NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer and increases morbidity and mortality. VTE prevention and treatment are more complex in patients with cancer. The NCCN Guidelines for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease outline strategies for treatment and prevention of VTE in adult patients diagnosed with cancer or in whom cancer is clinically suspected. These NCCN Guidelines Insights explain recent changes in anticoagulants recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

NCCN: Continuing Education

Target Audience: This activity is designed to meet the educational needs of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists involved in the management of patients with cancer.

Accreditation Statement NCCN

Physicians: National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

NCCN designates this journal-based CE activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Nurses: National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center‘s Commission on Accreditation.

NCCN designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.0 contact hour.

Pharmacists: National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education.

NCCN designates this knowledge-based continuing education activity for 1.0 contact hour (0.1 CEUs) of continuing education credit. UAN: 0836-0000-18-011-H01-P

All clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CE activity: 1) review the educational content; 2) take the posttest with a 66% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at http://education.nccn.org/node/84204; and 3) view/print certificate.

Pharmacists: You must complete the posttest and evaluation within 30 days of the activity. Continuing pharmacy education credit is reported to the CPE Monitor once you have completed the posttest and evaluation and claimed your credits. Before completing these requirements, be sure your NCCN profile has been updated with your NAPB e-profile ID and date of birth. Your credit cannot be reported without this information. If you have any questions, please e-mail education@nccn.org.

Release date: November 10, 2018; Expiration date: November 10, 2019

Learning Objectives:

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

  • Integrate into professional practice the updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease

  • Describe the rationale behind the decision-making process for developing the NCCN Guidelines for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease

F1

Download Figure

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 11; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0084

NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus

Category 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate.

All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.

Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any patient with cancer is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.

Overview

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and life-threatening condition in patients with cancer.1,2 The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease outline strategies to prevent and treat VTE in adult patients (≥18 years) either with a diagnosis of cancer or in whom cancer is clinically suspected. In the guidelines, VTE is broadly defined to include deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), superficial vein thrombosis (SVT), and splanchnic vein thrombosis (SPVT).

Depending on the absence of contraindications and other patient- and case-specific factors, therapeutic anticoagulation is a key component of management of cancer-associated VTE. The specific contexts in which therapeutic anticoagulation is recommended for DVT, catheter-related DVT, PE, and acute SPVT are shown on DVT-2, DVT-3, PE-2,

F2

Download Figure

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 11; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0084

and SPVT-2 of the NCCN Guidelines for VTE (see full guidelines, available at NCCN.org). As shown on SVT-1 and SPVT-2, there are also some subsets of patients with SVT or chronic SPVT in which the NCCN Guidelines recommend anticoagulation or consideration of anticoagulation as a component of treatment (see full NCCN Guidelines for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, available at NCCN.org). Due to the emergence of new data on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in patients with cancer-associated VTE, NCCN recommendations for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE have changed dramatically in recent years. These NCCN Guidelines Insights review prospective randomized trial data supporting the current recommended options, including data supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and guidelines for patient selection and safe administration of these agents.

Use of Anticoagulants in Patients With VTE and Cancer: Clinical Data

Therapeutic anticoagulation regimens include combination therapy regimens in which one agent is used initially (as “acute” treatment) and then switched to a different agent that is used for long-term or chronic treatment (eg, ≥3 months), and monotherapy regimens in which the same agent is used for both acute and chronic treatment. Since the duration of “acute” treatment varies across regimens, the NCCN Guidelines list complete therapeutic anticoagulation regimens, including initial and long-term dosing, timing for changes in agents or dosing, and considerations for determining appropriate duration of treatment (VTE-E, pages 1291–1294).

Low Molecular Weight Heparin Alone Versus With Vitamin K Antagonist

For many years low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) alone or in combination with warfarin was the standard anticoagulation treatment for

F3

Download Figure

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 11; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0084

cancer-associated VTE. Several prospective randomized studies have compared the efficacy and safety of single-agent LMWH (for initial and long-term treatment) versus combination therapy with initial LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus long-term treatment with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (Tables 1 and 2).37

In the 4 trials that reported VTE recurrence data,47 rates with single-agent LMWH were lower than those for LMWH plus VKA, although these trends reached statistical significance in only 2 of the 4 trials (Table 1). Although there was no difference in recurrent VTE between treatment arms during the 12-week study period in the Main-LITE study, recurrent VTE was significantly lower at 12 months with single-agent LMWH (tinzaparin) compared with UFH plus warfarin (7% vs 16%; P=.044; relative risk, 0.44).6

