Management Of Cancer-associated Thrombosis Research Articles

Coagulome and tumor microenvironment: impact of oncogenes, cellular heterogeneity and extracellular vesicles

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) results from the hemostatic system being dysregulated by the progression of cancer. Despite common clinical manifestations, the mechanisms of CAT may vary greatly because cancers develop along distinct biological trajectories that are imposed by the interaction between the tumor cell genome, the epigenome, the surrounding microenvironment, and the tissue of origin. The coagulome, or repertoire of coagulation effectors, expressed by stromal, inflammatory, and cancer cells at the tumor-vascular interface and systemically, reflects this biological variability. Complex landscapes of coagulant and non-coagulant cellular populations are revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing analyses conducted on unperturbed human cancer tissues. Additionally, through mediators of cell-cell interactions, soluble coagulants, and extracellular vesicles containing tissue factor, podoplanin, and other effectors, coagulomes are projected into the pericellular milieu and systemic circulation. As this complexity is currently outside of the clinical paradigm, one could argue that better CAT management could result from a more individualized analysis of coagulomes in cancer patients.

A ten-year comparison of treatment and outcomes of cancer-associated thrombosis to non-cancer venous thromboembolism: from traditional anticoagulants to direct oral anticoagulants.

DOACs have emerged as first-line treatment in most cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), representing a paradigm shift in its management. However, CAT management remains challenging and requires careful risk-benefit considerations. A retrospective analysis of CAT presentations to a tertiary referral centre from January 2011 to December 2020. Outcomes in CAT patients were compared to VTE patients without malignancy. Subgroup analysis was also conducted for CAT according to anticoagulation type. 514 CAT cases from 491 patients were identified from 3230 total VTE cases. CAT patients had higher rates of major VTE (PE and/or proximal DVT) compared to patients without malignancy (78.4% vs. 66.8%, p < 0.001). CAT patients also had higher rates of VTE recurrence (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.23-2.26), major bleeding (HR 3.41, 95%CI 2.36-4.93), VTE-related mortality (HR 2.59, 95%CI 1.46-4.62) and bleeding-related mortality (HR 2.66, 95%CI 1.05-6.73). There were no significant differences in rates of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, VTE-related mortality or fatal bleeding between CAT patients treated with DOACs, enoxaparin or warfarin. In the subgroup of CAT treated with DOACs, there was no significant difference in rates of GI bleeding compared to the enoxaparin subgroup (HR 0.17, 95%CI 0.02-1.26). CAT was associated with a larger clot burden and higher rates of VTE recurrence, major bleeding and mortality compared to VTE patients without malignancy in this large real-world study. This study demonstrated no significant differences in complication rates for CAT patients treated with DOACs over enoxaparin, suggesting that DOACs can be safely used in most cases of CAT.

Improvement of thrombosis management in patients with cancer: a practical consensus document of recommendations for cancer-associated thrombosis patients' healthcare in Spain.

Cancer patients are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), its recurrence, but also at risk of bleeding while anticoagulated. In addition, cancer therapies have been associated to increased VTE risk. Guidelines for VTE treatment in cancer patients recommend low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for the initial treatment, DOAC for VTE short-term treatment, and LMWH or DOAC for VTE long-term treatment. This consensus article arises from a collaboration between different Spanish experts on cancer-associated thrombosis. It aims to reach an agreement on a practical document of recommendations for action allowing the healthcare homogenization of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) patients in Spain considering not only what is known about VTE management in cancer patients but also what is done in Spanish hospitals in the clinical practice. The text summarizes the current knowledge and available evidence on the subject in Spain and provides a series of practical recommendations for CAT management and treatment algorithms to help clinicians to manage CAT over time.

Lung Cancer Related Thrombosis (LCART): Focus on Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in lung cancer patients. Lung cancer confers an increased risk of thrombosis compared to other solid malignancies across all stages of the disease. Newer treatment agents, including checkpoint immunotherapy and targeted agents, may further increase the risk of CAT. Different risk-assessment models, such as the Khorana Risk Score, and newer approaches that incorporate genetic risk factors have been used in lung cancer patients to evaluate the risk of thrombosis. The management of CAT is based on the results of large prospective trials, which show similar benefits to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory patients. The anticoagulation agent and duration of therapy should be personalized according to lung cancer stage and histology, the presence of driver mutations and use of antineoplastic therapy, including recent curative lung surgery, chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Treatment options should be evaluated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been shown to impact the thrombotic risk in cancer patients. This review focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, novel predictive scores and management of CAT in patients with active lung cancer, with a focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Cancer-associated Thrombosis in Vietnam: Literature Review and Expert Perspectives

