Cancer and thrombosis: Managing the risks and approaches to thromboprophylaxis

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with patients without cancer. This results from both the prothrombotic effects of the cancer itself and iatrogenic factors, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, indwelling central venous devices and surgery, that further increase the risk of VTE. Although cancer-associated thrombosis remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality, it is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. However, evidence is accumulating to support the use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in the secondary prevention of VTE in patients with cancer. Not only have LMWHs been shown to be at least as effective as coumarin derivatives in this setting, but they have a lower incidence of complications, including bleeding, and are not associated with the practical problems of warfarin therapy. Furthermore, a growing number of studies indicate that LMWHs may improve survival among patients with cancer due to a possible antitumor effect. Current evidence suggests that LMWHs should increasingly be considered for the long-term management of VTE in patients with cancer

Epidemiology and pathophysiology of cancer-associated thrombosis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with malignant disease. First recognised by Bouillard in 1823 and later described by Trousseau in 1844, multiple studies have since provided considerable evidence for a clinical association between VTE and cancer. Across all cancers, the risk for VTE is elevated 7-fold; in certain malignancies, the risk for VTE may be increased up to 28-fold. Venous thromboembolism is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer; among survivors, complications commonly include recurrent VTE and post-thrombotic syndrome, and (more rarely) chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, which are costly, and have a profound impact on the patient's quality of life. Tumour cells can activate blood coagulation through multiple mechanisms, including production of procoagulant, fibrinolytic, and proaggregating activities, release of proinflammatory and proangiogenic cytokines, and interacting directly with host vascular and blood cells (e.g., endothelial cells, leukocytes, and platelets) through adhesion molecules. Increasing evidence suggests that elements of the haemostatic system also have a direct role in eliciting or enhancing angiogenesis, cell survival, and metastasis. Despite the problem posed by VTE in the setting of cancer, it is evident that a significant number of oncologists do not recognise the link between cancer, its treatment, and thrombogenesis. On 22 May 2009, a group of UK-based physicians met in London, UK, to evaluate recent data on cancer thrombosis. This article (1 of 4) briefly reviews key data on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of VTE as a context for a discussion and consensus statement developed by meeting attendees, on the implications of this information for UK clinical practice

Idiopathic venous thromboembolic disease is associated with a poorer prognosis from subsequent malignancy

METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study of prognosis in Scottish patients diagnosed with cancer within 5 years after a venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis was significantly poorer if a VTE occurred up to 2 years before cancer diagnosis, most notably if the cancer was diagnosed in the 6 months after a VTE

Continuous low-dose cyclophosphamide and methotrexate combined with celecoxib for patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND: Combined therapy of metronomic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and high-dose celecoxib targeting angiogenesis was used in a phase II trial. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer received oral cyclophosphamide 50 mg o.d., celecoxib 400 mg b.d. and methotrexate 2.5 mg b.d. for two consecutive days each week. Response was determined every 8 weeks; toxicity was evaluated according to CTC version 2.0. Plasma markers of inflammation, coagulation and angiogenesis were measured. RESULTS: Sixty-seven of 69 patients were evaluable for response. Twenty-three patients had stable disease (SD) after 8 weeks, but there were no objective responses to therapy. Median time to progression was 57 days. There was a low incidence of toxicities. Among plasma markers, levels of tissue factor were higher in the SD group of patients at baseline, and levels of both angiopoietin-1 and matrix metalloproteinase-9 increased in the progressive disease group only. There were no changes in other plasma markers. CONCLUSION: This metronomic approach has negligible activity in advanced cancer albeit with minimal toxicity. Analysis of plasma markers indicates minimal effects on endothelium in this trial. These data for this particular regimen do not support basic tenets of metronomic chemotherapy, such as the ability to overcome resistant tumours by targeting the endothelium

Etk/Bmx Regulates Proteinase-Activated-Receptor1 (PAR1) in Breast Cancer Invasion: Signaling Partners, Hierarchy and Physiological Significance

BACKGROUND: While protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR(1)) plays a central role in tumor progression, little is known about the cell signaling involved. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We show here the impact of PAR(1) cellular activities using both an orthotopic mouse mammary xenograft and a colorectal-liver metastasis model in vivo, with biochemical analyses in vitro. Large and highly vascularized tumors were generated by cells over-expressing wt hPar1, Y397Z hPar1, with persistent signaling, or Y381A hPar1 mutant constructs. In contrast, cells over-expressing the truncated form of hPar1, which lacks the cytoplasmic tail, developed small or no tumors, similar to cells expressing empty vector or control untreated cells. Antibody array membranes revealed essential hPar1 partners including Etk/Bmx and Shc. PAR(1) activation induces Etk/Bmx and Shc binding to the receptor C-tail to form a complex. Y/A mutations in the PAR(1) C-tail did not prevent Shc-PAR(1) association, but enhanced the number of liver metastases compared with the already increased metastases obtained with wt hPar1. We found that Etk/Bmx first binds via the PH domain to a region of seven residues, located between C378-S384 in PAR(1) C-tail, enabling subsequent Shc association. Importantly, expression of the hPar1-7A mutant form (substituted A, residues 378-384), which is incapable of binding Etk/Bmx, resulted in inhibition of invasion through Matrigel-coated membranes. Similarly, knocking down Etk/Bmx inhibited PAR(1)-induced MDA-MB-435 cell migration. In addition, intact spheroid morphogenesis of MCF10A cells is markedly disrupted by the ectopic expression of wt hPar1. In contrast, the forced expression of the hPar1-7A mutant results in normal ball-shaped spheroids. Thus, by preventing binding of Etk/Bmx to PAR(1) -C-tail, hPar1 oncogenic properties are abrogated. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first demonstration that a cytoplasmic portion of the PAR(1) C-tail functions as a scaffold site. We identify here essential signaling partners, determine the hierarchy of binding and provide a platform for therapeutic vehicles via definition of the critical PAR(1)-associating region in the breast cancer signaling niche

The potential benefits of low-molecular-weight heparins in cancer patients

Cancer patients are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism due to a range of factors directly related to their disease and its treatment. Given the high incidence of post-surgical venous thromboembolism in cancer patients and the poor outcomes associated with its development, thromboprophylaxis is warranted. A number of evidence-based guidelines delineate anticoagulation regimens for venous thromboembolism treatment, primary and secondary prophylaxis, and long-term anticoagulation in cancer patients. However, many give equal weight to several different drugs and do not make specific recommendations regarding duration of therapy. In terms of their efficacy and safety profiles, practicality of use, and cost-effectiveness the low-molecular-weight heparins are at least comparable to, and offer several advantages over, other available antithrombotics in cancer patients. In addition, data are emerging that the antithrombotics, and particularly low-molecular-weight heparins, may exert an antitumor effect which could contribute to improved survival in cancer patients when given for long-term prophylaxis. Such findings reinforce the importance of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin in cancer patients