A Case-Control Analysis of the Impact of Venous Thromboembolic Disease on Quality of Life of Patients with Cancer: Quality of Life in Cancer (Qca) Study

Marín-Barrera, Lucía; Martín, Andrés J. Muñoz; Ríos-Herranz, Eduardo; García-Escobar, Ignacio; Beato, Carmen; Font, Carme; Oncala-Sibajas, Estefania; Revuelta-Rodriguez, Alfonso; Areses, Maria Carmen; Rivas-Jimenez, Victor; Moreno-Santos, Maria Angeles; Ballaz-Quincoces, Aitor; López-Sáez, Juan-Bosco; Gallego, Iria; Elías-Hernández, Teresa; Asensio-Cruz, María Isabel; Chasco-Eguilaz, Leyre; Garcia-Gonzalez, Gonzalo; Estévez-García, Purificación; Otero, Remedios; Lima-Alvarez, Jorge

doi:10.3390/cancers12010075

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, recurrent VTE during anticoagulant treatment appears to negatively influence quality of life in cancer patients, although potential cancer relapse coinciding with recurrence was not taken into account in this model. Marin-Barrera and colleagues evaluated the impact of primary VTE on the quality of life in a prospective cohort study comprising 128 cancer patients with VTE, and 297 cancer patients without VTE [37]. All patients completed general health-related and VTE-related questionnaires 1 month after inclusion, and indicated a significantly lower quality of life in cancer patients with VTE.…”

Section: Morbidity and Quality Of Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

Mulder

Bosch

2020

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a frequent complication in ambulatory cancer patients. Despite the high risk, routine thromboprophylaxis is not recommended because of the high number needed to treat and the risk of bleeding. Two recent trials demonstrated that the number needed to treat can be reduced by selecting cancer patients at high risk for VTE with prediction scores, leading the latest guidelines to suggest such an approach in clinical practice. Yet, the interpretation of these trial results and the translation of the guideline recommendations to clinical practice may be less straightforward. In this clinically-oriented review, some of the controversies are addressed by focusing on the burden of VTE in cancer patients, discussing the performance of available risk assessment scores, and summarizing the findings of recent trials. This overview can help oncologists, hematologists, and vascular medicine specialists decide about thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients.

show abstract

Section: Morbidity and Quality Of Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

Mulder

Bosch

2020

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…VTE has been related to significant consequences, where post-operative thromboembolic events were associated with an average excess charge of $USD 21,709 per hospital stay [ 4 ]. In addition to the economic burden, the development of VTE in cancer patients influences their quality of life and entails significant morbidity and mortality [ 5 , 6 ]. VTE is the second most common cause of death among hospitalized cancer patients [ 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between Radiotherapy and Risk of Cancer Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Sub-Analysis of the COMPASS—CAT Study

Temraz

Moukalled

Gerotziafas

et al. 2021

Cancers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The role and effect of radiotherapy in the development of VTE has not been extensively explored; Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis from the COMPASS-CAT trial. Patients with breast, lung, colon or ovarian cancer, with early, locally advanced or metastatic disease and receiving chemotherapy were included. Primary endpoint was documented symptomatic VTE; Results: A total of 1355 patients were enrolled between November 2013 and November 2015. Of those, 194 patients were excluded because of missing data or the use of anticoagulation. Of the evaluable patients, 361 patients received radiotherapy (33.6%) At a median follow up of 6 months, 9.1% (n = 33) of patients receiving radiotherapy developed a VTE event (excluding those with missing data on follow up). After applying the competing risk model, radiotherapy remained significantly associated with increased risk for VTE (HR 2.47, 95% CI: 1.47–4.12, p = 0.001). Stratification analysis for the cohort that received radiotherapy revealed an increased risk of VTE in women compared to men (10.8% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.03), in those older than 50 (12.2% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.011); for patients receiving anthracycline chemotherapy (14.4% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001) and hormonal therapy (12.9% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001); Conclusions: Analysis from the COMPASS-CAT revealed a significant correlation between radiotherapy and VTE in patients with cancer. Further studies are needed to better understand the potential cellular toxicity associated with radiotherapy.

show abstract

“…Clinicians who treat CAT should be aware that this event is not merely a complication but has a broader impact on the patient’s quality of life [ 11 ]. Lung cancer (LC) is the most prevalent cancer worldwide with an estimated 1.6 million new cases per year and 1.38 million deaths.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Patients with Lung Cancer: COSTECAT Study

Rubio-Salvador

Escudero‐Vilaplana

Rodriguez

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patients with lung cancer (LC) are at significantly higher risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which may lead to increased use of health resources and the cost of the disease management. The main aim of the study was to determine the cost of the management of VTE events in patients with LC treated with Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) in Spain. Methods: Costecat was an observational, ambispective pharmacoeconomic study. Patients with LC, with a first episode of VTE (symptomatic or incidental) in treatment with LMWH, were recruited from six third-level hospitals and followed up for six months. Sociodemographic, clinical and resource use variables of VTE-related implications and its treatment were collected. Direct healthcare costs and direct non-healthcare costs were recorded. Data collection was documented in an electronic case report. Costs (€2018) were estimated from the healthcare perspective. Statistical analysis was performed using the statistical program R 3.4.3 version (30 November 2017). Results: Forty-seven patients were included. Mean age was 65.4 years, 66.0% were male. The percentage of patients with LC who had metastatic disease was 78.7%. Twenty-three patients (48.9%) needed hospital admissions due to thromboembolic episode. Total average cost of patients with cancer associated VTE (CAT) was €10,969.6 per patient/semester. The hospitalizations represent 65.8% of total costs (7207.3 € SD 13,996.9 €), followed by LMWH therapy which represents 18.6% (2033.8 € SD:630.5 €). Conclusions: Venous thromboembolism episodes induce an economic impact on patients and healthcare systems. Direct healthcare costs are the major burden of the total cost, in which hospitalizations are the main drivers of cost.

show abstract

A Case-Control Analysis of the Impact of Venous Thromboembolic Disease on Quality of Life of Patients with Cancer: Quality of Life in Cancer (Qca) Study

Cited by 24 publications

References 33 publications

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

Association between Radiotherapy and Risk of Cancer Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Sub-Analysis of the COMPASS—CAT Study

Cost of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Patients with Lung Cancer: COSTECAT Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About