The Ottawa Score Performs Poorly to Identify Cancer Patients at High Risk of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism: Insights from the TROPIQUE Study and Updated Meta-Analysis.

The Ottawa score (OS) for predicting the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients with VTE may help to guide anticoagulant treatment decisions that will optimize benefit-risk ratios. However, data on its reliability are conflicting. We applied the OS to all cancer patients with VTE enrolled in the prospective multicenter TROPIQUE study who received low-molecular-weight heparin over a 6-month period. Of 409 patients, 171 (41.8%) had a high-risk OS. The 6-month cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE was 7.8% (95%CI 4.2-14.8) in the high-risk OS group versus 4.8% (95%CI 2.6-8.9) in the low-risk OS group (SHR 1.47; 95%CI 0.24-8.55). The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) of the OS in identifying patients who developed recurrent VTE was 0.53 (95%CI 0.38-0.65), and its accuracy was 57.9%. Among individual variables included in the OS, only prior VTE was significantly associated with the 6-month risk of recurrent VTE (SHR 4.39; 95% CI 1.13-17.04). When pooling data from all studies evaluating this score for predicting VTE recurrence in cancer patients (7 studies, 3413 patients), the OS estimated pooled AUROC was 0.59 (95%CI 0.56-0.62), and its accuracy was 55.7%. The present findings do not support the use of the OS to assess the risk of recurrent VTE in cancer patients.

Quality of life in cancer patients undergoing anticoagulant treatment with LMWH for venous thromboembolism: the QUAVITEC study on behalf of the Groupe Francophone Thrombose et Cancer (GFTC).

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend at least 3-months low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) treatment for established venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. However, no study has analyzed the impact of 3-6 months of LMWH therapy on quality-of-life (QoL) in cancer patients. RESULTS: Among 400 cancer patients included at M0, 88.8% received long-term LMWH. Using a random-effects linear regression model with time as covariate, QoL scores in the MOS SF-36 (Global HRQoL, 1.3-fold per month [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.79], p < 0.0001) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (global health status/qol, 2.25-fold per month [95% CI 1.63-2.88]; p < 0.0001) questionnaires significantly improved over the 6-month study period in patients treated with LMWH, while VEINES-QOL scores did not change. In the MOS SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-C30, the following factors were associated with change in QoL: symptomatic VTE, cancer dissemination and histological type. Factors pertaining to reduced mobility were also identified as significant predictors of QoL outcomes, including being bedridden in the MOS SF-36 and ECOG score ≥ 2 in the EORTC QLQ-C30. Presence of acute infection and not undergoing anti-angiogenic therapy were additional factors associated with QoL improvement in the EORTC QLQ-C30. METHODS: QUAVITEC, a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study, recruited all consecutive eligible adult cancer patients with objectively confirmed VTE between February 2011 and 2012. Patients were asked to answer three QoL questionnaires at anticoagulant treatment initiation (M0) and at 3 (M3) and 6 (M6)-month follow-ups. CONCLUSION: QUAVITEC is the first study to show that QoL was improved in cancer patients receiving long-term LMWH treatment for established VTE.

Febrile neutropenia in adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a retrospective study in routine clinical practice from a single institution.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the most common and most critical adverse effects of chemotherapy. Despite many existing guidelines based on the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), FN continues to impair the quality of life and interfere with the treatment of many patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and management of FN associated with chemotherapy for early breast cancer in routine clinical practice. METHODS: All patients with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) treated by chemotherapy at Institut Curie, Hôpital René Huguenin, in 2014 were retrospectively included. The incidence and management of FN were reported. Risk factors associated with FN were studied by robust-error-variance Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 524 patients received either neoadjuvant (N = 130) or adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 394). Most patients (80%) were treated with a combination of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC100; 3 cycles) followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (D; 3 cycles). The overall incidence of FN was 17%. Eighteen percent of patients received primary prophylaxis (PP) for FN with G-CSF, using pegfilgrastim in 64% of cases and 74% of patients over the age of 70 received PP. Less than 5% of patients who received PP experienced FN. Recurrent FN after secondary prophylaxis was observed in 9% of patients. Forty-seven percent of cases of FN occurred after the first cycle and 30% occurred after the fourth cycle, corresponding to D ± trastuzumab (T). The FEC100 regimen was associated with a relative risk of FN of 1.98 (p = 0.09). Autoimmune (AI) and inflammatory diseases were associated with a higher risk of FN (RR 3.08; p < 0.01). No significant difference in the incidence of FN was observed between adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. FN was managed on an outpatient basis in 72% of cases. Outpatients with FN were mainly treated by a combination of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and ciprofloxacin. Dose reduction or chemotherapy regimen modification were necessary in 25% of patients after FN. No toxic death was reported. CONCLUSION: The incidence of FN induced by adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ESBC is higher in routine clinical practice than in clinical trials. AI or inflammatory diseases were significant independent risk factors for FN. Primary prophylaxis in patients at risk (elderly, comorbid patients), especially treated with the FEC regimen, is the keystone of management of this adverse effect. Prevention and management of FN to ensure the patient's safety and quality of life are a major issue for both medical oncologists and supportive care physicians.

A randomized, double-blind trial assessing the efficacy and safety of sublingual metopimazine and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis.

The prevention of delayed emesis following chemotherapy remains an important challenge. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerance of metopimazine and ondansetron at preventing nausea and emesis in patients receiving chemotherapy. Two hundred patients were evaluated for efficacy: 103 patients received metopimazine (7.5 mg x 2 t.i.d.) and 97 received ondansetron (8 mg b.i.d.) for 5 days. Patients were asked to report episodes of nausea and emesis in a diary, and quality of life (QoL) was evaluated using the Functional Living Index--Emesis questionnaire. The incidence of complete response (defined as no nausea and emesis for 5 days) did not differ between the two treatment arms (53.4% for metopimazine versus 49.5% for ondansetron; P=0.58). No significant difference was found for the incidence of emesis (23.3% for metopimazine versus 30.9% for ondansetron) or QoL. Tolerance was as expected for both drugs and comparable, except for the incidence of gastrointestinal disorders, which was significantly lower in the metopimazine group (19.4 versus 32.7%; P=0.03). We conclude that metopimazine is an alternative to ondansetron that is better tolerated for the prevention of delayed emesis in patients receiving chemotherapy.