Key result
Active cancer in DOAC-treated PE patients linked to ~19-fold higher mortality vs non-cancer patients.
Why the study?
Mortality, recurrent VTE, and major bleeding outcomes in cancer-associated versus non-cancer PE patients treated with DOACs were not well characterized.
Do outcomes (mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding) differ between cancer-associated and non-cancer pulmonary embolism patients treated with DOACs?
Observational (n=130)
No
Do outcomes (mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding) differ between cancer-associated and non-cancer pulmonary embolism patients treated with DOACs?
Hazard Ratio: 18.6 (95% CI 2.5–136)
Absolute Event Rate: 40% vs 2%
p-value: p=<0.001
DOACs are a viable treatment option for cancer-associated PE with comparable bleeding and recurrent VTE risks to non-cancer patients, despite higher overall mortality driven by the underlying malignancy.
Comparable recurrent VTE and major bleeding rates support DOAC consideration in cancer-associated PE; leaves open need for prospective confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal form of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study compares the mortality, incidence of recurrent VTE, and incidence of major bleeding between non-cancer and cancer-associated PE patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study involving 130 consecutive patients (87 with active cancer; 43 without cancer) who received DOAC treatment for PE between January 2016 and December 2019. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly higher mortality in cancer-associated PE patients than in non-cancer patients (35/87 [40%] vs. 1/43 [2%], P<0.001, log-rank test, HR 18.6 [95% CI: 2.5-136.0]). In contrast, the cumulative incidences of recurrent VTE and major bleeding were comparable between the 2 groups. Among the cancer-associated PE patients, the incidence for the composite outcome of recurrent VTE or major bleeding was significantly higher in patients undergoing chemotherapy than in those not undergoing chemotherapy (9/37 [24%] vs. 2/50 [4%], P=0.004, log-rank test, HR 6.9 [95% CI: 1.5-32.0]). CONCLUSIONS: Although cancer-associated PE patients treated with DOACs showed higher mortality compared with non-cancer patients, presumably because of the presence of cancer, the risk of recurrent VTE or major bleeding was comparable between the 2 groups. Thus, DOAC is an important treatment option for cancer-associated PE, although underlying cancer-related risks (e.g., chemotherapy) remain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakano et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Pulmonary embolism (n=130). Active cancer vs. No cancer was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 18.6, 95% CI 2.5-136.0, p=<0.001). Active cancer in patients with pulmonary embolism treated with DOACs was associated with significantly higher mortality compared to non-cancer patients (40% vs 2%, HR 18.6).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: