The factors affecting the survivability of malignant cancer patients with deep vein thrombosis among subjects with gynecologic and non-gynecologic cancer: An ambispective cohort study.

Introduction

Gynecologic cancer is a major threat to global health and comprises three of the top ten most prevalent cancers affecting women worldwide. 1 , 2 Ovarian cancer is considered to be the deadliest gynecologic malignancy, with the highest mortality rate and the worst prognosis when compared to other types of gynecologic cancers. 2 – 6 Cervical cancer ranks fourth in terms of both incidence and mortality in women worldwide. In countries with a lower Human Development Index (HDI), cervical cancer is the second most prevalent cancer and cause of mortality, following breast cancer. Nonetheless, it is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in 28 countries and the primary cause of cancer-related deaths in 42 countries. The majority of these countries are located in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. 7 After cervical cancer, endometrial cancer is the second most frequent malignancy in developing countries. 2 – 4 , 8 , 9

Gynecologic cancer is a challenging and complex disease that poses significant diagnostic and management difficulties. 10 It has been found to be underdiagnosed and undertreated, leading to a remarkable 85% of worldwide deaths in developing countries. Furthermore, low-income and middle-income countries have been significantly impacted, with death rates 18 times higher than those observed in wealthier countries. 7 , 10 For these countries, the massive economic impact posed by lost years of productivity and cancer-related deaths is an extensive challenge. 2 – 4 , 11 , 12

Over the past two decades, the association of malignancy with thrombosis events has been established by a significant number of epidemiological studies. 13 The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active malignancy is four to seven times higher than in the healthy population, ensuring malignancy is one of the most prevalent and significant acquired risk factors for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). 14 – 16 DVT is a generally treatable condition that poses a significant threat to patients with malignancies. In fact, it is the second-greatest cause of death and has been found to be correlated with reduced survival rates in cancer patients. 14 , 17 The rising incidence of cancer-associated thrombosis poses an increasing burden on the healthcare system due to the high mortality rate and treatment costs. 18

The increasing burden of DVT in cancer patients, along with the disproportionately poor outcomes, requires urgent attention. 18 The survival rate is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of cancer prevention and treatment approaches. 19 However, factors affecting the survivability of patients with venous thromboembolism, especially malignancies with DVT, remain unclear. 20 – 22 To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study conducted to determine the factors affecting the survival time of cancer patients with DVT, specifically among gynecologic and non-gynecologic cancers. Understanding the impact of these factors is essential for establishing targeted preventive and treatment strategies for this specific patient population.

Methods

Study design

This was an ambispective cohort study (combination of prospective and retrospective methods) conducted at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital (CMGH), Jakarta, Indonesia. Data were collected from January 2011 until August 2013. On the prospective method, we collected samples of cancer patients who had DVT at the Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology of CMGH. Retrospective data were extracted from the medical records of CMGH. All subjects were observed for 3 months. The included subjects were aged ≥ 18 years old; subjects with active cancers; subjects with DVT that were confirmed with Doppler ultrasound. Active cancer was defined as newly diagnosed cancer, up to 3 months before DVT diagnosis, or cancer that is being treated. 23 , 24 Subjects were excluded if they were not available for a 3-month of follow-up (for prospective), or if the medical record data was incomplete (for retrospective).

Wells score has been utilized for over a decade and has predictive value in determining DVT risk in patients who are hospitalized. 22 , 25 We divided the Wells score into two categories: subjects with <3 points were considered to have a low probability of developing DVT, whereas subjects with ≥3 points were considered to have a high probability of developing DVT.

Subjects who received tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, thalidomide, lenalidomide, bevacizumab, cisplatin, nitrogen mustard, or anthracycline were considered as high-risk systemic therapy for developing DVT. 1 , 26 – 41 Subjects who did not receive high-risk systemic therapy other than those mentioned above were considered low-risk for developing DVT ( Table 1 ).

Statistical analysis

Extracted data were analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27 for Macintosh. Any graph or plot was created using GraphPad Prism 9 for Macintosh. The analysis was conducted with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The significance was measured using log-rank/Mantel-Cox test.

Measurement

D-dimer levels were measured by immunometric flowthrough sandwich ELISA ( Nycocard Reader II ). According to the assay manufacturer, the D-dimer cut-off values for DVT was ≥ 300 ng/mL. 42

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this study was granted by The Ethics Committee of The Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia (ethical approval number: 495/H2.F1/ETIK/2013). This research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to recruitment, written informed consent was obtained from the subjects.

Results

This cohort study included 223 cancer subjects with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). From the 223 recruited subjects, 76.2% were female. Approximately 48.4% of the subjects were diagnosed with gynecologic cancer, which included ovarian, cervical, and endometrial cancers. Non-gynecologic cancers, including lymphoma, leukemia, hepatoma, and breast cancer were found in 51.6% of the subjects ( Table 1 ).

Infection was found in 126 patients (56.5%). The most common infections were pneumonia (29.6%), urinary tract infections (19.3%), and chronic viral hepatitis (18.8%). Most of the infected patients had one source of infection (30.5%) ( Table 2 ).

In Figure 1A , the survival time was significantly lower in subjects who developed immobilization status compared to subjects without immobilization status in the overall groups (p-value <0.001), the gynecologic cancer group (p-value 0.007), and the non-gynecologic cancer group (p-value 0.008).

Figure 1B indicates that, across all cancer groups, the survival duration was significantly shorter in late-stage cancer than in early-stage cancer (p-value <0.045).

As seen in Figure 1C , subjects with infection status had significantly shorter survival times than subjects without infection in all categories (p-value 0.001), those with gynecologic cancer (p-value 0.021), and those without gynecologic cancer (p-value 0.002).

In the non-gynecologic cancer group shown in Figure 1D , the survival time was significantly longer in subjects who underwent cancer surgery than in those who did not (p-value 0.024).

Figure 1E demonstrates that there was no significant survival time difference between subjects who received radiotherapy (RT) and those without RT in all groups.

Figure 1F shows that in the non-gynecologic cancer group, subjects who received high-risk systemic therapy had significantly greater survival times than those who received low-risk systemic therapy (p = 0.048).

Figure 2 demonstrates that although patients with gynecologic cancer generally had shorter survival times than those with non-gynecologic cancer, there was no significant difference in survival times between the two types of cancer.

Discussion

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in cancer patients is a life-threatening condition that may emerge regardless of whether they have a good prognosis. By understanding the factors that affect survivability, the effectiveness of prophylactic and therapeutic measures in preventing mortality can be more fully established. 23

Our cohort analysis revealed that the mortality of gynecologic and non-gynecologic cancer patients doubled during the initial 3-month period following the DVT event, emphasizing the high short-term mortality resulting from a DVT event ( Table 1 ). 23 , 24 Our finding was supported by the worldwide Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) registry study, which demonstrated that individuals with cancer with DVT are at a higher risk for short-term mortality. 24 The proposed theory suggests that the clinical hypercoagulable state may serve as a proxy for aggressive tumor biology, leading to a poor association with prognosis. 24 , 43 According to the latest available data, thrombosis is estimated to contribute to approximately 10% of cancer-related deaths in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Our study, which focused on gynecologic and non-gynecologic cancer patients with DVT, has confirmed this finding, albeit to a slightly greater degree. 24 , 44

Table 1 demonstrates a greater number of subjects experiencing immobilization (> 3 days) compared to those who did not (76.2% vs. 36.8%). The survival rate was significantly lower in subjects who developed immobilization status when compared to subjects without immobilization status in the overall groups (p-value <0.001), gynecologic cancer group (p-value 0.007), and non-gynecologic cancer group (p-value 0.008) ( Figure 1A ). The lower survival time among immobilized subjects is a crucial finding that can be assigned to various factors. First, immobilized cancer patients frequently showed more severe clinical signs than non-immobilized patients. 45 Second, immobility increases the risk of DVT, due to stasis of blood flow in the venous system and hypercoagulation, which will lead to a higher mortality rate. 46 , 47 On the other hand, the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) recommends that cancer patients with DVT commence mobilization as an effective way of reducing the risk of mortality and minimizing complications. 48 , 49 Another systematic review by Segal et al. that identified 2 guidelines, 18 systematic reviews, and 29 randomized controlled trials (RCT) demonstrates that exercise is safe and beneficial in improving quality of life, including muscular and aerobic fitness for cancer patients. The current literature provides adequate support for urging exercise among cancer patients. 50 Thus, we strongly recommend physical exercise based on the clinical condition of cancer patients, as it could potentially serve an essential function in improving both survival and quality of life.

