Journal
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages 33-45Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.02.020
Keywords
Venous thromboembolism; Cancer; Anticoagulation; Cancer-associated thrombosis; Prophylaxis; Treatment
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This review provides practical recommendations for complex, clinically relevant situations regarding the prevention and management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT). The authors emphasize the importance of individualized decisions and the lack of strong evidence-based recommendations in this field.
Background: Cancer patients suffer high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cancer-associated VTE (CAT) causes hospitalization, morbidity, delayed cancer treatment, and mortality; therefore, exceptional CAT prevention and management are imperative. Methods: This review offers practical recommendations and treatment algorithms for eight complex, clinically relevant situations posing great uncertainty regarding management and requiring an urgent decision: VTE prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients with pancreatic pancreas (1) or lung cancer with molecular alterations (2); optimal management of VTE during antineoplastic treatment with antiangiogenics (3) or chemotherapy (4); protracted VTE treatment, determinants; (5) drugs used (6), and optimal VTE management in situations of high bleeding risk (7) or recurrent VTE (8). Results: With the evidence available, primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with lung cancer harbouring ALK/ROS1 translocations or pancreatic cancer receiving ambulatory chemotherapy must be appraised. If anti-angiogenic therapy can yield a clear benefit and the patient recovers from a grade 3 thrombotic event, it can be cautiously re-introduced in selected cases, provided that the person agrees to assume the risk after being duly informed. Anticoagulation maintenance beyond 6 months is recommended in individuals with metastatic tumours, on active treatment, or at high risk for recurrent VTE without bleeding risk. In such cases, LMWH and DOACs are safe, being mindful that the latter could entail a higher risk of bleeding; consequently, they should be used judiciously in more haemorrhagic tumours, such as gastrointestinal cancers. In cases of recurrent VTE, the presence of active cancer, infra-therapeutic dose, and anticoagulant treatment failure must be ruled out. In individuals with platelet counts of 25,000-50,000 and VTE liable to recur who need anticoagulation, full-dose LMWH and transfusion support can be contemplated to reach values of >50,000. In CAT unlikely to recur, decreasing the LMWH dose by 25-50% is recommended. Renal impairment associated with thrombosis must be treated with LMWHs; there is no need to adjust the dose in patients with CrCl > 30; with CrCl = 15-30, dose adjustment is advised, and suspended when CrCl is <15. Conclusion: We provide useful advice for complex, clinically relevant situations that clinicians treating CAT must face devoid of any unequivocal, strong, evidence-based recommendations.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available