Trends in rates of major bleeding were not consistent across trials (Table 1). CANTHANOX found that major bleeding was significantly less frequent with single-agent enoxaparin compared with enoxaparin plus warfarin.3 In contrast, major bleeding did not differ by treatment arm in the other 4 studies (Table 1). CANTHANOX also showed that single-agent enoxaparin was associated with less fatal bleeding compared with enoxaparin plus warfarin (0% vs 8% of patients; P=.03).3 Two studies (CLOT, ONCENOX) reported nonsignificant trends toward more major bleeding with single-agent LMWH.4,5

Taken together, results from these randomized trials show that in patients with cancer-associated VTE, LMWH is associated with a similar or lower risk of VTE and similar risk of major bleeding compared with LMWH/UFH plus VKA. In addition, no difference was seen in overall survival between LMWH and UFH/LMWH plus VKA, although the vast majority of study death was due to progressive cancer.37 There were no consistent trends regarding VTE- or bleeding-associated fatalities between treatment arms. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have consistently shown that LMWH is superior

F4

Download Figure

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 11; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0084

to VKA for the prevention of recurrent VTE, with no difference in major bleeding in the chronic treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.811 No difference in survival was noted between anticoagulation regimens.9,11 Based on these results and more than a decade of real-world experience, the NCCN Guidelines list single-agent LMWH as a preferred anticoagulation option for cancer-associated VTE (see VTE-E 1 of 5, page 1291). Results of the CLOT study support use of single-agent dalteparin as a category 1 preferred option for anticoagulation of cancer-associated acute VTE, as this study showed a significant reduction in recurrent VTE with no increase in major bleeds.4 This category 1 recommendation applies specifically to the dalteparin regimen used in the trial (Table 2) for a duration of 6 months.

Because trials including patients with cancer have not compared LMWH with VKAs for a duration of >6 months, decisions regarding continued LMWH therapy beyond this time frame or transition to a VKA should be based on clinical judgment.

Combinations With Warfarin

Combining LMWH or UFH With Warfarin: Given that patients have great difficulty with long-term adherence to parenteral agents and the higher cost of LMWH, the NCCN Guidelines also include combinations of LMWH/UFH plus warfarin among the recommended options for treatment of cancer-associated VTE (see VTE-E 2 of 5, page 1292). The recommended LMWH dosing in these combination regimens reflects the regimens used in the comparator arms of the CLOT trial (for dalteparin) and ONCENOX trial (for enoxaparin) (Table 2).

Combining Fondaparinux With Warfarin: Fondaparinux is a specific indirect factor Xa inhibitor FDA-approved for the treatment of acute DVT or PE when administered in conjunction with warfarin.12 The prospective randomized MATISSE trials compared fondaparinux plus warfarin versus LMWH plus warfarin, or versus UFH plus warfarin, for treatment of DVT or PE, respectively13,14 (Tables 3 and 4). In patients

Table 1.

LMWH Versus Warfarin for Long-Term Treatment of VTE in Patients With Active Cancera: Data From Prospective Randomized Trials

Table 1.

Download Figure

with cancer in the MATISSE DVT and PE trials, no significant differences were noted in the rates of recurrent VTE or major bleeding between treatment arms; no significant differences in survival were observed. The NCCN Guidelines include combination therapy with fondaparinux and warfarin as an option for treatment of VTE in patients with cancer (see VTE-E 2 of 5, page 1292), with the recommended dose matching that used in the MATISSE trials.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Although the FDA approvals of the DOACs apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban for treatment of VTE were based on trials in which most patients did not have cancer,1520 subanalyses of patients with cancer have now been published for the pivotal trials testing each of these agents,2124 and results have now been reported from 2 randomized trials testing DOACs specifically in patients with cancer.25,26 Table 5 summarizes the VTE index event criteria, overall treatment scheme, and key results from patients with cancer in each of these prospective randomized trials. Table 6 provides details about the anticoagulation regimens used in these trials. The following sections describe the data and rationale supporting each of the DOAC-containing regimens included in the guidelines among the recommended options for anticoagulation treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Apixaban: Apixaban is an orally administered direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been FDA-approved for the treatment of DVT and PE based on results from the AMPLIFY trial, which compared single-agent apixaban with combination enoxaparin plus warfarin in patients with acute symptomatic proximal DVT and/or acute symptomatic PE (supplemental eTable 1, available with this article at JNCCN.org).17,27 As shown in Table 5, the subanalysis of patients with

Table 2.

