Sirish A Kishore1,2, Raazi Bajwa3, Layla Van Doren4, Cy Wilkins5, Gerard J O'Sullivan6. 1. Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Sirish.Kishore@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Sirish.Kishore@stanford.edu. 3. Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematologic/Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Interventional Radiology, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Venous thromboembolic disease causes significant mortality and morbidity in the oncologic patient population. Recently, minimally invasive endovascular technologies have been developed as an adjunct to antithrombotic therapy for the management of DVT and PE. The current and potential roles for endovascular treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) will be reviewed in this article. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent NCCN guidelines recommend endovascular therapy in patients eligible for therapeutic anticoagulation who present with life-, organ-, or limb-threatening thrombosis. However, symptomatic non-life-threatening VTE can negatively affect QOL and physical function, both of which have prognostic implications in the cancer population. Endovascular therapies have been shown to improve physical function and QOL in prospective trials performed in a non-oncologic patient population as well as small retrospective studies in the cancer population. In addition to treating life- and limb-threatening thrombosis, endovascular therapy for VTE can improve QOL and physical function in comparison to anticoagulation alone. Prospective trials are warranted to assess the benefit of endovascular therapy for quality of life-years, performance status, and overall survival in the oncologic patient population.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Venous thromboembolic disease causes significant mortality and morbidity in the oncologic patient population. Recently, minimally invasive endovascular technologies have been developed as an adjunct to antithrombotic therapy for the management of DVT and PE. The current and potential roles for endovascular treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) will be reviewed in this article. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent NCCN guidelines recommend endovascular therapy in patients eligible for therapeutic anticoagulation who present with life-, organ-, or limb-threatening thrombosis. However, symptomatic non-life-threatening VTE can negatively affect QOL and physical function, both of which have prognostic implications in the cancer population. Endovascular therapies have been shown to improve physical function and QOL in prospective trials performed in a non-oncologic patient population as well as small retrospective studies in the cancer population. In addition to treating life- and limb-threatening thrombosis, endovascular therapy for VTE can improve QOL and physical function in comparison to anticoagulation alone. Prospective trials are warranted to assess the benefit of endovascular therapy for quality of life-years, performance status, and overall survival in the oncologic patient population.
Authors: Gregory Piazza; Benjamin Hohlfelder; Michael R Jaff; Kenneth Ouriel; Tod C Engelhardt; Keith M Sterling; Noah J Jones; John C Gurley; Rohit Bhatheja; Robert J Kennedy; Nilesh Goswami; Kannan Natarajan; John Rundback; Immad R Sadiq; Stephen K Liu; Narinder Bhalla; M Laiq Raja; Barry S Weinstock; Jacob Cynamon; Fakhir F Elmasri; Mark J Garcia; Mark Kumar; Juan Ayerdi; Peter Soukas; William Kuo; Ping-Yu Liu; Samuel Z Goldhaber Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Susan R Kahn; Anthony J Comerota; Mary Cushman; Natalie S Evans; Jeffrey S Ginsberg; Neil A Goldenberg; Deepak K Gupta; Paolo Prandoni; Suresh Vedantham; M Eileen Walsh; Jeffrey I Weitz Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ylva Haig; Tone Enden; Ole Grøtta; Nils-Einar Kløw; Carl-Erik Slagsvold; Waleed Ghanima; Leiv Sandvik; Geir Hafsahl; Pål Andre Holme; Lars Olaf Holmen; Anne Mette Njaaastad; Gunnar Sandbæk; Per Morten Sandset Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: John A Heit; W Michael O'Fallon; Tanya M Petterson; Christine M Lohse; Marc D Silverstein; David N Mohr; L Joseph Melton Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-06-10
Authors: Pascale Notten; Arina J Ten Cate-Hoek; Carsten W K P Arnoldussen; Rob H W Strijkers; André A E A de Smet; Lidwine W Tick; Marlène H W van de Poel; Otmar R M Wikkeling; Louis-Jean Vleming; Ad Koster; Kon-Siong G Jie; Esther M G Jacobs; Harm P Ebben; Michiel Coppens; Irwin Toonder; Hugo Ten Cate; Cees H A Wittens Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: Paolo Prandoni; Anthonie W A Lensing; Andrea Piccioli; Enrico Bernardi; Paolo Simioni; Bruno Girolami; Antonio Marchiori; Paola Sabbion; Martin H Prins; Franco Noventa; Antonio Girolami Journal: Blood Date: 2002-07-12 Impact factor: 22.113