Risk assessment tools for bleeding in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: an analysis of the PLATO-VTE study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest indefinite anticoagulation after unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) unless the bleeding risk is high, yet there is no consistent guidance on assessing bleeding risk. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of 5 bleeding risk tools (RIETE, VTE-BLEED, CHAP, VTE-PREDICT, and ABC-Bleeding). METHODS: PLATO-VTE, a prospective cohort study, included patients aged ≥40 years with a first unprovoked VTE. Risk estimates were calculated at VTE diagnosis and after 3 months of treatment. Primary outcome was clinically relevant bleeding, as per International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, during 24-month follow-up. Discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Patients were classified as having a "high risk" and "non-high risk" of bleeding according to predefined thresholds; bleeding risk in both groups was compared by hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Of 514 patients, 38 (7.4%) had an on-treatment bleeding. AUROCs were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.48-0.68) for ABC-Bleeding, 0.56 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for RIETE, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.43-0.64) for CHAP, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.41-0.59) for VTE-BLEED, and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.40-0.60) for VTE-PREDICT. The proportion of high-risk patients ranged from 1.4% with RIETE to 36.9% with VTE-BLEED. The bleeding incidence in the high-risk groups ranged from 0% with RIETE to 13.0% with ABC-Bleeding, and in the non-high-risk groups, it varied from 7.7% with ABC-Bleeding to 9.6% with RIETE. HRs ranged from 0.93 (95% CI, 0.46-1.9) for VTE-BLEED to 1.67 (95% CI, 0.86-3.2) for ABC-Bleeding. Recalibration at 3-month follow-up did not alter the results. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, discrimination of currently available bleeding risk tools was poor. These data do not support their use in patients with unprovoked VTE.

RNA-sequencing to discover genes and signaling pathways associated with venous thromboembolism in glioblastoma patients: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma patients are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Tumor-intrinsic features are considered to play a role, but the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms remain incompletely understood. OBJECTIVES: To identify tumor-expressed genes and signaling pathways that associate with glioblastoma-related VTE by using next generation RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq). METHODS: The tumor gene expression profile of 23 glioblastoma patients with VTE and 23 glioblastoma patients without VTE was compared using an unpaired analysis. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) core analysis was performed on the top 50 differentially expressed genes to explore associated functions and pathways. Based on full RNA-Seq data, molecular glioblastoma subtypes were determined by performing cluster analysis. RESULTS: Of the 19,327 genes, 1246 (6.4 %) were differentially expressed between glioblastoma patients with and without VTE (unadjusted P < 0.05). The most highly overexpressed gene was GLI1, a classical target gene in the Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) signaling pathway (log2 fold change: 3.7; unadjusted P < 0.0001, adjusted P = 0.219). In line, Shh signaling was among the top canonical pathways and processes associated with VTE. The proportion of patients with the proneural/neural glioblastoma subtype was higher among those with VTE than controls. CONCLUSION: Shh signaling may be involved in the development of glioblastoma-related VTE.

Polygenic risk scores for prediction of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the UK Biobank cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for patients with cancer at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Polygenic risk scores may improve VTE prediction but have not yet been evaluated in patients with cancer. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the performance of the 5-, 37-, 297-, extended 297- (additionally including factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A), and 100-single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) scores in predicting cancer-associated VTE in the UK Biobank, a population-based, prospective cohort study. METHODS: The primary outcome was VTE during 12 months after cancer diagnosis. Cancer and VTE diagnosis were based on ICD-10 codes. Discrimination was evaluated by c-indices and subdistribution hazard ratios in the upper vs 3 lower quartiles of the scores in a competing risk model. As a comparison, the c-index was calculated for the Khorana cancer type risk classification. RESULTS: Of 36 150 patients with cancer (median age, 66 years; 48.7% females), 1018 (2.8%) developed VTE. C-indices at 12 months ranged from 0.56 (95% CI, 0.54-0.58) for the 5-SNP to 0.60 (95% CI, 0.58-0.62) for the extended 297-SNP scores. The subdistribution hazard ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI, 1.19-1.56) for the 5-SNP to 1.90 (95% CI, 1.68-2.16) for the extended 297-SNP scores and were consistent after adjusting for cancer type. For the Khorana cancer type classification, the c-index was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.58-0.61), which increased to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63-0.67, +0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.07) when combined with the extended 297-SNP score. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that polygenic VTE risk scores can identify patients with cancer with a 1.9-fold higher VTE risk independent of cancer type. Combined clinical-genetic scores to improve cancer-associated VTE prediction should be evaluated further.