LMWH Versus Warfarin for Long-Term Treatment of VTE in Patients With Active Cancer: Study Treatment Dosing

Table 2.

Download Figure

active cancer at baseline showed no significant treatment-dependent differences in VTE recurrence or major bleeding, although there were nonsignificant trends toward better outcomes with apixaban.21 Mortality at 3 months was similar across treatment arms. It is important to note that the study protocol allowed individual investigators the option of excluding patients with cancer whom they believed should be treated with LMWH. Consequently, the patients with cancer enrolled in the study were much healthier and had much lower mortality than those enrolled in the CLOT trial (6% and 7.7% at 3 months for apixaban and enoxaparin/warfarin in the AMPLIFY trial vs 39% and 41% at 6 months for dalteparin and oral anticoagulant in the CLOT trial, respectively).4,21 Based on these results, the NCCN Guidelines include single-agent apixaban as an option for anticoagulation in patients with cancer-associated VTE (see VTE-E 1 of 5, page 1291). Because of the small number of patients with cancer (n=169), use of LMWH plus warfarin rather than LMWH alone (as the comparator), and the selection of healthier patients with cancer in the AMPLIFY study, this recommendation is limited to patients who refuse or have compelling reasons to avoid LMWH. Randomized studies comparing apixaban with LMWH in patients with active cancer are currently underway and should provide more conclusive evidence of apixaban's efficacy and safety in patients with cancer–associated VTE.

Dabigatran: Dabigatran is an orally administered direct thrombin inhibitor FDA-approved for the treatment of DVT and PE in patients who have received parenteral anticoagulant for 5 to 10 days.28 This approved indication is based on results of the RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trials (supplemental eTable 1).20 As shown in Table 5, analysis of the subset of patients with cancer at baseline showed no treatment-dependent differences in the rates of VTE recurrence or major bleeding.22 Among patients with cancer, the mortality rates were not significantly different between treatment arms. Similar to the apixaban trials, the cancer subgroup in the dabigatran studies was substantially healthier than the CLOT trial population, as evidenced by the lower mortality (14% vs 39%).4,22 Based on results from this subgroup analysis, the NCCN Guidelines include LMWH/UFH plus dabigatran as potential treatment options for cancer-associated VTE (see VTE-E 3 of 5, page 1293). Because of the limitations of the RE-COVER trials (comparison with LMWH plus warfarin, healthier population of patients with cancer), the recommendation for LMWH/UFH plus dabigatran is limited to those who refuse or have compelling reasons to avoid long-term LMWH.

Table 3.

Fondaparinux for VTE in Patients With Active Cancera: Data From Prospective Randomized Trials

Table 3.

Download Figure

Edoxaban: Edoxaban is an orally administered direct factor Xa inhibitor that is FDA approved for the treatment of DVT or PE after 5 to 10 days of initial therapy with a parenteral anticoagulant.29 The FDA-approved indication is based on results from the Hokusai-VTE study, a prospective randomized trial that tested edoxaban in patients with acute lower extremity DVT and/or acute PE (supplemental eTable 1).18 Results from subgroup analyses showed that although there were no treatment-dependent differences in recurrent VTE rates among patients with no history of cancer and no active cancer while on study (3% vs 3% for edoxaban vs warfarin), there was a trend toward higher rates of recurrent VTE with warfarin in the subset of patients with active cancer at baseline (Table 5), which reached significance for the subgroup that included all patients with current or prior cancer at baseline (4% [14/378] vs 7% [28/293]; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28–1.00; P=.0007).23 Rates of major bleeding did not differ across treatment arms in any of the subgroups based on current/prior cancer status.18,23 Mortality was similar across treatment arms for all categories of patients with current or prior cancer.

Given that single-agent LMWH is the preferred option for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, a separate randomized trial specifically in patients with cancer (Hokusai VTE-Cancer) compared LMWH plus edoxaban combination therapy (initial short-term LMWH followed by longer-term edoxaban) with single-agent LMWH (dalteparin) for the treatment of acute lower extremity DVT or acute PE.25 As shown in Table 5, the rate of recurrent VTE was lower in those who received combination LMWH plus edoxaban versus single-agent dalteparin, although this trend did not reach significance and the rate of major bleeding was significantly higher in the edoxaban arm. Mortality was not significantly different between treatment arms, and the vast majority of deaths were cancer related. The numbers of VTE- or bleed-related deaths were too small to allow for meaningful comparisons across treatment arms. Based on these results, the NCCN Guidelines include combination treatment with LMWH followed by edoxaban as a category 1 option for anticoagulation of cancer-associated VTE and combination therapy with initial UFH followed by edoxaban as a category 2A option because it was not

Table 4.

