Unmet needs and barriers in venous thromboembolism education and awareness among people living with cancer: a global survey.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major preventable cause of morbidity, disability, and mortality in subjects with cancer. A global appraisal of cancer-associated VTE education and awareness is not available. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate VTE-related education, awareness, and unmet needs from the perspective of people living with cancer using a quantitative and qualitative approach. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from an online-based survey covering multidimensional domains of cancer-associated VTE. Data are presented descriptively. Potential differences across participant subgroups were explored. RESULTS: Among 2262 patients with cancer from 42 countries worldwide, 55.3% received no VTE education throughout their cancer journey, and an additional 8.2% received education at the time of VTE diagnosis only, leading to 63.5% receiving no or inappropriately delayed education. When education was delivered, only 67.8% received instructions to seek medical attention in case of VTE suspicion, and 36.9% reported scarce understanding. One-third of participants (32.4%) felt psychologically distressed when becoming aware of the potential risks and implications connected with cancer-associated VTE. Most responders (78.8%) deemed VTE awareness highly relevant, but almost half expressed concerns about the quality of education received. While overall consistent, findings in selected survey domains appeared to numerically differ across age group, ethnicity, continent of residence, educational level, metastatic status, and VTE history. CONCLUSION: This study involving a large and diverse population of individuals living with cancer identifies important unmet needs in VTE-related education, awareness, and support across healthcare systems globally. These findings unveil multilevel opportunities to expedite patient-centered care in cancer-associated VTE prevention and management.

Awareness of venous thromboembolism among patients with cancer: Preliminary findings from a global initiative for World Thrombosis Day.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) has detrimental impact on patients' clinical outcomes and quality of life. Data on CAT education, communication, and awareness among the general cancer population are scanty. METHODS: We present the preliminary results of an ongoing patient-centered survey including 27 items covering major spheres of CAT. The survey, available in 14 languages, was promoted and disseminated online through social networks, email newsletters, websites, and media. RESULTS: As of September 20, 2022, 749 participants from 27 countries completed the survey. Overall, 61.8% (n = 460) of responders were not aware of their risk of CAT. Among those who received information on CAT, 26.2% (n = 56) were informed only at the time of CAT diagnosis. Over two thirds (69.1%, n = 501) of participants received no education on signs and symptoms of venous thromboembolism (VTE); among those who were educated about the possible clinical manifestations, 58.9% (n = 119) were given instructions to seek consultation in case of VTE suspicion. Two hundred twenty-four respondents (30.9%) had a chance to discuss the potential use of primary thromboprophylaxis with health-care providers. Just over half (58.7%, n = 309) were unaware of the risks of bleeding associated with anticoagulation, despite being involved in anticoagulant-related discussions or exposed to anticoagulants. Most responders (85%, n = 612) valued receiving CAT education as highly relevant; however, 51.7% (n = 375) expressed concerns about insufficient time spent and clarity of education received. CONCLUSIONS: This ongoing survey involving cancer patients with diverse ethnic, cultural, and geographical backgrounds highlights important patient knowledge gaps. These findings warrant urgent interventions to improve education and awareness, and reduce CAT burden.

Assessment of immunological anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies for vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) in a large Australian cohort: A multicenter study comprising 1284 patients.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare complication of adenovirus-based vaccines aimed to prevent and minimize COVID-19 and related pathophysiology. OBJECTIVES: To describe patterns of testing for anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies using various ELISA assays in a large Australian cohort and comparative functional platelet activation assays in a subset. PATIENTS/METHODS: Asserachrom HPIA IgG ELISA was performed in 1284 patients over a period of 12 months, supplemented in select cohorts by comparative ELISA using three other methods (n = 78-179), three different functional assays (flow cytometry, serotonin release assay, and/or Multiplate; n = 476), and rapid immunological chemiluminescence anti-PF4 assay (n = 460), in a multicenter study. RESULTS: For first episode presentations, 190/1284 (14.8%) ELISA tests were positive. Conversely, most (445/460; 96.7%) chemiluminescence anti-PF4 test results were negative. All functional assays showed associations of higher median ELISA optical density with functional positivity and with high rates of ELISA positivity (64.0% to 85.2%). Data also identified functional positivity in 14.8%-36.0% of ELISA negative samples, suggesting false negative VITT by HPIA IgG ELISA in upward of one third of assessable cases. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter evaluation of anti-PF4 testing for investigation of VITT. Discrepancies in test results (ELISA vs. ELISA or ELISA vs. functional assay) in some patients highlighted limitations in relying on single methods (ELISA and functional) for PF4 antibody detection in VITT, and also highlights the variability in phenotypic test presentation and pathomechanism of VITT.