Figure 1B shows that survival time was significantly lower in the advanced stages of cancer than in the early stages in the overall cancer groups (p-value <0.045). Our finding was consistent with a study that was conducted by Spencer, which found a negative correlation between cancer stage and survival. 51 Mark et al. found in their retrospective analysis that a diagnosis of DVT doubled the cancer-related death rate, which had similar effects on mortality as having advanced stage cancer. 52 Cancer staging is an anatomic representation of the disease’s progression based on tumor size, lymph node involvement, as well as clinical and imaging examinations. 53 , 54 The impact of metastases in DVT has been substantially highlighted in the medical literature. The process of disseminating metastatic cells could be the explanation for the increased risk of DVT reported in patients with distant or regional lymph node metastases. The presence of metastasis has been found to be significantly correlated with increased hypercoagulability due to the hemostatic system, which may play a significant role in the metastatic capability of malignancies. Substantial metastasis occurs when tumor cells reach the bloodstream or lymphatic system. Thereby, after the distant metastasis, tumor cells interact with the hemostatic system, which emphasizes that hypercoagulability already exists in patients with localized cancer spread. 55 Studies have shown that detecting cancer at an early stage can significantly improve the chances of survival. However, over 50% of cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage. When diagnosed in later stages, the available treatment options may be limited, and the overall prognosis tends to be unfavorable. The timely identification of cancer or precancerous alterations enables prompt intervention with the purpose of preventing or minimizing cancer progression and mortality. 56

In this present study, pneumonia was the most prevalent infectious disease (29.6%) ( Table 2 ). In contrast with the study by Gussoni G, et al. that showed non-infectious chronic pulmonary disease contributed to the high prevalence of malignancy associated with DVT (9.8%). 24 This is due to the high prevalence of infectious diseases in Indonesia. The vast majority of infected patients have one source of infection (30.5%). This demonstrates that the severity of that illness has the potential to alter mortality, even if the patient is only exposed to a single source of infection. Figure 1C shows that the overall (p-value <0.001), gynecologic (p-value 0.021), and non-gynecologic (p-value 0.002) cancer groups had significantly shorter survival times for subjects who developed infection status compared to subjects without infection. Infection remains a leading killer in all types of cancer. The investigation of infection management in cancer patients is an important strategy for enhancing the patient’s survivability. The nature of certain chemotherapeutic agents is accompanied by their immunosuppressive effects, which can limit their application ranges. These side effects include neutropenia, inhibition of the neutrophils, bone marrow suppression, damage to the anatomical barriers, and irritation of the veins. 57 Those who undergo cytotoxic chemotherapy are at risk of developing severe neutropenia, which can lead to life-threatening infections and sepsis. 58 The findings indicate that further efforts are required to reduce the frequency of lethal infections. Thus, we strongly recommend several strategies to decrease the mortality of infections in cancer patients, including the use of prophylaxis or preemptive therapy with broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents targeted at the most common infecting pathogens. 57

Figure 1D demonstrates that the survival time for patients with non-gynecologic cancer who received cancer surgery is considerably longer than that of patients who do not undergo surgery (p-value 0.024). The present study aligns with prior cohort study of advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from the National Cancer Database, which indicated patients who had surgery had significantly better overall survival (p<0.001). 59 Contrary to the findings of Gussoni G, et al. in the RIETE Study, surgical treatment for malignancy had no influence on mortality in the first three months of malignancy DVT. 24 These differences in outcomes may be explained due to the fact that the patients who received surgery tended to be diagnosed at an earlier stage, which enhanced their chances of survival. As the advanced stage of cancer progresses, the clinical condition of the patient deteriorates, rendering them ineligible for cancer surgery and/or systemic therapy for malignancy. In the execution of a surgical procedure, it is imperative to carefully evaluate the potential hazards and advantages. This critical assessment is crucial in ensuring the safety and well-being of the patient. The risk-benefit analysis is the key of clinical decision making, with the ultimate goal of producing the best possible patient outcomes. 60