Fondaparinux for VTE in Patients With Active Cancer: Study Treatment Dosinga

Table 4.

Download Figure

Table 5.

DOACs for Treatment of VTE in Patients With Active Cancera: Data From Prospective Randomized Trials

Table 5.

Download Figure

tested in the Hokusai VTE-Cancer trial (see VTE-E 2 of 5, page 1292). The recommended edoxaban dosing matches that used in the Hokusai trials (see Table 2) and the prescribing information.29

Rivaroxaban: Rivaroxaban is an orally administered direct factor Xa inhibitor approved by the FDA as a single-agent treatment for DVT and/or PE.30 FDA approval for this indication was based on the results of 2 phase 3 open-label noninferiority randomized trials comparing single-agent rivaroxaban versus initial short-term LMWH (enoxaparin) plus warfarin/acenocoumarol (started concurrently with LMWH and continued as single agent after LMWH discontinuation; See Table 6 for details on regimens tested, supplemental eTable 1 for results).15,16,31 As shown in Table 5, pooled analysis of the subset of patients with active cancer (at baseline or presenting during the study) in these trials yielded similar results as the larger pooled analysis, with no treatment-dependent

Table 6.

DOACs for Treatment of VTE in Patients With Active Cancer: Study Treatment Dosing

Table 6.

Download Figure

difference in the rate of recurrent VTE and a small but significant decrease in major bleeding with rivaroxaban.24 Mortality rates were not significantly different across treatment arms, both for patients with cancer and without cancer.

Given that single-agent LMWH is the preferred option for patients with cancer, the randomized open-label pilot Select-D trial compared single-agent rivaroxaban with single-agent LMWH (dalteparin) for the treatment of PE or symptomatic lower extremity DVT in patients with cancer.26 As shown in Table 5, the cumulative rate of VTE recurrence at 6 months was lower with rivaroxaban, but the cumulative major bleed rate was slightly higher with rivaroxaban.26 Overall survival at 6 months did not differ by treatment, and the numbers of deaths related to VTE or bleeds were too small to allow for meaningful comparison.

Based on these results, the NCCN Guidelines include single-agent rivaroxaban as an option for anticoagulation treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Unlike single-agent apixaban, the recommendation for single-agent rivaroxaban is not limited to patients with compelling reasons to avoid LMWH, because the Select-D trial showed that rivaroxaban has similar or better efficacy than single-agent dalteparin in patients with cancer-associated VTE.26 The recommended dosing regimen for rivaroxaban matches that used in the EINSTEIN and Select-D trials (Table 6) and recommended in the FDA label.30

Selection Among Therapeutic Anticoagulation Options

Use of single-agent LMWH for treatment of cancer-associated VTE is challenging because LMWH is expensive and the injections are painful to administer; both factors negatively impact patient quality of life. Many studies of clinical practice patterns have shown that single-agent LMWH is underutilized in patients with cancer-associated VTE despite guideline recommendations that it is the preferred treatment option.3246 Compared with oral anticoagulants, LMWH is associated with poorer persistence, shorter duration of treatment, and a higher likelihood of switching to a different anticoagulant.34,37,39,42,44,4749 One prospective cohort study of patients with cancer-associated VTE found that 21% discontinued LMWH due to side effects, the most common being injection site pain, large local injection site hematomas, and allergic reactions.47 In the Hokusai VTE-Cancer trial, nearly 15% of patients in the dalteparin arm decided to discontinue study treatment due to inconvenience of dosing, whereas only 4% in the edoxaban arm discontinued for this reason.25

