Background-Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the current standard for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Whether treatment strategies should vary according to individual risk of VTE recurrence remains unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study and a validation study in patients with cancer-associated VTE to derive a clinical prediction rule that stratifies VTE recurrence risk. Methods and Results-The cohort study of 543 patients determined the model with the best classification performance included 4 independent predictors (sex, primary tumor site, stage, and prior VTE) with 100% sensitivity, a wide separation of recurrence rates, 98.1% negative predictive value, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.16. In this model, the score sum ranged between Ϫ3 and 3 score points. Patients with a score Յ0 had low risk (Յ4.5%) for recurrence and patients with a score Ͼ1 had a high risk (Ն19%) for VTE recurrence. Subsequently, we applied and validated the rule in an independent set of 819 patients from 2 randomized, controlled trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin to coumarin treatment in cancer patients. Conclusions-By identifying VTE recurrence risk in cancer patients with VTE, we may be able to tailor treatment, improving clinical outcomes while minimizing costs. (Circulation. 2012;126:448-454.)

475 Background: Current guidelines suggest that all cancer patients with venous thromboembolism be treated with long-term low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). However, whether treatment strategies should vary according to patient and malignancy characteristics, in particular whether patients with low risk of VTE recurrence can be identified, remains unknown. Methods: We performed a single centre retrospective cohort study conducted at the Thrombosis Unit of the Ottawa Hospital. The charts of patients with cancer and VTE followed from 2002 to 2004 and from 2007 to 2008 were reviewed to assess the feasibility of derivation of a clinical prediction rule that stratifies VTE recurrence risk in patients with cancer—associated venous thrombosis through identification and evaluation of characteristics of malignancy and other clinical characteristics. We analysed only the patients who had a recurrent VTE within the first 6 months of anticoagulation. A univariate analysis determined the strength of association between each potential predictor and VTE recurrence. All potential predictor variables (p<0.25) were evaluated in a logistic regression model. Result: Of 543 patients 55 (10.1%) presented with a VTE recurrence during the first 6 months of anticoagulation. At VTE recurrence 19 (9.5%) patients were using VKA and 36 (10.5%) patients were using LMWH. The relative risk for VTE recurrence was not significantly different between patients who used VKA or LMWH [RR= 1. 13 (95%CI, 0.743 – 1.711; p= 0.565)]. A multivariate analysis suggested that gender, primary tumour site, tumour stage and history of prior VTE were significant variables to include in the clinical prediction rule. The final model included female gender, lung cancer and prior history of VTE as increasing risk and breast cancer and stage I disease as lowering risk. Patients with a score equal or less than 0 have low risk (4.5%) for VTE recurrence and this represented 48% of our patients. Patients with a score equal or above 1 have high risk (> 19%) for VTE recurrence (Tables 1 and 2). Conclusion: We were able to derive a simple and easy scoring system that stratifies patients with cancer-associated thrombosis into low or high risk of recurrent VTE. Future prospective validation of the model is warranted and may be very relevant to better tailor anticoagulation treatment in this heterogeneous population. Disclosure: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

No abstract

No abstract