In Figure 1E , there was no significant difference in survival time between subjects who received RT and without RT across all groups. Based on our findings, we identify that RT-treated cancer patients with DVT do not appear to have substantial alterations that lead to short-term mortality. Our study was in line with Bosco et al. that conducted a large study among 9000 Swedish male patients who had curative radiation for prostate cancer. They concluded that external beam radiation and brachytherapy were not shown to increase the risk of thromboembolic events. 61 , 62 Contradicting the results of a previous sub-analysis of prospective, multicentre, longitudinal Prospective Comparison of Methods for thromboembolic risk assessment with clinical Perceptions and AwareneSS in real life patients-Cancer Associated Thrombosis (COMPASS–CAT study), a significant association was found between RT and VTE (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.47-4.12; p-value 0.011). 61 , 63 A small series by Guy et al. reported a sufficient association between brachytherapy and the development of VTE in patients with gynecologic malignancies. 63 , 64 These differences among studies might be explained by multiple suggested processes that raised the risk of thrombosis during and after radiation. Radiation has been shown to promote secondary venous hemostasis by increasing inflammatory molecule release, which in turn activates the endothelium and promotes a thrombotic environment. Ionizing radiation has also been shown to affect several anticoagulant molecules (protein C and thrombomodulin) and prothrombotic molecules (activated factor VIII, platelet, tissue factor, D-dimers, NF-kappa B, and von Willebrand activation), altering the balance towards a hypercoagulable state. 61 , 62 , 65 However, most of the chronic vascular processes leading to clinical outcomes are reported to occur several years after RT, and our follow-up period was 3 months. Thus, additional studies with longer time periods are warranted to fully comprehend the clinical significance of the prospective cellular toxicity related to radiotherapy. 61 , 62

As can be observed in Figure 1F , the survival time was significantly higher in subjects who received high-risk systemic therapy compared to those who received low-risk systemic therapy (p-value 0.048). According to recent research, the administration of tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, thalidomide, lenalidomide, bevacizumab, cisplatin, nitrogen mustard, or anthracycline has been linked to a higher incidence of DVT. 1 , 26 – 41 These agents have been reported to initiate vascular injury by inducing apoptosis. The administration of cisplatin leads to the release of prothrombotic particles, leading to the production of thrombin through tissue factor-independent pathways and a substantial increase in the activity of von Willebrand factor (vWF). However, other agent such as the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (bevacizumab) do not initiate thrombosis directly. Instead, it ‘primes’ the endothelium by placing it in a depleted condition, thus rendering it more prone to injury. Furthermore, in the context of immunomodulatory agents (thalidomide and lenalidomide), platelet activation via PAR-1 and enhanced Gp IIb/IIIa exertion provide the “primed” condition. The identification of antineoplastic agents that are highly associated with thrombosis can enhance healthcare provider awareness and facilitate prompt diagnosis and treatment. 66 , 67 On the other hand, prior studies have extensively demonstrated the effectiveness of systemic therapy in improving overall survival rates and minimizing the potential of disease recurrence. Although generally well-tolerated, there have been reports of various adverse effects associated with the pharmacological activity of these agents. 67 Thus, high-risk systemic therapy for cancer patients should be considered after carefully assessing the risks and benefits of treatments. 68