Although physicians may be reluctant to prescribe long-term LMWH based on the assumption that outpatients are much more likely to adhere to a prescribed oral dosing than to daily painful subcutaneous injections, it is unclear to what degree poor patient adherence is a barrier to sufficient anticoagulation for cancer-associated VTE. In prospective trials, adherence to long-term LMWH regimens was remarkably high among patients with cancer-associated VTE (supplemental eTable 2). In the 2 prospective randomized trials that compared single-agent LMWH to a DOAC-containing regimen for treatment of VTE in cancer patients (Hokusai VTE-Cancer and Select-D), results showed no significant difference between treatment arms in the level of adherence to the study protocol (supplemental eTable 2). One prospective observational study in patients prescribed long-term LMWH for cancer-associated VTE found that although the overall adherence to guidelines was only 55%, the mean duration of LMWH treatment was consistent with guidelines.50 This and other studies that surveyed patients with cancer-associated VTE found that most patients did not find the LMWH regimen to be difficult to use, distressing, or inconvenient, and that preference for oral medication versus injection was of moderate importance.35,5052

Challenges to using DOACs to treat cancer-associated VTE are mostly related to safe administration of DOACs in patients with cancer. There is concern that the patient selection criteria used in the prospective randomized trials testing DOACs may have excluded a significant proportion of patients with cancer who need therapeutic anticoagulation in real world clinical settings. Supplemental eTable 3 summarizes exclusion criteria that may have impacted the eligibility of patients with cancer in these trials. Based on trial entry criteria, FDA prescribing information, and data on clinical/case-specific features that may increase the risk of adverse events, the NCCN Guidelines Panel developed a list of contraindications and warnings for each of the anticoagulants recommended for treatment of VTE in patients with cancer (see VTE-E 4 of 5, page 1294).

Some of the factors that could influence the efficacy and safety of DOACs include advanced age, weight/body mass index, gender, concomitant medications, kidney or liver function, chemotherapy-associated nausea/vomiting, and surgical resection of the proximal small bowel.5372 The recommended agents differ in the extent to which these variables impact drug clearance/absorption, and in the quality and quantity of safety data in special populations available to support dose adjustments. Likewise, anticoagulants vary widely in terms of the extent of information available on recommended dose adjustments based on the previously mentioned patient-specific factors.7375 There are ongoing debates among NCCN panel members and in the field on how to manage VTE patients with and without cancer in regards to drug–drug interactions, extremes of weight, compromised kidney and liver function, and previous small bowel resection. At present, it is recommended that alternative agents be considered in the event of major drug–drug interactions, severe renal or hepatic impairment, or small bowel resections until further data are developed to inform decision-making.

The NCCN Guidelines Panel discussed at length whether any subsets of patients with cancer are at particularly high risk of bleeding if treated with DOACs. Several studies have noted that patients with gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) cancers are increased risk for bleeding when treated with DOACs.25,26 Subgroup analyses in the Hokusai VTE-Cancer trial found that patients with Gl cancer at randomization had a significantly higher bleeding rate with LMWH plus edoxaban versus dalteparin monotherapy (13.2% [18/136] vs 2.4% [3/125]; P=.0224).25 In addition, in the overall population (all cancer types), the trend toward higher rates of major bleeding with edoxaban was largely due to increases in the rate of GI and urogenital bleeds (patients with GI/GU bleeds, 4.8% vs 1.1% for edoxaban vs dalteparin arms). In the Select-D trial, analysis of bleeding rate according to primary tumor type showed that patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal cancer tended to experience more bleeding with rivaroxaban versus dalteparin (36% [4/11] versus 11% [1/19]), and in the overall population (all cancer types) the trend toward increased rates of major bleeding with rivaroxaban was due to higher rates of bleeds located in the GI and GU tracts (patients with GI/GU bleeds, 4.4% vs 2.0% for rivaroxaban vs dalteparin).26 Hence the NCCN Guidelines list urinary or GI tract lesions, pathology, or instrumentation as relative contraindications to DOACs in patients with cancer.

Conclusions

For patients with cancer-associated VTE for whom anticoagulation is appropriate, the NCCN Guidelines provide a list of recommended regimens. In addition to single-agent LMWH, edoxaban and rivaroxaban are considered preferred regimens by many panel members. Selection among agents should be based on the clinical setting (inpatient/outpatient), cost, ease of administration, monitoring, bleeding risk assessment, ability to reverse anticoagulation, and assessment of patient- and case-specific factors such as renal/hepatic function, potential for drug–drug interactions, GI/GU malignancies or instrumentation, and previous small bowel surgery. The NCCN Guidelines provide an agent-specific list of contraindications and warnings that should be considered when selecting treatment, and baseline laboratory testing needed to inform treatment and dose selection. Careful review of the prescribing information for each agent is also important for safe administration of these agents. For treatment in the outpatient setting, selection of a parenteral versus orally administered agent should include a discussion with the patient and their caregiver to ensure adherence to and completion of the prescribed treatment regimen.

See JNCCN.org for supplemental online content.

References

  • 1.

    KhoranaAAFrancisCWCulakovaE. Thromboembolism in hospitalized neutropenic cancer patients. J Clin Oncol2006;24:484490.

  • 2.

    SallahSWanJYNguyenNP. Venous thrombosis in patients with solid tumors: determination of frequency and characteristics. Thromb Haemost2002;87:575579.

  • 3.

    MeyerGMarjanovicZValckeJ. Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a randomized controlled study. Arch Intern Med2002;162:17291735.

  • 4.

    LeeAYYLevineMNBakerRI. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med2003;349:146153.

  • 5.

    DeitcherSRKesslerCMMerliG. Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic events in patients with active cancer: enoxaparin alone versus initial enoxaparin followed by warfarin for a 180-day period. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost2006;12:389396.

  • 6.

    HullRDPineoGFBrantRF. Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patients with cancer. Am J Med2006;119:10621072.

  • 7.

    LeeAYKamphuisenPWMeyerG. Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA2015;314:677686.

  • 8.

    CarrierMCameronCDellucA. Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of acute cancer-associated thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res2014;134:12141219.

  • 9.

    AklEABarbaMRohillaS. Anticoagulation for the long term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2008:CD006650.

  • 10.

    Rojas-HernandezCMOoTHGarcia-PerdomoHA. Risk of intracranial hemorrhage associated with therapeutic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis2017;43:233240.

  • 11.

    KahaleLAHakoumMBTsolakianIG. Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018;6:CD006650.

  • 12.

    Prescribing information: Fondaparinux sodium solution for subcutaneous injection; 2017. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/021345s035lbl.pdf. Accessed October 29 2018.

  • 13.

    BullerHRDavidsonBLDecoususH. Subcutaneous fondaparinux versus intravenous unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med2003;349:16951702.

  • 14.

    BullerHRDavidsonBLDecoususH. Fondaparinux or enoxaparin for the initial treatment of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med2004;140:867873.

  • 15.

    Einstein InvestigatorsBauersachsRBerkowitzSD. Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med2010;363:24992510.

  • 16.

    Einstein-PE InvestigatorsBullerHRPrinsMH. Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med2012;366:12871297.

  • 17.

    AgnelliGBullerHRCohenA. Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med2013;369:799808.

  • 18.

    Hokusai-VTE InvestigatorsBullerHRDecoususH. Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med2013;369:14061415.

  • 19.

    SchulmanSKearonCKakkarAK. Dabigatran versus warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med2009;361:23422352.

  • 20.

    SchulmanSKakkarAKGoldhaberSZ. Treatment of acute venous thromboembolism with dabigatran or warfarin and pooled analysis. Circulation2014;129:764772.

  • 21.

    AgnelliGBullerHRCohenA. Oral apixaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: results from the AMPLIFY trial. J Thromb Haemost2015;13:21872191.

  • 22.

    SchulmanSGoldhaberSZKearonC. Treatment with dabigatran or warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer. Thromb Haemost2015;114:150157.

  • 23.

    RaskobGEvan EsNSegersA. Edoxaban for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: results from a non-inferiority subgroup analysis of the Hokusai-VTE randomised, double-blind, double-dummy trial. Lancet Haematol2016;3:e379387.

  • 24.

    PrinsMHLensingAWBrightonTA. Oral rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin with vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer (EINSTEIN-DVT and EINSTEIN-PE): a pooled subgroup analysis of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Haematol2014;1:e3746.

  • 25.

    RaskobGEvan EsNVerhammeP. Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med2018;378:615624.

  • 26.

    YoungAMMarshallAThirlwallJ. Comparison of an oral factor Xa inhibitor with low molecular weight heparin in patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism: results of a randomized trial (SELECT-D). J Clin Oncol2018:36:20172023.

  • 27.

    Prescribing Information: Apixaban tablets for oral use; 2018. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/202155s020lbl.pdf. Accessed October 29 2018.

  • 28.

    Prescribing Information: Dabigatran etexilate mesylate capsules for oral use; 2018. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/022512s035lbl.pdf. Accessed October 29 2018.

  • 29.

    Prescribing Information: Edoxaban tablets for oral use; 2017. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/206316s012lbl.pdf. Accessed October 29 2018.

  • 30.

    Prescribing information: Rivaroxaban tablets for oral use; 2018. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/022406s028lbl.pdf. Accessed October 29 2018.

