4.4 Article

Cancer associated thrombosis in everyday practice: perspectives from GARFIELD-VTE

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND THROMBOLYSIS
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 267-277

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-020-02180-x

关键词

Cancer; Malignancy; Venous thromboembolism; Anticoagulation; Registry

资金

  1. Thrombosis Research Institute (London, UK)
  2. Bayer Pharma AG (Berlin, Germany)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients and is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD)-VTE (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02155491) is a prospective, observational study of 10,684 patients with objectively diagnosed VTE from 415 sites in 28 countries. We compared baseline characteristics, VTE treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes (mortality, recurrent VTE and major bleeding) in 1075 patients with active cancer, 674 patients with a history of cancer, and 8935 patients without cancer. Patients with active cancer and history of cancer were older than cancer-free patients, with median ages of 64.8, 68.9, and 58.4 years, respectively. The most common sites of active cancer were lung (14.5%), colorectal (11.0%), breast (10.6%), and gynaecological (10.3%). Active cancer patients had a higher incidence of upper limb and vena cava thrombosis than cancer-free patients (9.0% vs 4.8% and 5.1% vs 1.4%, respectively), and were more likely to receive parenteral anticoagulation as monotherapy than cancer-free patients (57.8% vs 12.1%), and less likely to receive DOACs (14.2% vs 50.6%). Rates of death, recurrent VTE, and major bleeding were higher in active cancer patients than in cancer-free patients, with hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 14.2 (12.1-16.6), 1.6 (1.2-2.0) and 3.8 (2.9-5.0), respectively. VTE was the second most common cause of death in patients with active cancer or history of cancer. In patients with VTE, those with active cancer are at higher risk of death, recurrence, and major bleeding than those without cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据