Does thromboprophylaxis reduce venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma?
Thromboprophylaxis in patients with pancreatic cancer reduces VTE risk but does not improve survival and carries an increased bleeding risk, necessitating individualized treatment decisions.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) frequently occurs in patients with cancer, and particularly those with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Therapeutic anticoagulation with either low-molecular-weight heparin or a direct oral anticoagulant is clearly beneficial in patients who develop a VTE. However, whether thromboprophylaxis improves patient outcomes remains unclear. Studies assessing this risk show a 10%-25% risk of VTE, with reduction to 5%-10% with thromboprophylaxis but no impact on survival. To aid in the risk stratification of patients, several tools have been developed to identify those at highest risk for a VTE event. However, the clinical application of these risk stratification models has been limited, and most patients, even those at the highest risk, will never have a VTE event. New oral anticoagulants have greatly improved the feasibility of prophylaxis but do show increased risk of bleeding in patients with the underlying gastrointestinal dysfunction frequently found in patients with pancreatic cancer. Recently, several completed clinical trials shed new light on this complicated risk versus benefit decision. Here, we present this recent evidence and discuss important considerations for the clinician in determining whether to initiate thromboprophylaxis in patients with PDAC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Given the high risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), whether to initiate prophylactic anticoagulation is a complex clinical decision. This review discusses recent evidence regarding the risk stratification and treatment options for thromboprophylaxis in patients with PDAC, with the goal of providing practicing clinicians with updates on recent developments in the field. This article also highlights important considerations for individualizing the treatment approach for a given patient given the lack of general consensus of uniform recommendations for this patient population.
Dallos et al. (Tue,) studied this question.