  • 31.

    PrinsMHLensingAWBauersachsR. Oral rivaroxaban versus standard therapy for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism: a pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and PE randomized studies. Thromb J2013;11:21.

  • 32.

    MaheIPugetHBuzziJC. Adherence to treatment guidelines for cancer-associated thrombosis: a French hospital-based cohort study. Support Care Cancer2016;24:33693377.

  • 33.

    MaheIChidiacJHelferHNobleS. Factors influencing adherence to clinical guidelines in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost2016;14:21072113.

  • 34.

    KhoranaAAYannicelliDMcCraeKR. Evaluation of US prescription patterns: are treatment guidelines for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism being followed?Thromb Res2016;145:5153.

  • 35.

    NobleSMatzdorffAMaraveyasA. Assessing patients' anticoagulation preferences for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis using conjoint methodology. Haematologica2015;100:14861492.

  • 36.

    MaheISterpuRBertolettiL. Long-term anticoagulant therapy of patients with venous thromboembolism. What are the practices?PLoS One2015;10:e0128741.

  • 37.

    KhoranaAAMcCraeKMilentijevicD. Current practice patterns and patient persistence on anticoagulant treatments for cancer-associated thrombosis. Blood2015;126:626626.

  • 38.

    SevestreMABeliznaCDurantC. Compliance with recommendations of clinical practice in the management of venous thromboembolism in cancer: the CARMEN study. J Mal Vasc2014;39:161168.

  • 39.

    KleinjanAHuttenBADi NisioM. Anticoagulant treatment of cancer patients with pulmonary embolism in the real world. Actual use of low-molecular-weight heparin in cancer. Neth J Med2014;72:467472.

  • 40.

    MatzdorffALedigBStueckerMRiessH. Practice patterns for prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in German cancer patients. Oncol Res Treat2016;39:194201.

  • 41.

    KahnSRSpringmannVSchulmanS. Management and adherence to VTE treatment guidelines in a national prospective cohort study in the Canadian outpatient setting. The Recovery Study. Thromb Haemost2012;108:493498.

  • 42.

    MatzdorffASchillingHLedigB. Treatment of venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients in Germany: a prospective non-interventional study. Oncol Res Treat2015;38:174180.

  • 43.

    Belhadj ChaidiRThollotCFerruA. [Adherence to guidelines for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a retrospective analysis of 145 cases]. J Mal Vasc2013;38:185192.

  • 44.

    DelateTWittDMRitzwollerD. Outpatient use of low molecular weight heparin monotherapy for first-line treatment of venous thromboembolism in advanced cancer. Oncologist2012;17:419427.

  • 45.

    FargeDTrujillo-SantosJDebourdeauP. Fatal events in cancer patients receiving anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism. Medicine (Baltimore)2015;94:e1235.

  • 46.

    den ExterPLHooijerJDekkersOMHuismanMV. Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism and mortality in patients with cancer incidentally diagnosed with pulmonary embolism: a comparison with symptomatic patients. J Clin Oncol2011;29:24052409.

  • 47.

    van der WallSJKlokFAden ExterPL. Continuation of low-molecular-weight heparin treatment for cancer-related venous thromboembolism: a prospective cohort study in daily clinical practice. J Thromb Haemost2017;15:7479.

  • 48.

    StreiffMBMilentijevicDMcCraeK. Effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Am J Hematol2018;93:664671.

  • 49.

    KhoranaAAMcCraeKRMilentijevicD. Current practice patterns and patient persistence with anticoagulant treatments for cancer-associated thrombosis. Res Pract Thromb Haemost2017;1:1422.

  • 50.

    CajfingerFDebourdeauPLamblinA. Low-molecular-weight heparins for cancer-associated thrombosis: adherence to clinical practice guidelines and patient perception in TROPIQUE, a 409-patient prospective observational study. Thromb Res2016;144:8592.

  • 51.

    NobleSProutHNelsonA. Patients' Experiences of LIving with CANcer-associated thrombosis: the PELICAN study. Patient Prefer Adherence2015;9:337345.

  • 52.

    SeamanSNelsonANobleS. Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence2014;8:453461.

  • 53.

    MendellJJohnsonLChenS. An open-label, phase 1 study to evaluate the effects of hepatic impairment on edoxaban pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. J Clin Pharmacol2015;55:13951405.

  • 54.