New guidelines from the Thrombosis and Haemostasis Society of Australia and New Zealand for the diagnosis and management of venous thromboembolism.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the third most common cardiovascular disease and, globally, more than an estimated 10 million people have it yearly. It is a chronic and recurrent disease. The symptoms of VTE are non-specific and the diagnosis should actively be sought once considered. The mainstay of VTE treatment is anticoagulation, with few patients requiring additional intervention. A working group of experts in the area recently completed an evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and management of DVT and PE on behalf of the Thrombosis and Haemostasis Society of Australia and New Zealand (www.thanz.org.au/resources/thanz-guidelines). MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The diagnosis of VTE should be established with imaging; it may be excluded by the use of clinical prediction rules combined with D-dimer testing. Proximal DVT or PE caused by a major surgery or trauma that is no longer present should be treated with anticoagulant therapy for 3 months. Proximal DVT or PE that is unprovoked or associated with a transient risk factor (non-surgical) should be treated with anticoagulant therapy for 3-6 months. Proximal DVT or PE that is recurrent (two or more) and provoked by active cancer or antiphospholipid syndrome should receive extended anticoagulation. Distal DVT caused by a major provoking factor that is no longer present should be treated with anticoagulant therapy for 6 weeks. For patients continuing with extended anticoagulant therapy, either therapeutic or low dose direct oral anticoagulants can be prescribed and is preferred over warfarin in the absence of contraindications. Routine thrombophilia testing is not indicated. Thrombolysis or a suitable alternative is indicated for massive (haemodynamically unstable) PE. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: Most patients with acute VTE should be treated with a factor Xa inhibitor and be assessed for extended anticoagulation.

A Morbidity Screening Tool for identifying fatigue, pain, upper limb dysfunction and lymphedema after breast cancer treatment: a validity study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate validity of a newly developed Morbidity Screening Tool (MST) to screen for fatigue, pain, swelling (lymphedema) and arm function after breast cancer treatment. METHODS: A cross-sectional study included women attending reviews after completing treatment (surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy), without recurrence, who could read English. They completed the MST and comparator questionnaires: Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire (CPGQ), Lymphedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (LBCQ) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire with subscales for fatigue (FACT F) and breast cancer (FACT B + 4). Bilateral combined shoulder ranges of motion were compared (upward reach; hand behind back) and percentage upper limb volume difference (%LVD =/>10% diagnosed as lymphedema) measured with the vertical perometer (400T). RESULTS: 613 of 617 participants completed questionnaires (mean age 62.3 years, SD 10.0; mean time since treatment 63.0 months, SD 46.6) and 417 completed objective testing. Morbidity prevalence was estimated as 35.8%, 21.9%, 19.8% and 34.4% for fatigue, impaired upper limb function, lymphedema and pain respectively. Comparing those self-reporting the presence or absence of each type of morbidity, statistically significant differences in comparator variables supported validity of the MST. Statistically significant correlations resulted between MST scores focussing on impact of morbidity, and comparator variables that reflect function and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Analysis supports the validity of all four short-forms of the MST as providing indications of both presence of morbidity and impacts on participants' lives. This may facilitate early and appropriate referral for intervention.

Comparison of breast cancer-related lymphedema (upper limb swelling) prevalence estimated using objective and subjective criteria and relationship with quality of life.

This study aimed to investigate lymphedema prevalence using three different measurement/diagnostic criterion combinations and explore the relationship between lymphedema and quality of life for each, to provide evaluation of rehabilitation. Cross-sectional data from 617 women attending review appointments after completing surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy included the Morbidity Screening Tool (MST; criterion: yes to lymphedema); Lymphedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (LBCQ; criterion: yes to heaviness and/or swelling); percentage limb volume difference (perometer: %LVD; criterion: 10%+ difference); and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy breast cancer-specific quality of life tool (FACT B+4). Perometry measurements were conducted in a clinic room. Between 341 and 577 participants provided sufficient data for each analysis, with mean age varying from 60 to 62 (SD 9.95-10.03) and median months after treatment from 49 to 51. Lymphedema prevalence varied from 26.2% for perometry %LVD to 20.5% for the MST and 23.9% for the LBCQ; differences were not significant. Limits of agreement analysis between %LVD and the subjective measures showed little consistency, while moderate consistency resulted between the subjective measures. Quality of life differed significantly for women with and without lymphedema only when subjective measurements were used. Results suggest that subjective and objective tools investigate different aspects of lymphedema.