Venous thromboembolism (VTE) has serious consequences for patients with cancer, including mortality. VTE is preventable with appropriate thromboprophylaxis, but prior public health efforts have focused on prophylaxis in the inpatient setting. However, most VTE events in malignancy currently occur in outpatients. Several recent clinical trials have addressed thromboprophylaxis in the ambulatory setting. Their findings suggest potential benefit, but with significant variation in underlying risk. A risk-adapted approach that incorporates risk of thrombosis, risk of bleeding, and patient preference can target high-risk patients and also allow low-risk patients to avoid prophylaxis. Risk assessment is therefore key to patient selection for outpatient prophylaxis. This article focuses on results of recent trials and updates from major guideline panels, with the intent of providing guidance to clinical providers.
Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for
- Author: Alok A. Khorana x
- Refine by Access: All x
Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Cancer Outpatients
Alok A. Khorana
Correspondence
Alok A. Khorana
Risk Assessment and Prophylaxis for VTE in Cancer Patients
Alok A. Khorana
The frequency of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is rising in patients with cancer. VTE contributes to mortality and morbidity, but the risk for VTE can vary widely between individual patients. Clinical risk factors for VTE in cancer include primary site of cancer, use of systemic therapy, surgery, and hospitalization. Biomarkers predictive of VTE include platelet and leukocyte counts, hemoglobin, D-dimer, and tissue factor. A recently validated risk model incorporates 5 easily available variables and can be used clinically to identify patients at increased risk of VTE. In high-risk settings, including surgery and hospitalization, thromboprophylaxis with either unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparins has been shown to be safe and effective. Recent studies have also suggested a potential benefit for thromboprophylaxis in the ambulatory setting, although criteria for selecting patients for prophylaxis are not currently well defined. This article focuses on recent and ongoing studies of risk assessment and prophylaxis in patients with cancer.
Enhancing Value for Patients With Cancer: Time to Treatment as a Surrogate for Integrated Cancer Care
Brian J. Bolwell and Alok A. Khorana
Referral, Uptake, and Outcome of Genetic Counseling and Testing in Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer
Hareem Syed, Joshua Sommovilla, Carol A. Burke, Sarah McGee, Carole Macaron, Brandie Heald, Ruishen Lyu, Stephanie L. Schmit, Kanika Nair, Suneel Kamath, Smitha Krishnamurthi, Alok A. Khorana, and David Liska
Background: The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) is rapidly increasing. Pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) are detected in 16% to 20% of patients who have EOCRC, highlighting a need for genetic counseling (GC) and multigene panel testing in these patients. We aimed to determine the rate of referral to GC and uptake and outcomes of germline testing in patients with EOCRC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged <50 years diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) from 2010 to 2019 at Cleveland Clinic. Demographic data were extracted, including age, sex, self-reported race, and family history of CRC. The proportions of patients with GC referral and completion of GC and genetic testing were investigated, and genetic testing results were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors independently associated with GC referral and uptake. Results: A total of 791 patients with EOCRC (57% male and 43% female) were included; 62% were referred for GC, and of those who were referred, 79% completed a GC appointment and 77% underwent genetic testing. Of those who underwent testing, 21% had a PGV detected; 82% were in known CRC-associated genes, with those associated with Lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis the most common, and 11% were in other actionable genes. Referral to GC was positively associated with family history of CRC (odds ratio [OR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.51–2.96) and more recent year of diagnosis (2010–2013 vs 2017–2019; OR, 5.36; 95% CI, 3.59–8.01) but negatively associated with older age at diagnosis (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86–0.92). Conclusions: Referral to GC for patients with EOCRC is increasing over time; however, even in recent years, almost 25% of patients were not referred for GC. We found that 1 in 5 patients with EOCRC carry actionable PGVs, highlighting the need for health systems to implement care pathways to optimize GC referral and testing in all patients with EOCRC.