The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients:a systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Khorana score in predicting venous thromboembolic events in ambulatory cancer patients. Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2008 to June 2018 for studies which evaluated the Khorana score. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Additional data on the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism were sought by contacting corresponding authors. The incidence in each Khorana score risk group was estimated with random effects meta-analysis. A total of 45 articles and eight abstracts were included, comprising 55 cohorts enrolling 34,555 ambulatory cancer patients. For 27,849 patients (81%), 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall, 19% of patients had a Khorana score of 0 points, 64% a score of 1 or 2 points, and 17% a score of 3 or more points. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in the first six months was 5.0% (95% CI: 3.9-6.5) in patients with a low-risk Khorana score (0 points), 6.6% (95% CI: 5.6-7.7) in those with an intermediate-risk Khorana score (1 or 2 points), and 11.0% (95% CI: 8.8-13.8) in those with a high-risk Khorana score (3 points or higher). Of the patients with venous thromboembolism in the first six months, 23.4% (95% CI: 18.4-29.4) had been classified as high risk according to the Khorana score. In conclusion, the Khorana score can be used to select ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism for thromboprophylaxis; however, most events occur outside this high-risk group

Risk Assessment Models for Thrombosis and Anticoagulant-Related Bleeding in Ambulatory Cancer Patients

Cancer patients have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism and arterial thrombosis, along with an increased risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding with primary and secondary prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. Decisions on initiation, dosing, and duration of anticoagulant therapy for prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis are challenging, as clinicians have to balance patients' individual risk of (recurrent) thrombosis against the risk of bleeding complications. For this purpose, several dedicated risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients have been suggested. However, most of these scores perform poorly and have received limited to no validation. For bleeding and arterial thrombosis, no risk scores have been developed specifically for cancer patients, and treatment decisions remain based on clinical gestalt and rough and unstructured estimation of the risks. The aims of this review are to summarize the characteristics and performance of risk assessment scores for (recurrent) venous thromboembolism and discuss available data on risk assessment for bleeding and arterial thrombosis in the cancer population. This summary can help clinicians in daily practice to make a balanced decision when considering the use of risk assessment models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Future research attempts should aim at improving risk assessment for arterial thrombosis and anticoagulant-related bleeding in cancer patients

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

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

Treatment Patterns of Cancer-associated Thrombosis in the Netherlands: The Four Cities Study

Background Current guidelines recommend either low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as first-line treatment in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE)

Treatment and prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis in the Netherlands: A national survey

Background: In the recent years, numerous studies on the optimal treatment and prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been published, leading to updated (inter)national guidelines. These include direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the first-line treatment agent in general and the recommendation of primary thromboprophylaxis in selected ambulatory patients. Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical practice regarding treatment and prevention of VTE in patients with cancer in the Netherlands and practice variation among different specialties. Methods: An online survey was conducted between December 2021, and June 2022, among Dutch physicians (oncologists, hematologists, vascular medicine specialists, acute internal medicine specialists, and pulmonologists) treating patients with cancer, in which we explored the treatment of choice for cancer-associated VTE, the use of VTE risk stratification tools, and primary thromboprophylaxis. Results: A total of 222 physicians participated, of whom the majority (81%) used DOACs as a first-line agent for treating cancer-associated VTE. The treatment varied between the following specialties: hematologists and acute internal medicine specialists more often prescribed low-molecular-weight heparin than physicians of the other specialties (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.80). The minimum duration of anticoagulant treatment was usually 3 to 6 months (87%), and treatment was extended when the malignancy was still active (98%). Regarding the prevention of cancer-associated VTE, no risk stratification tool was used. Three quarters of respondents never prescribed thromboprophylaxis to ambulatory patients, mostly because the thrombosis risk was not perceived high enough to justify prophylaxis. Conclusion: Dutch physicians largely adhere to the updated guidelines regarding the treatment of cancer-associated VTE but less to the recommendations for its prevention

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

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