To the best of our knowledge, no study to date has investigated the comparison of survival time for DVT in the cancer population, especially among gynecologic and non-gynecologic malignancies. Although the difference in survival time between the two groups was not statistically significant (p-value 0.674), the results indicated that patients with gynecologic cancer generally had a lower survival time compared to non-gynecologic cancer ( Figure 2 ). Cancer is a life-threatening disease that warrants serious attention, regardless of its type. 69 According to prior research, VTE is a significant cause of mortality in patients with gynecologic cancer. Studies have shown that the risk of DVT in women undergoing gynecologic surgery is estimated to be between 17-40%. 55 The relationship between gynecologic cancers and thrombotic events is believed to be linked to lymphadenectomy and venous congestion caused by tumors or enlarged lymph nodes. 70 Lymphadenectomy is a frequently utilized procedure in the evaluation of lymph node status and staging of gynecologic malignancies, as well as a therapeutic intervention for patients with gynecologic cancer. Complications, such as hemorrhage, hematoma, and lymphocele, are frequently observed in association with it. Lymphocele is a frequently observed postoperative complication that can result in the development of VTE due to venous compression. A literature review indicates that the incidence of VTE after lymphadenectomy ranges from 0.8% to 25%. 55 A large cohort study conducted by Chew et al. , revealed that the incidence of DVT in cancer patients is linked to a 3.7-fold rise in mortality risk. 71 The identification of DVT as a major risk factor has been established for decreased survival in cancer patients. The mortality rate of cancer patients with DVT could be associated with the existence of DVT and its complications, as well as the advanced stage of malignancies that are frequently correlated with DVT and have the potential to progress progressively. 24

The strength of this study lies in the fact that it is the first study to analyze factors affecting the survivability of malignant patients with DVT, especially in gynecologic and non-gynecologic malignancies. Second, this study utilizes a pragmatic approach by conducting research in authentic settings that reflect routine clinical practice. Third, this research was conducted at CMGH, which is the national referral center hospital in Indonesia, in order to accurately reflect the target population. However, this study has several limitations that should be considered to improve further research. First, this study did not evaluate the development of anticoagulant targets in DVT therapy in patients with malignancy. The examination parameters for each anticoagulant vary, making it challenging to perform this task. Second, this study did not differentiate between varying levels of clinical severity of infection.

Hence, despite these limitations, the findings of our cohort study have significant clinical implications, indicating that prompt identification of these factors may enhance the survival rate of cancer patients with DVT. 72 Although cancer is a significant risk factor for DVT, the risk is not sufficiently substantial to warrant initiating prophylaxis. On the other hand, if any of these risk factors are present, the doctor should have a low threshold for considering prophylaxis. 73 Comprehensive consideration of the risks and benefits of anticoagulant usage is required before deciding to use thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with DVT. 68 Nonetheless, the existing literature provides limited guidance for decision-making and implementation of management strategies. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the extent of the issue and determine the necessity of secondary prophylaxis. 24 , 73

Conclusion

This cohort study identified that both gynecologic and non-gynecologic cancer patients who experienced DVT developed a high short-term mortality. Our finding of immobility, infection, advanced cancer stages, systemic therapy, and cancer surgery as risk factors that affect the survival raises the need to give secondary prophylaxis in routine clinical practice. The possibility for increasing survival could be maximized through the alteration of these critical factors. Thus, further study is warranted to establish a comprehensive management guideline that will be crucial for optimizing prevention and treatment strategies.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants for their involvement.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Raw Data - The Factors Affecting the Survivability of Malignant Cancer Patients with Deep Vein Thrombosis among Subjects with Gynecologic and Non Gynecologic Cancer An Ambispective Cohort Study.sav, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22838087.v1 . 74

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

References

1. Huang H, Korn JR, Mallick R, et al. : Incidence of venous thromboembolism among chemotherapy-treated patients with lung cancer and its association with mortality: a retrospective database study. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis. 2012 Nov 13;34(4):446–456. 10.1007/s11239-012-0741-7

2. World cancer research fund international: Worldwide cancer data. 2022. [cited 2023 May 16]. Reference Source

3. Global Cancer Observatory: Summary statistic 2020. 2020. [cited 2023 May 16]. Reference Source

4. Stewart SL, Lakhani N, Brown PM, et al. : Gynecologic Cancer Prevention and Control in the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program: Progress, Current Activities, and Future Directions. J. Womens Health. 2013 Aug;22(8):651–657. 10.1089/jwh.2013.4465

