Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. Results: Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conclusions: Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

Cancer-related anemia (CRA) is due to multiple etiologies, including chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, blood loss, functional iron deficiency, erythropoietin deficiency due to renal disease, marrow involvement with tumor as well as other factors. The most common treatment options for CRA include iron therapy, erythropoietic-stimulating agents (ESAs), and red cell transfusion. Safety concerns as well as restrictions and reimbursement issues surrounding ESA therapy for CRA have resulted in suboptimal treatment. Similarly, many clinicians are not familiar or comfortable using intravenous iron products to treat functional iron deficiency associated with CRA. This article summarizes our approach to treating CRA and discusses commonly encountered clinical scenarios for which current clinical guidelines do not apply.

IntroductionUntil recently, systemic chemotherapy was the only option for treating bladder cancer and outcomes remained dismal. After a long gap of no progress for 40 years, immuno-therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (PDL1 and PD1) has revolutionized the treatment paradigm of bladder cancer, with five approved agents to treat platinum-refractory bladder cancer since the first approval of atezolizumab in May 2016.MethodsThis review summarizes the most recent data on approved checkpoint inhibitors currently used in management of advanced bladder cancer. Early- and late-phase trials of the five checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab) in advanced bladder cancer are reviewed in detail. This review also describes the potential application of PD1/PDL1 inhibitors in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, as well as with radiation in muscle-invasive bladder cancer treatment. The role of PDL1 and tumor-mutation burden and clinical considerations in choosing a particular immunotherapy are also discussed.ResultsThe approved checkpoint inhibitors (PD1 and PDL1 inhibitors) have similar efficacy and safety profiles in metastatic platinum-refractory bladder cancer, but they vary in dose and frequency and cost burden. However, only pembrolizumab has shown superiority over standard chemotherapy in a randomized Phase III setting so far. In addition, in the first-line setting for cisplatin-ineligible patients, both pembrolizumab and atezolizumab are US Food and Drug Administration-approved and well tolerated. There is a lack of consensus on the utility of testing for PDL1 as a predictive biomarker, as patients with no PDL1 expression also derive some clinical benefit. Tumor-mutation burden is another predictive biomarker, but needs further validation.ConclusionImmunotherapy has offered a glimmer of hope to patients with bladder cancer. The current landscape is rapidly evolving, with novel immunotherapy-combination trials to improve outcomes further and evaluate predictive biomarkers to help identify patients most likely to benefit from such therapies.