    JonssonSSimonssonUSMillerRKarlssonMO. Population pharmacokinetics of edoxaban and its main metabolite in a dedicated renal impairment study. J Clin Pharmacol2015;55:12681279.

  • 55.

    NiebeckerRJonssonSKarlssonMO. Population pharmacokinetics of edoxaban in patients with symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism--the Hokusai-VTE phase 3 study. Br J Clin Pharmacol2015;80:13741387.

  • 56.

    KubitzaDBeckaMRothAMueckW. The influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban--an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor. J Clin Pharmacol2013;53:249255.

  • 57.

    KubitzaDBeckaMZuehlsdorfMMueckW. Body weight has limited influence on the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, or pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban (BAY 59-7939) in healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol2007;47:218226.

  • 58.

    KubitzaDBeckaMMueckW. Effects of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of rivaroxaban, an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor. Br J Clin Pharmacol2010;70:703712.

  • 59.

    KubitzaDRothABeckaM. Effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a single dose of rivaroxaban, an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor. Br J Clin Pharmacol2013;76:8998.

  • 60.

    FrostCEByonWSongY. Effect of ketoconazole and diltiazem on the pharmacokinetics of apixaban, an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor. Br J Clin Pharmacol2015;79:838846.

  • 61.

    UpretiVVWangJBarrettYC. Effect of extremes of body weight on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of apixaban in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol2013;76:908916.

  • 62.

    WangXTirucheraiGMarburyTC. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of apixaban in subjects with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis. J Clin Pharmacol2016;56:628636.

  • 63.

    ChangMYuZShenkerA. Effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of apixaban. J Clin Pharmacol2016;56:637645.

  • 64.

    StangierJRathgenKStahleH. The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and tolerability of dabigatran etexilate, a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor, in healthy male subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol2007;64:292303.

  • 65.

    StangierJStahleHRathgenK. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of dabigatran etexilate, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, are not affected by moderate hepatic impairment. J Clin Pharmacol2008;48:14111419.

  • 66.

    StangierJRathgenKStahleHMazurD. Influence of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral dabigatran etexilate: an open-label, parallel-group, single-centre study. Clin Pharmacokinet2010;49:259268.

  • 67.

    WilsonJAGoralskiKBSorokaSD. An evaluation of oral dabigatran etexilate pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in hemodialysis. J Clin Pharmacol2014;54:901909.

  • 68.

    GirgisIGPatelMRPetersGR. Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: results from ROCKET AF. J Clin Pharmacol2014;54:917927.

  • 69.

    ReillyPALehrTHaertterS. The effect of dabigatran plasma concentrations and patient characteristics on the frequency of ischemic stroke and major bleeding in atrial fibrillation patients: the RE-LY Trial (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy). J Am Coll Cardiol2014;63:321328.

  • 70.

    RiessHAyCBauersachsR. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer: practical considerations for the management of patients with nausea or vomiting. Oncologist2018;23:822839.

  • 71.

    BurnettAEMahanCEVazquezSR. Guidance for the practical management of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in VTE treatment. J Thromb Thrombolysis2016;41:206232.

  • 72.

    ShortNJConnorsJM. New oral anticoagulants and the cancer patient. Oncologist2014;19:8293.

  • 73.

    MartinKBeyer-WestendorfJDavidsonBL. Use of the direct oral anticoagulants in obese patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost2016;14:13081313.

  • 74.

    MartinKALeeCRFarrellTMMollS. Oral anticoagulant use after bariatric surgery: a literature review and clinical guidance. Am J Med2017;130:517524.

  • 75.

    MooreKTKrollD. Influences of obesity and bariatric surgery on the clinical and pharmacologic profile of rivaroxaban. Am J Med2017;130:10241032.

  • 76.

    van DoormaalFFRaskobGEDavidsonBL. Treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: subgroup analysis of the Matisse clinical trials. Thromb Haemost2009;101:762-769.

  • 77.

    FrancisCWKesslerCMGoldhaberSZ. Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients with dalteparin for up to 12 months: the DALTECAN Study. J Thromb Haemost2015;13:10281035.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Article Details

Provided content development and/or authorship assistance.

Supplementary Materials

Article Sections

Figures

  • View in gallery

    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

    Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery

    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

    Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery

    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

    Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery

    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2018

    Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Article Information

PubMed

Google Scholar

Related Articles

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 3 3 0
Full Text Views 868 868 421
PDF Downloads 375 375 253
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0