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a substantial burden and an emerging topic of great interest in Vietnam. The management of CAT is complex, with several challenges, including a high risk of bleeding and thrombosis, treatment burden, and low treatment motivation due to the short life expectancy of patients. Another challenge in CAT management is the low awareness among local physicians regarding CAT. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants, which offer a better risk–benefit profile compared to conventional anticoagulation, has brought about a revolution in CAT management. To address these challenges, a group of 14 experts, including cardiologists and oncologists, convened in January 2023 to discuss and provide comprehensive information on CAT management in Vietnam, along with recommendations to optimize clinical outcomes. This review will encompass the available evidence in the medical literature and the expert opinions derived from the meeting.

PB0970 E-learning Course as a Tool to Improve Awareness on the Management of Cancer Associated Thrombosis at a Single Institution

PB0970 E-learning Course as a Tool to Improve Awareness on the Management of Cancer Associated Thrombosis at a Single Institution

PB0967 Real World Management of Cancer Associated Thrombosis: How Many Patients Actually Receive DOACs?

PB0967 Real World Management of Cancer Associated Thrombosis: How Many Patients Actually Receive DOACs?

Treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A focus on special populations.

Current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of both low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (apixapan, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) as first-line options for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. However, most of these guidelines refer to the general cancer patient population and provide limited guidance for specific subgroups of patients at particularly high risk of bleeding, such as those with gastrointestinal cancers, primary or metastatic brain tumors, thrombocytopenia, or renal impairment. In these complex populations, the management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) poses unique challenges and requires a nuanced approach based on the primum non nocere principle. This comprehensive review critically examines the relevant literature and discusses the therapeutic options currently available for the management of CAT in these special situations.

Cancer-associated thrombosis and drug-drug interactions of antithrombotic and antineoplastic agents.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often associated with malignant diseases and notably contributes to morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) brings additional costs to health expenditures and has a negative impact on oncological outcomes. Either the recurrence rate of VTE or bleeding complications are also higher in patients with cancer. Prophylactic anticoagulation has been recommended in peri-surgical periods, inpatient settings, and high-risk ambulatory patients. Although various risk stratification scores are used, none are ideal for identifying patients who can benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis. New risk scoring systems or biomarkers are needed to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from prophylaxis with low bleeding risk. The questions about the patients who will be given prophylaxis and those who develop thromboembolism, with which drug, and how long they will be treated are still not fully answered. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of the treatment, but management of CAT remains complex. Low molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants are effective and safe options for the treatment of CAT. Recognizing adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and accompanying conditions that cause dose adjustment is crucial. Prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer require a multidisciplinary and patient-based approach. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Cancer-associated thrombosis is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer. Chemotherapy, surgery, and/or use of central venous access remarkably increase the risk of thrombosis. Prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered not only in inpatient follow-up and during peri-surgical period but also ambulatory patients with a high risk of thrombosis. Many parameters, such as drug-drug interactions, primary side of cancer, and comorbidities of patients should be considered when selecting anticoagulant drugs. More accurate risk stratification scores or biomarkers are still an unmet need.

Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions with direct anticoagulants in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis.

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are common in cancer management and complicate the choice of anticoagulation in cancer-associated thrombosis. Cancer confers an increased risk of thrombotic events. Also, more bleeding events are observed in those who receive anticoagulation compared to those without cancer. In the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been found to be at least as effective as low-molecular weight heparins, which became the standard of care after several trials demonstrated superiority over vitamin K antagonists. Non-inferiority compared to low-molecular weight heparins has been shown for rivaroxaban, edoxaban and apixaban with a signal of fewer recurrent thrombotic events, albeit with an increase in bleeding events. Yet, potentially major pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions have been identified as a reason to withhold DOACs and to rather choose an alternative. Practical guidance on what constitutes a major pharmacokinetic interaction and/or how to deal with these interactions in clinical practice is limited. Hence, here we have provided a framework to allow clinicians to better deal with pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions between DOACs and cancer therapies in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis. In this review we have discussed the current literature, how the pharmacokinetic profile links to the label information on DDI, and have provided a practical proposal, applied to a clinical case.