Contact system and intrinsic pathway activation in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with pancreatic cancer, there are little data on contact system activation in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To quantify contact system and intrinsic pathway activation and subsequent VTE risk in patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were compared with controls. Blood was drawn at baseline and patients were followed for 6 months. Complexes of proteases with their natural inhibitors, C1-esterase inhibitor (C1-INH), antithrombin (AT), or alpha-1 antitrypsin (α1at), were measured for complexes containing kallikrein (PKa:C1-INH), factor (F)XIIa (FXIIa:C1-INH), and FXIa (FXIa:C1-INH, FXIa:AT, FXIa:α1at). The association of cancer with complex levels was assessed in a linear regression model, adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index. In a competing risk regression model, we assessed associations between complex levels and VTE. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients with pancreatic cancer and 22 controls were included. The mean age was 66 years (SD, 8.4) in the cancer cohort and 52 years (SD, 10.1) in controls. In the cancer cohort, 18 (16.7%) patients developed VTE during follow-up. In the multivariable regression model, pancreatic cancer was associated with increased complexes of PKa:C1-INH (P < .001), FXIa:C1-INH (P < .001), and FXIa:AT (P < .001). High FXIa:α1at (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.48 per log increase; 95% CI, 1.02-2.16) and FXIa:AT (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.78 highest vs lower quartiles; 95% CI, 1.10-7.00) were associated with VTE. CONCLUSION: Complexes of proteases with their natural inhibitors were elevated in patients with cancer. These data suggest that the contact system and intrinsic pathway activation are increased in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Effect of the P-glycoprotein inhibitor tamoxifen on edoxaban plasma levels in women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant use of P-glycoprotein inhibitors can reduce clearance of edoxaban and increase its plasma concentration. Caution is advised with simultaneous use of edoxaban and the frequently used P-glycoprotein inhibitor tamoxifen. However, pharmacokinetic data are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effect of tamoxifen on edoxaban clearance. METHODS: This was a prospective, self-controlled, pharmacokinetic study in breast cancer participants starting tamoxifen. Edoxaban was given at a dose of 60 mg once daily for 4 consecutive days, first without tamoxifen and later with concomitant tamoxifen in steady-state. On day 4 of both edoxaban sequences, serial blood samples were taken. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using nonlinear mixed effects modelling in which the effect of tamoxifen on edoxaban clearance was assessed. Additionally, mean area under the curves (AUC) were estimated. Geometric least square means (GLM) ratios were calculated and no interaction was concluded if the 90 % CI was within the 80-125 % no-effect boundaries. RESULTS: Twenty-four women with breast cancer scheduled for tamoxifen were included. The median age was 56 years (IQR 51-63). The average edoxaban clearance was 32.0 L/h (95 % CI, 11.1-35.0 L/h). There was no effect of tamoxifen on edoxaban clearance, with a fraction of 100 % (95 % CI 92-108) compared to clearance without tamoxifen. The mean AUCs were 1923 ng*h/ml (SD 695) without tamoxifen and 1947 ng*h/ml (SD 595) with tamoxifen (GLM-ratio 100.4; 90 % CI 98.6-102.2). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of the P-glycoprotein inhibitor tamoxifen does not lead to reduced clearance of edoxaban in patients with breast cancer.

