Review ArticleLaboratory biomarkers for venous thromboembolism risk in patients with hematologic malignancies: A review
Introduction
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of the treatment of hematologic malignancy. Approximately 5% of adult patients with acute leukemia will experience VTE within 2 years of diagnosis [1]. A similar percentage of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) will experience VTE within 180 days of transplant [2]. Despite these high rates, and the availability of potential interventions, such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis, we have few tools to predict which patients are at highest risk and might most benefit from such interventions. Furthermore, despite the associations between many therapies for hematologic malignancy (including asparaginase and immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDs) for myeloma) and VTE, tools to identify such risks in early stage trials are lacking. Clinical risk prediction models such as the Khorana score demonstrate utility in identifying patients in a general cancer population at elevated risk [3] but have not yet proven adequate to identify patients for whom there is a clear, beneficial intervention [4,5]. Furthermore this score is highly dependent on factors, such as leukocyte, hematocrit and platelet counts, which are uniquely affected and variable in this population.
A 2013 review of the use of laboratory biomarkers to predict VTE among patients with malignancy concluded that d-dimer and soluble P-selectin both demonstrated association with risk of VTE among patients with various malignancies and therefore might be useful for risk prediction [6]. Additional biomarkers, such as prothrombin fragments F1 + 2 [7], thrombin generation [8] and tissue factor microparticles [9] have also shown promise but have significant limitations, including variable sensitivity and specificity depending on tumor subtype [6]. Relatively few patients suffering from hematologic rather than solid tumor malignancy were included in such studies however and treatments for and outcomes in these diseases remain fundamentally different than those of solid tumors.
Hematologic malignancy patients experience a number of unique risk factors for both VTE and hemorrhage, including prolonged periods of thrombocytopenia, extended use of central venous access devices and the use of previously mentioned, unique chemotherapeutic or targeted agents associated with high risk of VTE. Additionally, hematologic malignancies have higher rates of association with abnormal states of coagulation, such as disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), suggesting that biomarkers of coagulation may perform differently in these patients [10]. Here we report the results of a systematic review of the literature for studies evaluating the use of laboratory biomarkers for prediction of risk of VTE specifically in patients with hematologic malignancy.
Section snippets
Methods
We searched Medline (inception to September 2017) for relevant articles. See Supplemental Materials for the full search strategy which included “venous thromboembolism”, “biomarker”, “hematologic neoplasm”, “leukemia”, “lymphoma”, “multiple myeloma.” Inclusion criteria were (1) research studies including patients with hematologic malignancy, (2) inclusion of at least one laboratory-based biomarker used prospectively for prediction of VTE. Articles were excluded if outcomes specific to
Results
We identified 18 potential groups of biomarkers addressed in 25 separate publications during literature review. The results of all 25 studies are included by study in Table 1. Here we discuss evidence by biomarker group.
Conclusions
Here we have reviewed the results of 25 papers examining the use of various laboratory biomarkers to predict the risk of VTE among patients with hematologic malignancies. >18 potential biomarkers were examined, as well as several inherited hypercoagulable states/genetic variants. All studies were observational and the majority were retrospective and observed fewer than 20 incidents of thrombosis. Most studies focused on a single malignancy diagnosis (multiple myeloma, APL or ALL in children).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Douglas Shane for his invaluable assistance with the literature search.
This research was supported (in part) by the NHLBI under award number T32HL007093.
References (34)
- et al.
Venous thromboembolism in patients with acute leukemia: incidence, risk factors, and effect on survival
Blood
(2009) - et al.
The incidence of and risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding among 1514 patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: implications for VTE prevention
Blood
(2008) - et al.
Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis
Blood
(2008) - et al.
Biomarkers for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer
Blood
(2013) - et al.
Prospective evaluation of hemostatic abnormalities in overt DIC due to various underlying diseases
Thromb. Res.
(2011) - et al.
Disseminated intravascular coagulation at diagnosis is a strong predictor for thrombosis in acute myeloid leukemia
Blood
(2016) - et al.
Thrombotic events in acute promyelocytic leukemia
Thromb. Res.
(2015) - et al.
High plasma levels of soluble P-selectin are predictive of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: results from the Vienna cancer and thrombosis study (CATS)
Blood
(2008) - et al.
Thromboembolic events in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BFM protocols): prednisone versus dexamethasone administration
Blood
(2003) - et al.
Prospective evaluation of the thrombotic risk in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia carrying the MTHFR TT 677 genotype, the prothrombin G20210A variant, and further prothrombotic risk factors
Blood
(1999)