Cancer-Associated Thrombosis and Beyond: Biomarkers, Treatments, and Cancer-Hemostasis Interactions
Tua Gyldenholm,Julie Brogaard Larsen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1778104
2024-01-17
Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis
Abstract:It is firmly established that thromboembolic disease is a common complication of cancer and, overall, venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains the second most common cause of death in cancer patients after the malignancy itself.[1] Besides the direct contribution to cancer-related mortality, cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) may cause delay or disruption of anticancer treatment. The patient who experiences a cancer-associated VTE will be prescribed anticoagulant treatment, often long-term, which leads to increased number of bleeding events and can be challenging to manage in connection with surgery or antineoplastic agents. Finally, cancer patients report that occurrence of a CAT has a significant negative influence on their quality of life.[2] The past 20 years have seen increasing focus on CAT from the international scientific community, and great research efforts have been made to elucidate mechanisms behind CAT, to identify new CAT biomarkers and establish reliable CAT risk assessment models, and to develop improved treatment modalities. Traditionally, CAT has been almost synonymous with cancer-related VTE, but it is now recognized that cancer patients also have increased risk of arterial thrombosis.[3] Looking beyond secondary hemostasis, platelets have gained focus as contributors to CAT, both arterial and venous.[4] Conversely, the concept of the hemostatic system as a contributor to the tumor microenvironment and a promoter of cancer growth and metastasis is now established, which has raised questions about the potential for antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents in improving cancer prognosis. Several different CAT risk assessment models have been published, beginning with the Khorana score in 2008,[5] and are being used in research and clinical work, though the optimal strategy for risk stratification and thromboprophylaxis in different inpatient and outpatient settings remains to be determined.[6] The approval of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), specifically factor Xa inhibitors, for the treatment of cancer-related VTE has been a great step forward as they offer an effective and safe oral alternative to parenteral low molecular weight heparins for many cancer patients. However, they are associated with a higher bleeding risk in some cancer types, and concerns about interactions with antineoplastic agents have limited their use in cancer patients. Thus, the current issue of Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis (STH) is meant to address some of the current uncertainties in this area. The first paper in this issue takes a closer look at what we sometimes take for granted: the prevalence of thrombosis in cancer. Betts et al performed a network meta-analysis including more than 3,000,000 patients with 18 different cancer types to estimate overall and cancer-specific VTE risk.[7] Overall, 3.1% of the included patients experienced VTE within 1 year of diagnosis, ranging from 0.7% (melanoma) to 7.4% (pancreatic cancer). In the setting of surgery, esophageal cancer had the highest postoperative VTE risk. The review illustrates the differences in VTE rates in different cancer types and settings, and highlights some cancers not previously considered high-risk in all risk assessment models (e.g., myeloma and brain cancer). Moving from VTE to arterial thrombosis, Michel and colleagues give a comprehensive overview of our current knowledge of the mechanisms and risk factors of cancer-associated ischemic stroke and discuss acute and long-term management strategies, keeping in mind the often delicate balance between intracranial thrombosis and bleeding in this patient group.[8] Important focus points for future research are the use of more uniform classification of cancer-associated stroke and improvement of our understanding of mechanisms and risk factors behind cancer-associated stroke. The next five papers cover CAT biomarkers, each focusing on a specific part of the hemostatic system. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Malte et al investigated platelet parameters as markers for CAT and shows that platelet count is consistently associated with CAT across different cancer types and clinical settings.[9] Platelet count is cheap, fast, and readily available in most hospital laboratories worldwide and is included in the Khorana risk assessment model. However, platelet count is influenced by a plethora of other factors. Other markers of platelet reactivity, especially mean platelet volume, which is also available on automated cell counters, or dynamic platelet function assays, not available on automated cell counters, could give more detailed information, but should be investigated in larger cohorts. Looking at secondary hemostasis, Gyldenholm et al reviews the potential of thrombin generation markers in CAT.[10] The importance of thrombin formation in CAT development is well-established; however, thrombin formation markers are not -Abstract Truncated-
peripheral vascular disease,hematology