Platelet RNA sequencing for cancer screening in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Platelet RNA sequencing has been shown to accurately detect cancer in previous studies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of platelet RNA sequencing with standard-of-care limited cancer screening in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: Patients aged ≥40 years with unprovoked VTE were recruited at 13 centers and followed for 12 months for cancer. Participants underwent standard-of-care limited cancer screening, and platelet RNA sequencing analysis was performed centrally at study end for cases and selected controls. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated, using the predefined primary positivity threshold of 0.54 for platelet RNA sequencing aiming at 86% test sensitivity, and an additional predefined threshold of 0.89 aiming at 99% test specificity. RESULTS: A total of 476 participants were enrolled, of whom 25 (5.3%) were diagnosed with cancer during 12-month follow-up. For each cancer patient, 3 cancer-free patients were randomly selected for the analysis. The sensitivity of limited screening was 72% (95% CI, 52-86) at a specificity of 91% (95% CI, 82-95). The area under the receiver operator characteristic for platelet RNA sequencing was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.41-0.66). At the primary positivity threshold, all patients had a positive test, for a sensitivity estimated at 100% (95% CI, 87-99) and a specificity of 8% (95% CI, 3.7-16.4). At the secondary threshold, sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 48-83; p value compared with limited screening 0.71) at a specificity of 36% (95% CI, 26-47). CONCLUSION: Platelet RNA sequencing had poor diagnostic accuracy for detecting occult cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE with the current algorithm.

Risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding after major surgery for ovarian cancer: standard in-hospital versus extended duration of thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients with ovarian cancer after major surgery. Based on limited data, international guidelines recommend extended thromboprophylaxis for up to 28 days. OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of VTE and bleeding within 30 days following major surgery in patients with ovarian cancer and to evaluate the association between VTE and thromboprophylaxis duration. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, "before-after" cohort study in patients with ovarian cancer undergoing major surgery. Before July 2019, the local protocol mandated a standard course of thromboprophylaxis during hospital stay only. From July 2019 onward, patients received extended thromboprophylaxis for 28 days. The cumulative incidences of VTE and major bleeding within 30 days after surgery were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between thromboprophylaxis duration and VTE incidence. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and December 2020, 250 women were included, of which 118 (47.2%) received extended and 132 (52.8%) standard thromboprophylaxis. During follow-up, 12 patients developed VTE (cumulative incidence, 4.8%; 95% CI, 2.1-7.4) and 2 major bleeding (cumulative incidence 0.8%; 95% CI, 0.0-1.9). Compared with standard thromboprophylaxis, VTE incidence was numerically lower with extended duration of thromboprophylaxis (5/118 [4.2%] vs 7/132 [5.3%]) but not significantly different (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.25-2.52). The risk of major bleeding was similar in both groups (1/118 [0.8%] vs 1/132 [0.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.07-17.89). CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative VTE incidence in patients with ovarian cancer following major surgery was considerable. Extended thromboprophylaxis was safe and associated with a numerically lower risk of VTE but not significantly different.

Use of the National Early Warning Score for predicting deterioration of patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a post-hoc analysis of the YEARS Study.

BACKGROUND: The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and the simplified PESI (sPESI) are validated scores for mortality prediction in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is a general prognostic risk score for multiple clinical settings. We investigated whether the NEWS had a comparable performance with the PESI and sPESI, for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death in patients with acute PE. METHODS: In haemodynamically stable patients with confirmed PE from the YEARS Study (2013-2015), we evaluated the performance of the NEWS, PESI and sPESI for predicting 7-day ICU admission and 30-day mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. RESULTS: Of 352 patients, 12 (3.4%) were admitted to the ICU and 5 (1.4%) died. The AUC of the NEWS for ICU admission was 0.80 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.00) for 30-day mortality. At a threshold of 3 points, NEWS yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 53% for ICU admission and 100% and 52% for 30-day mortality. The AUC of the PESI was 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.79) for ICU admission and 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.00) for mortality. At a threshold of 66 points, PESI yielded a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 38% for ICU admission. For mortality, these were 100% and 37%, respectively. The performance of the sPESI was similar to that of PESI. CONCLUSION: In comparison with PESI and sPESI, NEWS adequately predicted 7-day ICU admission as well as 30-day mortality, supporting its potential relevance for clinical practice.

QUAPAS: An Adaptation of the QUADAS-2 Tool to Assess Prognostic Accuracy Studies.

