium. This included 66,106 adult neutropenic cancer patients with 88,074 hospitalizations between 1995 and 2002 at 115 medical centers in the United States. RESULTS Thromboembolism was reported in 5,272 patients (8%), with 5.4% patients developing venous thromboembolism and 1.5% developing arterial thromboembolism during the first hospitalization. Patients with lymphoma and leukemia accounted for one third of venous and nearly one half of arterial events. Clinical variables most frequently associated with thromboembolism were age > or = 65 years; primary site of cancer, including lung, GI, gynecologic, and brain; and comorbidities, including infection, pulmonary and renal disease, and obesity. In-hospital mortality was significantly greater in patients with venous (odds ratio [OR] = 2.01; 95% CI, 1.83 to 2.22) or arterial thromboembolism (OR = 5.04; 95% CI, 4.38 to 5.79). From 1995 to 2002, there was a 36% increase in venous events and a 124% increase in arterial events (P < .0001 for trend). CONCLUSION Thromboembolism is frequent in hospitalized neutropenic cancer patients, including in perceived low-risk subgroups such as patients with hematologic malignancies and nonmetastatic disease, and seems to be increasing. Thromboembolism is associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Increased efforts at thromboprophylaxis are warranted.

Assessing Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in the Patient With Cancer

PURPOSE Patients with cancer are increasingly at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Rates of VTE, however, vary markedly among patients with cancer. DESIGN This review focuses on recent data derived from population-based, hospital-based, and outpatient cohort studies of patients with cancer that have identified multiple clinical risk factors as well as candidate laboratory biomarkers predictive of VTE. RESULTS Clinical risk factors for cancer-associated VTE include primary tumor site, stage, initial period after diagnosis, presence and number of comorbidities, and treatment modalities including systemic chemotherapy, antiangiogenic therapy, and hospitalization. Candidate predictive biomarkers include elevated platelet or leukocyte counts, tissue factor, soluble P-selectin, and D-dimer. A recently validated risk model, incorporating some of these factors, can help differentiate patients at high or low risk for developing VTE while receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Identifying patients with cancer who are most at risk for VTE is essential to better target thromboprophylaxis, with the eventual goal of reducing the burden as well as the consequences of VTE for patients with cancer.