An Update in Anticoagulant Therapy for Patients with Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

This review aims to assess the treatment options for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) based on the most robust level of evidence recommendations and suggestions based on expert opinion. Several classes of anticoagulants have been studied in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Since the CLOT trial, guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of this condition. However, since 2018, some direct oral anticoagulants became an alternative first-line treatment for CAT. Three Xa antagonists (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) proved to be at least as effective as the LMWH strategy for the short-term prevention of VTE recurrence. The right choice of treatment in the context of anticoagulation strategy, thrombo-hemorrhagic risk management, and a patient's comorbidities represents a challenge. The correct management of CAT and a more individualized approach are needed to identify risk factors and offer the best treatment for each patient.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Taiwanese Perspective on Therapeutic Options with Focus on Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication of malignancies. Patients with CAT are at risk of venous thromboembolism recurrence, but also at risk of bleeding while anticoagulated. Taiwanese patients are perceived to have a lower incidence of CAT, likely leading to false reassurance for Taiwanese patients with cancer. Because of this, oncologists and cardiologists from multiple medical institutions in Taiwan have set forth to provide clinical consensus guidelines on the management of CAT, based on local clinical practices and guided by predominant international clinical practice guidelines. This paper aims to describe the current disease burden of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in Taiwanese cancer patients, and discusses the unmet needs and gaps in the management of this medical complication. It also outlines diagnostic and management strategies relevant to the different treatment options available, such as non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.

The Saudi Consensus for the Management of Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism: A Modified Delphi-Based Study.

Background Cancer is a well-known risk factor of preventable thromboembolic disease. This study aims to provide guidance on the prevention and management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) that tailors prophylactic and therapeutic options for medical and surgical oncology patients presenting to health care settings in Saudi Arabia. Methods The present consensus was developed in concordance with the modified Delphi-based approach, which incorporates a face-to-face meeting between two voting rounds to gain experts' feedback on the proposed statements. All experts were either oncologists, hematologists, or hemato-oncologist with an active clinical and research profile in hemato-oncology. Results The experts highlighted that the comparatively high incidence of inherited thrombophilia among the Saudi population may account for a higher CT burden in the Kingdom than in other parts of the world. However, due to the lack of literature that assesses CT in Saudi Arabia, primary venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should be tailored according to a valid risk assessment of cancer patients and should be implemented in routine practice. For hospitalized medical oncology patients, the experts agreed that prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) should be offered, regardless of the presence of acute illness. For ambulatory medical oncology patients, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) prophylaxis should be offered for high-risk patients. Concerning surgical patients, they agreed that all oncology patients undergoing surgery should be offered thromboprophylaxis. In terms of secondary prophylaxis, the experts recommended continuing a prophylactic dose of anticoagulant (LMWH or DOAC), for an appropriate period depending on the cancer type and stage. Finally, they also provided a set of statements on management of CT in Saudi Arabia. Conclusion The present modified Delphi-based study combined the best available evidence and clinical experience with the current health care policies and settings in Saudi Arabia to build a consensus statement on the epidemiology, prevention, and management of CT.

Developing a Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Clinic: Two-Year Experience