Whereas diagnostic tests help detect the cause of signs and symptoms, prognostic tests assist in evaluating the probable course of the disease and future outcome. Studies to evaluate prognostic tests are longitudinal, which introduces sources of bias different from those for diagnostic accuracy studies. At present, systematic reviews of prognostic tests often use the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of included studies because no equivalent instrument exists for prognostic accuracy studies.QUAPAS (Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies) is an adaptation of QUADAS-2 for prognostic accuracy studies. Questions likely to identify bias were evaluated in parallel and collated from QUIPS (Quality in Prognosis Studies) and PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and paired to the corresponding question (or domain) in QUADAS-2. A steering group conducted and reviewed 3 rounds of modifications before arriving at the final set of domains and signaling questions.QUAPAS follows the same steps as QUADAS-2: Specify the review question, tailor the tool, draw a flow diagram, judge risk of bias, and identify applicability concerns. Risk of bias is judged across the following 5 domains: participants, index test, outcome, flow and timing, and analysis. Signaling questions assist the final judgment for each domain. Applicability concerns are assessed for the first 4 domains.The authors used QUAPAS in parallel with QUADAS-2 and QUIPS in a systematic review of prognostic accuracy studies. QUAPAS improved the assessment of the flow and timing domain and flagged a study at risk of bias in the new analysis domain. Judgment of risk of bias in the analysis domain was challenging because of sparse reporting of statistical methods.

Growth differentiation factor-15 for prediction of bleeding in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) is a strong predictor for bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation, but there are no data on cardiovascular outcomes for this biomarker in cancer patients. Bleeding risk assessment is important in cancer patients when considering primary thromboprophylaxis because it is associated with an increased bleeding risk. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate GDF-15 as predictor for bleeding events in cancer patients previously enrolled in the AVERT trial. PATIENTS/METHODS: In this trial, 574 participants were randomized to prophylactic apixaban or placebo and followed for 180 days for venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and any bleeding. Plasma concentrations of GDF-15 were measured centrally with the Elecsys GDF-15 commercial assay kit (Roche Diagnostics GmbH). RESULTS: In apixaban recipients, the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of GDF-15 for major bleeding was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.00). Compared with the lowest GDF-15 tertile (<1470 ng/L), major bleeding risk was significantly higher in the highest tertile (≥2607 ng/L; hazard ratio [HR] 3.19; 95% CI, 2.41-4.22), also when adjusting for sex, age, antiplatelet use, and gastrointestinal cancer (adjusted HR 2.80; 95% CI, 1.91-4.11). GDF-15 was also significantly associated with clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (adjusted HR 1.67; 95% CI, 1.08-2.58) and any bleeding (adjusted HR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.38-3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Although hypothesis generating, this is the first study to show that GDF-15 predicts bleeding in cancer patients receiving thromboprophylaxis.

Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with gastrointestinal cancer using edoxaban.

BACKGROUND: In the Hokusai VTE Cancer study, the risk of major bleeding was 2.9% higher in the edoxaban group compared with the dalteparin group, mainly due to more gastrointestinal bleedings in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. The identification of risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding may help to guide the use of DOACs in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving edoxaban. PATIENTS/METHODS: In this nested case-control study in patients with gastrointestinal cancer randomized to edoxaban in the Hokusai VTE Cancer study, cases (patients with clinically relevant gastrointestinal bleeding during treatment) were randomly matched to three controls (patients who had no gastrointestinal bleeding). Data for the 4-week period prior to bleeding were retrospectively collected. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated in a crude conditional logistic regression model and a multivariable model adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type. RESULTS: Twenty-four cases and 64 matched controls were included. In the multivariable analysis, advanced cancer, defined as regionally advanced or metastatic cancer (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.01-12.6) and low hemoglobin levels (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.5-16.0) were significantly associated with bleeding. There was no significant difference in patients with resected tumors (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-1.4), or in patients on chemotherapy (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.5-3.5). CONCLUSION: Advanced cancer and low hemoglobin levels were associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving edoxaban. We were unable to identify other risk factors, mainly due to limited statistical power.

