4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Thrombophilia and risk of venous thrombosis in patients with cancer

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 S51-S61

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0049-3848(07)70130-5

关键词

cancer; central venous catheter; factor V Leiden; thrombophilia; thrombosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Venous thrombosis is a common and severe complication in patients with cancer. We reviewed studies assessing whether a state of acquired or congenital thrombophilia influenced the risk of thrombosis in patients with cancer. The results are equivocal. However, the majority of studies were of limited size. The influence of thrombophilia in patients with cancer may be more difficult to demonstrate than in the general population, the risk of thrombosis due to cancer per se possibly outweighing the contribution of thrombophilic factors. Moreover, the results may depend on the genetic background of the population, the type of cancer, the type of thrombosis, and the chemotherapeutic treatment. Nevertheless, it appears that factor V Leiden or G20210A prothrombin gene mutation increases the risk of venous thromboembolism about 2- to 4-fold, compared with patients with cancer without either of these mutations. Similar results were observed for the occurrence of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis. Anti phospholipid antibodies and acquired resistance to activated protein C were frequently observed in patients with cancer and appeared to favor the occurrence of thrombosis. The rote of hyperhomocysteinemia deserves further investigation. Since the clinical implications of these findings remain to be clarified, routine screening of cancer patients for thrombophilia cannot yet be recommended on the basis of these studies. Studies designed to assess the value of thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients, including thrombophilic patients, with tong-term central venous catheters may be valuable. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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