Background: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common comorbidity in patients with cancer. Prior trials have demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and low-molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are safe and effective for CAT management. Despite these data, treatment of CAT is complicated by consequences of both cancers and cancer-directed therapies that can impact anticoagulation options. Methods: We developed the Northwestern Medicine CAT clinic in April 2020 to improve care by streamlining referrals for evaluation and management of CAT by a non-malignant hematologist. Patients were referred for either acute management of new VTE or for ongoing management of previously known VTE. Goal time-to-appointment for acute referrals was within 24 hours and for ongoing management within two weeks. Initial evaluations were completed by advanced practice providers with review by an attending classical hematologist and clinical pharmacist. We manually reviewed electronic health records of patients seen in the CAT clinic since its inception. Data collected included demographic, cancer diagnosis and cancer-directed therapy, CAT clinic recommendations, and recurrent VTE, bleeding and death within 6 months of initial CAT clinic appointment. We used descriptive statistics to assess referral and treatment patterns. Results: One hundred twenty-two patients (N=122) were seen by CAT clinic clinicians between April 2020 - April 2022, including 63 (51%) in the first year. Patients had a median age of 63 years and 56.4% were female. Appointments occurred in nearly equal proportion via telehealth (50.8%) and in-office visits (49.2%) during these two years; however, 78% of visits were telehealth during the first year, and only 25.4% during the second. Forty-three (35.2%) referred for acute management were seen at a median time of two days, and the remainder for ongoing management were seen at a median time of 10 days. Referrals were predominantly for PE (25.4%), concurrent PE/DVT (23.0%), and proximal lower extremity DVT (18.9%); however, consults included thrombi of the cerebral, pulmonary, and splanchnic veins, as well as tumor thrombi, arterial thrombi, and need for primary prophylaxis. Tumor types were categorized into nine groups, with the largest proportion consisting of gastrointestinal (25.4%), gynecologic (17.2%), and hematologic (17.2%) malignancies (Figure 1). DOACs were recommended in 47.5%, and LMWHs in 41% (Figure 2), with a similar proportion of DOACs prescribed between year one (47.5%) and year two (47.6%). Primary reasons for choosing LMWHs over DOACs were perceived bleeding risk (40%), tumor type (22%), and prior DOAC failure (20%). Twelve (9.8%) patients were advised to stop anticoagulation, due to lack of indication for 11 (91.7%) and perceived bleeding risk for one (8.3%). Four were referred for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval. At the time of evaluation, 16 (13.1%) patients were noted to have platelet counts <150,000/µL, but none had platelet counts <50,000/µL. Within 6 months of initial evaluation, 11 (9.0%) patients developed progressive or recurrent VTE. Fourteen (11.5%) patients experienced bleeding: eight (57.1%) had major bleeding episodes as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, and six (42.9%) had clinically-relevant non-major bleeding. Among major bleeding events, six (75%) were gastrointestinal and two (25%) intraabdominal in origin, with no identified intracranial hemorrhages. Twenty (16.4%) died during the follow up period. Seventy-six (61.8%) patients were seen for a follow up visit after initial consultation. Conclusion: Building the CAT clinic led to improved access to classical hematologists with thrombosis expertise to manage CAT. Historical wait times for this specialty have exceeded 90 days, while those referred to the CAT clinic had a median time-to-appointment of only nine days. Highlighting the complexity of CAT management, more than 40% of patients were not treated with DOAC, primarily related to perceived bleeding risk. Four patients were identified for IVC filter removal, suggesting there may be additional benefits to non-malignant hematologists beyond anticoagulant management. Decisions regarding treatment of individual patients with CAT remain complex, and access to thrombosis specialists provides additional expertise to optimize care. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Abstract 11655: Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Low Molecular Weight Heparin and Vitamin K Antagonists in the Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective: Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been established for the treatment of cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT). Recent guidelines suggest Direct Oral Anti-Coagulants (DOACs) may have a role in the management of CAT, however these recommendations were conditional. This study aims to compare DOACs with LMWH and Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) in CAT. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies through a systematic search of four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) published before January 25, 2022. Our criteria included studies in patients with all cancer types who received DOACs, VKAs, or LMWH for prevention or treatment of CAT. We analyzed outcomes including recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. The quality assessment of the included RCTs was conducted through Cochrane Tool, while the quality of the included cohort studies was assessed by the NIH tool. The network meta-analysis was performed using the netmeta package in R software. Results: A total of 55 studies were included; 18 RCTs, and 37 cohort studies. DOACs (RR= 0.72, 95% CI [0.63; 0.83]) and LMWH (RR= 0.78, 95% CI [0.64; 0.94]) had a significantly lower risk of major bleeding than VKAs. There was also a significantly decreased risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) with LMWH than DOACs (RR= 0.63, 95% CI [0.55; 0.73]) and DOACs compared to VKA (RR= 0.83, 95% CI [0.72; 0.95]). With regards to recurrent venous thromboembolism risk (VTE), DOACs showed a significantly lower risk compared with either LMWH (RR=0.70, 95% CI [0.59; 0.83]) or VKA (RR=0.66, 95% CI [0.54; 0.80]). Conclusion: We conclude that DOACs are more effective in the management of CAT when compared to LMWH and VKA. DOACs and LMWH have significantly lower risk of major bleeding when compared to VKA. More research is needed to determine the best anticoagulation strategy for distinct types of cancers.

Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in France: A National Survey among Vascular Disease and Supportive Care Specialists.

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are recommended by international guidelines for at least 6 months in patients with cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been proposed as an alternative to LMWH. In clinical practice, the specialists in charge of CAT have to decide which anticoagulant to prescribe. An electronic survey tool, including vignettes and questions, was sent to members of the French Society of Vascular Medicine, the French-speaking association for supportive care in oncology and the Investigation Network On Venous Thrombo-Embolism. Among the 376 respondents, LMWHs were reported as the first choice by most specialists. The prescription of DOACs within the first 3 weeks of CAT diagnosis was highly dependent on the cancer site: 5.9%, 18.6% and 24.5% in patients with locally advanced colorectal, lung and breast cancer, respectively. The determinants were mostly related to cancer (site and stage or evolution) and to anticancer treatments. For 61% of physicians, some anticancer treatments were contraindications to DOACs. However, almost 90% of physicians considered switching to DOAC after a median 3-month period of LMWHs. In daily practice, LMWHs and DOACs are now considered by specialists of CAT; the decision is mostly driven by the site of cancer. The role of anticancer treatments in the decision remains to be investigated.

Complexity and clinical significance of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in oncology: challenging issues in the care of patients regarding cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

Cancer patients have an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation management includes prophylactic or therapeutic doses of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). However, the management of thrombosis in patients with cancer is complex due to various individual and disease-related factors, including drug–drug interactions (DDIs). Furthermore, DDIs may impact both, cancer and venous thrombosis, treatment effectiveness and safety; their relevance is highlighted by the advances in cancer therapeutics. Given that these new oncology drugs are extensively used, more attention should be given to monitoring potential DDIs to minimize risks. Recognition of DDIs is of utmost importance in an era of rapid developments in cancer treatments and introduction of novel treatments and protocols. When managing cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), the concomitant use of a DOAC and a moderate or strong modulator (inhibitor or inducer) of CYP3A4 or a P-glycoprotein (P-gp) is most likely to be associated with significant DDIs. Therefore, LMWHs remain the first-line option for the long-term management of CAT under these circumstances and physicians must consider utilizing LMWHs as first line. This review describes the risk of DDIs and their potential impact and outcomes in patients with cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) receiving anticoagulation.

New Oral Anticoagulants Open New Horizons for Cancer Patients with Venous Thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, decreased quality of life, and higher economic burden in patients with cancer. Currently, the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer is particularly challenging. For many years, low molecular weight heparin (LMWHs) has been the standard for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Recently, the introduction of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) may offer an oral anticoagulant option for some patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) as a growing body of literature supports the use of NOACs in the setting of CAT. With the use of NOAC as a new option in the management of CAT, clinicians now face several choices for the individual cancer patient with VTE. We need a more in-depth understanding of the drug properties, efficacy and safety, economic analysis that allows us to choose the most appropriate treatment for each patient. In the review, we will present an overview of CAT management, discuss the available evidence, economic costs for NOACs in the treatment of CAT, and seek to provide the best range of treatments for cancer patients.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Management of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Comprehensive Review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is reportedly the second common cause of death among cancer patients. Management of VTE with low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is associated with significant clinical challenges that led to the emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) as an alternative for the management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). The objective of this review is to provide an updated review of the completed and upcoming randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) comparing the safety and efficacy of DOAC versus LMWH in the management of CAT in adults. A comprehensive literature survey was conducted till 7th January 2021 to review the completed randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) comparing the safety and efficacy of DOAC versus LMWH in the management of CAT in adults. In order to search for upcoming trials, the Cochrane library and clinicaltrials.org databases were surveyed until the same period. The author found four completed RCT of DOAC in the management of CAT. Apart from these, there were another four RCT that are either ongoing or are yet to publish data. DOAC were reported to be noninferior to LMWH in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in cancer patients with low bleeding risk and without gastrointestinal or gastrourinary cancers. Among patients with gastrointestinal or gastrourinary cancers and VTE, LMWH are preferred.

Management of cancer‐associated thrombosis with thrombocytopenia: Impact of the ISTH guidance statement

BackgroundOptimal management of cancer‐associated thrombosis (CAT) in patients with thrombocytopenia remains difficult given competing risks of recurrent thrombosis and increased bleeding. We determine the impact of the ISTH Scientific and Standardization Committee (SCC) guidance on CAT management and thrombocytopenia on platelet transfusion, bleeding, and recurrent thrombosis. MethodsA retrospective review was performed of patients with CAT and thrombocytopenia who required anticoagulation for VTE for 11 months before and after implementation of the ISTH SCC guidance. Medical records were reviewed to identify the type of VTE event, number of platelet transfusions, incidence of bleeding, and VTE recurrence within pre‐ and postintervention time periods. ResultsA total of 41 and 80 cases were included in the preintervention and postintervention periods, respectively. The preintervention group showed a trend toward less acute VTE events (39% vs 55%; P= .05). The postintervention period had an increased per‐patient platelet transfusion (median, 2.5 vs 4; P= .05). Nonmajor bleeding was increased in the postintervention group (2% vs 16%; P= 0.03) and included all six (8%) major hemorrhages (P= .09). There was numerically less recurrent thrombosis in the postintervention group (20% vs 8%; P= .07), which was not significantly different when accounting for acuity of VTE. Management adherence was strong, at 91%, in the postintervention group. ConclusionThe ISTH guidance on management of cancer‐associated thrombosis in patients with thrombocytopenia was successfully implemented in an academic medical center. There was no significant difference in bleeding or recurrent thrombosis outcomes after adjusting for acuity of VTE.