Evaluation of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores for prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Khorana score is a validated tool to identify cancer patients at higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: We compared its predictive performance to that of the clinical PROTECHT and the polygenic 5-SNP scores in patients who participated in the Dutch CPCT-02 study. PATIENTS/METHODS: Data on VTE and its risk factors were retrospectively collected for 2729 patients with advanced stage solid tumors planned for systemic cancer treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months. Overall discriminatory performance of the scores was evaluated by time-dependent c-indices. The scores were additionally evaluated dichotomously in competing risk models. RESULTS: A total of 160 (5.9%) patients developed VTE during follow-up. Time-dependent c-indices at 6 months for the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.60), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.57-0.62), and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.51-0.57), respectively. The dichotomous scores classified 9.6%, 16.8%, and 9.5% as high-risk, respectively. VTE risk was about 2-fold higher among high-risk patients than low-risk patients for the Khorana (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-3.0), PROTECHT (SHR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.0), and 5-SNP scores (SHR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.03-2.8). The sensitivity at 6 months was 16.6% (95% CI: 10.5-22.7), 28.9% (95% CI: 21.5-36.3), and 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the PROTECHT or 5-SNP score was not superior to that of the Khorana score. The majority of cancer patients who developed VTE during 6-month follow-up were not identified by these scores. Future directions for studies on cancer-associated VTE prediction may include combined clinical-genetic scores.

Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: the HOME-PE randomized trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.

Arterial Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients: A Danish Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The relation between cancer and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate ATE risk in cancer patients. METHODS: Danish registries were used to identify all cancer patients between 1997 and 2017, each matched to three cancer-free comparator individuals. ATE was defined as the composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic/unspecified stroke, and peripheral arterial occlusion. A competing risk approach was used to compute cumulative incidences and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs). Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression. Among cancer patients, mortality risk was estimated in Cox regression analysis by treating ATE as a time-varying exposure. Patients were followed for 12 months. RESULTS: The study included 458,462 cancer patients and 1,375,386 comparator individuals. In the 6-month period following cancer diagnosis/index date, the cumulative incidence for ATE was 1.50% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47% to 1.54%) in cancer patients and 0.76% (95% CI: 0.75% to 0.77%) in comparator individuals (HR: 2.36; 95% CI: 2.28 to 2.44). Among cancer patients age <65 years, 65 to 75 years, and >75 years, this was 0.79% (95% CI: 0.74% to 0.83%), 1.61% (95% CI: 1.55% to 1.67%), and 2.30% (95% CI: 2.22% to 2.38%), respectively. Other predictors for ATE among cancer patients were prior ATE (SHR: 2.96; 95% CI: 2.77 to 3.17), distant metastasis (adjusted SHR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.30), and chemotherapy (SHR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.61). Among cancer patients, ATE was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR: 3.28; 95% CI: 3.18 to 3.38). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients are at increased risk of ATE. Clinicians should be aware of this risk, which is associated with mortality.

Pulmonary embolism at autopsy in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal disease, but data on the incidence of fatal PE in cancer patients are scant. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the proportion of cancer patients with PE at autopsy. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, all autopsy reports of cancer patients were retrieved from PALGA: Dutch Pathology Registry and used for data extraction. The primary outcome was PE at time of autopsy, defined as any clot obstructing a pulmonary artery. The secondary outcome was venous thromboembolism, defined as the composite of thrombotic PE, deep vein thrombosis, splanchnic vein thrombosis, or internal jugular vein thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 9571 cancer patients were included. In 1191 (12.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-13.1) patients, one or more PE events were observed at autopsy, of whom 1074 (90.2%) had a thrombotic embolism, 168 (14.1%) a tumor embolism, 9 (0.8%) a septic embolism, 7 (0.6%) a fat tissue embolism, and 3 (0.3%) a bone marrow embolism. Among patients with PE for whom the cause of death was specified in the autopsy report, death was considered PE-related in 642 patients (66.7%), which was 6.7% of the total study population. Venous thromboembolism was observed in 1223 (12.8%; 95% CI, 12.1-13.5) patients. CONCLUSION: The proportion of PE in cancer patients at autopsy is substantial. Although the study population is not representative for the total cancer population, it suggests that PE is an important disease complication in cancer patients.

Primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients with a high Khorana score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guidelines suggest thromboprophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients starting chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) according to Khorana score. Data on thromboprophylaxis efficacy in different Khorana score risk groups remain ambiguous. We sought to evaluate thromboprophylaxis in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk (≥2 points) Khorana score and an intermediate-risk score (2 points) or high-risk score (≥3 points) separately. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing thromboprophylaxis with placebo or standard care in ambulatory cancer patients. Outcomes were VTE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated in a profile-likelihood random-effects model. Six RCTs were identified, involving 4626 cancer patients. Thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) significantly reduced VTE risk in intermediate- to high-risk (RR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.67), intermediate-risk (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83), and high-risk patients (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67); the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were 25 (intermediate to high risk), 34 (intermediate risk), and 17 (high risk), respectively. There was no significant difference in major bleeding (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.69-1.67) or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-1.01). The numbers needed to harm (NNHs) for major bleeding in intermediate- to high-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients were 1000, -500, and 334, respectively. The overall NNH was lower in DOAC studies (100) versus LMWH studies (-500). These findings indicate thromboprophylaxis effectively reduces the risk of VTE in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk Khorana score, although the NNT is twice as high for intermediate-risk patients compared with high-risk patients.

Risk scores for occult cancer in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: Results from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Registro Informatizado de Pacientes con Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) score and the Screening for Occult Malignancy in Patients with Idiopathic Venous Thromboembolism (SOME) risk scores aim to identify patients with acute unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) at high risk of occult cancer, but their predictive performance is unclear. METHODS: The scores were evaluated in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Studies were eligible if enrolling consecutive adults with unprovoked VTE who underwent protocol-mandated screening for cancer. The primary outcome was a cancer diagnosis between 30 days and 2 years of follow-up. The discriminatory performance was evaluated by computing the area under the receiver (ROC) curve in random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: The RIETE score could be calculated in 1753 patients, of whom 63 (3.6%) were diagnosed with cancer. The pooled area under the ROC curve was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.66; I2  = 0%). Of the 427 patients (24%) classified as high risk, 25 (5.9%) were diagnosed with cancer compared with 38 of 1326 (2.9%) low-risk patients (hazard ratio [HR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4). The SOME score was calculated in 925 patients, of whom 37 (4.0%) were diagnosed with cancer. The pooled area under the ROC curve was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65; I2  = 46%). Of the 161 patients (17%) classified as high risk (≥2 points), eight (5.0%) were diagnosed with cancer compared with 29 of 764 (3.8%) low-risk patients (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.55-2.7). CONCLUSIONS: The predictive discriminatory performance of both scores is poor. When used dichotomously, the RIETE score is able to discriminate between low- and high-risk patients. Because this is largely driven by advanced age, these results do not support the use of these scores in daily clinical practice.

Direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an emerging treatment option for patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), but studies have reported inconsistent results. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in these patients. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Additional data were obtained from the original authors to homogenize definitions for all study outcomes. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding, respectively. Other outcomes included the composite of recurrent VTE and major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated in a random effects meta-analysis. In the primary analysis comprising 2607 patients, the risk of recurrent VTE was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39-1.17). Conversely, the risks of major bleeding (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.55-3.35) and CRNMB (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.73-3.64) were nonsignificantly higher. The risk of the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23). Mortality was comparable in both groups (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68-1.36). Findings were consistent during the on-treatment period and in those with incidental VTE. In conclusion, DOACs are an effective treatment option for patients with cancer and acute VTE, although caution is needed in patients at high risk of bleeding.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a frequent complication in ambulatory cancer patients. Despite the high risk, routine thromboprophylaxis is not recommended because of the high number needed to treat and the risk of bleeding. Two recent trials demonstrated that the number needed to treat can be reduced by selecting cancer patients at high risk for VTE with prediction scores, leading the latest guidelines to suggest such an approach in clinical practice. Yet, the interpretation of these trial results and the translation of the guideline recommendations to clinical practice may be less straightforward. In this clinically-oriented review, some of the controversies are addressed by focusing on the burden of VTE in cancer patients, discussing the performance of available risk assessment scores, and summarizing the findings of recent trials. This overview can help oncologists, hematologists, and vascular medicine specialists decide about thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients.