Florian Scotté1, I Elalamy2, D Mayeur3, G Meyer4,5,6. 1. Medical Oncology and Supportive Care Department, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France. flscotte@gmail.com. 2. Biological Hematology, INSERM U938, Tenon University Hospital, Paris, France. 3. Haematology-Oncology and Supportive Care Unit, Hôpital Mignot, Le Chesnay, France. 4. Department of Respiratory Diseases, Hopital Europeen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Paris, France. 5. CICEC 1418, INSERM UMR_S 970, Paris, France. 6. Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Data on long-term venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in cancer outpatients remain scarce. In the absence of clear and consistent treatment guidelines, our objectives were to describe and better understand clinical practice and to identify factors influencing the use of thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: CAT AXIS was a multicentred cross-sectional study based on the completion of physician-profile questionnaires and the assessment of 10 e-mailed credible clinical scenarios of lung, colon and breast cancers by each of participants using the case vignette-validated method. RESULTS: A total of 224 physicians participated allowing the completion and the analysis of 2085 reviewed case vignettes corresponding to 765, 703 and 617 fictive clinical scenarios on lung, colon and breast cancers, respectively. The overall rate of thromboprophylaxis was 680/2085 (32.6%) among participants with a comparable proportion for the three types of cancer. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the most frequently used, by 92.7, 93.8 and 83.9% of participants for lung, colon and breast cancers, respectively; thromboprophylaxis duration of ≥ 3 months was used by 74.4% of participants. Multivariate analyses revealed that the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group index, metastatic malignancy, chemotherapy and history of thrombosis were significantly associated with the therapeutic decision unlike Khorana score and anaemia. CONCLUSION: In the absence of clear guidance, the use of thromboprophylaxis remains low and rather empiric even though the selection of LMWH by the majority of participants and treatment duration seems appropriate based on available data to date. Specific guidelines with corresponding awareness are required.
PURPOSE: Data on long-term venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in cancer outpatients remain scarce. In the absence of clear and consistent treatment guidelines, our objectives were to describe and better understand clinical practice and to identify factors influencing the use of thromboprophylaxis. METHODS:CAT AXIS was a multicentred cross-sectional study based on the completion of physician-profile questionnaires and the assessment of 10 e-mailed credible clinical scenarios of lung, colon and breast cancers by each of participants using the case vignette-validated method. RESULTS: A total of 224 physicians participated allowing the completion and the analysis of 2085 reviewed case vignettes corresponding to 765, 703 and 617 fictive clinical scenarios on lung, colon and breast cancers, respectively. The overall rate of thromboprophylaxis was 680/2085 (32.6%) among participants with a comparable proportion for the three types of cancer. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the most frequently used, by 92.7, 93.8 and 83.9% of participants for lung, colon and breast cancers, respectively; thromboprophylaxis duration of ≥ 3 months was used by 74.4% of participants. Multivariate analyses revealed that the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group index, metastatic malignancy, chemotherapy and history of thrombosis were significantly associated with the therapeutic decision unlike Khorana score and anaemia. CONCLUSION: In the absence of clear guidance, the use of thromboprophylaxis remains low and rather empiric even though the selection of LMWH by the majority of participants and treatment duration seems appropriate based on available data to date. Specific guidelines with corresponding awareness are required.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anticoagulants; Cancer; Case vignettes; LMWH; Thromboprophylaxis
Authors: Giancarlo Agnelli; Daniel J George; Ajay K Kakkar; William Fisher; Michael R Lassen; Patrick Mismetti; Patrick Mouret; Umesh Chaudhari; Francesca Lawson; Alexander G G Turpie Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D Farge; P Debourdeau; M Beckers; C Baglin; R M Bauersachs; B Brenner; D Brilhante; A Falanga; G T Gerotzafias; N Haim; A K Kakkar; A A Khorana; R Lecumberri; M Mandala; M Marty; M Monreal; S A Mousa; S Noble; I Pabinger; P Prandoni; M H Prins; M H Qari; M B Streiff; K Syrigos; H Bounameaux; H R Büller Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: John W Peabody; Jeff Luck; Peter Glassman; Sharad Jain; Joyce Hansen; Maureen Spell; Martin Lee Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lucas M Bachmann; Andrea Mühleisen; Annekatrin Bock; Gerben ter Riet; Ulrike Held; Alfons G H Kessels Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2008-07-30 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Sameer S Kadri; Robert L Danner; Anthony F Suffredini; Anthony F Massaro; Barrett T Kitch; Grace Lee; Michael Klompas Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 9.097