PMID- 20386544
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20100504
LR  - 20211020
IS  - 1532-1827 (Electronic)
IS  - 0007-0920 (Print)
IS  - 0007-0920 (Linking)
VI  - 102 Suppl 1
IP  - Suppl 1
DP  - 2010 Apr 13
TI  - Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical and surgical oncology 
      patients.
PG  - S10-6
LID - 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605600 [doi]
AB  - Recent data suggest that patients with a malignancy have a seven-fold increased 
      risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with those without cancer, 
      suggesting that these patients may benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Mechanisms 
      for the prevention of thromboembolism can be divided into two broad categories: 
      mechanical and pharmacological. Although generally used in combination with 
      pharmacotherapy, little evidence exists for the efficacy of mechanical modalities 
      either in the broader population of patients at risk for VTE or for patients with 
      cancer specifically. A recent study using graduated compression stockings (GCS) 
      for thromboprophylaxis showed no support for the use of stockings in acute stroke 
      patients. Established pharmacological modalities, including warfarin, 
      unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and the factor 
      Xa inhibitor fondaparinux, have been shown to reduce risk for VTE in general 
      medical and surgical populations. In medical cancer patients, only limited data 
      are available for the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. In contrast, considerable 
      evidence indicates that thromboprophylaxis is warranted in patients undergoing 
      cancer surgery. The most recent evidence suggests that catheter-related 
      thrombosis is not prevented by current pharmacological modalities. On 22 May 
      2009, a group of clinicians based in the United Kingdom (UK) met in London, UK, 
      to evaluate recent data on cancer thrombosis. This article (the second of four) 
      briefly reviews key data on the prevention of VTE in medical and surgical 
      oncology patients, providing context for a brief transcript of the surrounding 
      discussion and a consensus statement, developed by meeting attendees, on the 
      implications of this information for UK clinical practice.
FAU - Stanley, A
AU  - Stanley A
AD  - Birmingham Treatment Centre, City Hospital, Dudley Road, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK. 
      andrew.stanley@westmidlands.nhs.uk
FAU - Young, A
AU  - Young A
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Review
PL  - England
TA  - Br J Cancer
JT  - British journal of cancer
JID - 0370635
SB  - IM
MH  - Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects
MH  - Humans
MH  - Neoplasms/*complications/drug therapy/surgery
MH  - Practice Guidelines as Topic
MH  - Venous Thromboembolism/*prevention & control
PMC - PMC3315366
COIS- A Stanley has received consulting fees from Roche, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, BMS, GSK, 
      and Merck, as well as lecture fees from BCPS - Merck. A Young has declared no 
      financial interests.
EDAT- 2010/04/23 06:00
MHDA- 2010/05/05 06:00
PMCR- 2010/04/13
CRDT- 2010/04/14 06:00
PHST- 2010/04/14 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2010/04/23 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2010/05/05 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2010/04/13 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - 6605600 [pii]
AID - 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605600 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Br J Cancer. 2010 Apr 13;102 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S10-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605600.