5. Akhtar-Danesh N, Lytwyn A, Elit L: Five-year trends in mortality indices among gynecological cancer patients in Canada. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012 Dec;127(3):620–624. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.08.038

6. Momenimovahed Z, Tiznobaik A, Taheri S, et al. : Ovarian cancer in the world: epidemiology and risk factors. Int. J. Women’s Health. 2019 Apr;11:287–299. 10.2147/IJWH.S197604

7. Zhang S, Xu H, Zhang L, et al. : Cervical cancer: Epidemiology, risk factors and screening. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2020;32(6):720–728. 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.06.05

8. Santoro A, Angelico G, Travaglino A, et al. : New Pathological and Clinical Insights in Endometrial Cancer in View of the Updated ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines. Cancers (Basel). 2021 May 26;13(11):2623. 10.3390/cancers13112623

9. Faizan U, Mupidi V: Uterine Cancer. StatPearls. 2023 [cited 2023 May 16]. Reference Source

10. Mahdy H, Casey MJ, Crotzer D: Endometrial Cancer. StatPearls. 2023 [cited 2023 May 16]. Reference Source

11. Kalichuran S, Blydenstein SA, Venter M, et al. : Vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity. S. Afr. J. Infect. Dis. 2022 Apr 26;37(1). 10.4102/sajid.v37i1.359

12. Lee JY, Kim EY, Jung KW, et al. : Trends in gynecologic cancer mortality in East Asian regions. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014;25(3):174–182. 10.3802/jgo.2014.25.3.174

13. Oudega R, Moons KGM, Karel Nieuwenhuis H, et al. : Deep vein thrombosis in primary care: possible malignancy? Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2006 Sep;56(530):693–696.

14. Samare Fekri M, Khalily Zade M, Fatehi S: The Association of Deep Vein Thrombosis With Cancer Treatment Modality: Chemotherapy or Surgery? Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2014 Sep 5;16(9):e14722. 10.5812/ircmj.14722

15. Khorana AA, Dalal M, Lin J, et al. : Incidence and predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among ambulatory high-risk cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in the United States. Cancer. 2013 Feb 1;119(3):648–655. 10.1002/cncr.27772

16. López JA, Chen J: Pathophysiology of venous thrombosis. Thromb. Res. 2009 Jan;123:S30–S34. 10.1016/S0049-3848(09)70140-9

17. Brown A: Preventing venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with cancer: Improving compliance with clinical practice guidelines. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2012 Mar 15;69(6):469–481. 10.2146/ajhp110187

18. Lee LH, Nagarajan C, Tan CW, et al. : Epidemiology of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in Asia: A Systematic Review. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021 May 21;8. 10.3389/fcvm.2021.669288

19. Seedhom AE, Kamal NN: Factors affecting survival of women diagnosed with breast cancer in El-Minia Governorate, Egypt. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2011 Jul;2(3):131–138.

20. Galioto NJ, Danley DL, Van Maanen RJ: Recurrent venous thromboembolism. Am. Fam. Physician. 2011 Feb 1;83(3):293–300.

21. Silverstein MD, Heit JA, Mohr DN, et al. : Trends in the Incidence of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism. Arch. Intern. Med. 1998 Mar 23;158(6):585–593. 10.1001/archinte.158.6.585

22. Monreal M, Falgá C, Valdés M, et al. : Fatal pulmonary embolism and fatal bleeding in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism: findings from the RIETE registry. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2006 Sep;4(9):1950–1956. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.02082.x

23. Khan UT, Walker AJ, Baig S, et al. : Venous thromboembolism and mortality in breast cancer: cohort study with systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2017 Dec 10;17(1):747. 10.1186/s12885-017-3719-1

24. Gussoni G, Frasson S, La Regina M, et al. : Three-month mortality rate and clinical predictors in patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer. Findings from the RIETE registry. Thromb. Res. 2013 Jan;131(1):24–30. 10.1016/j.thromres.2012.10.007

25. Modi S, Deisler R, Gozel K, et al. : Wells criteria for DVT is a reliable clinical tool to assess the risk of deep venous thrombosis in trauma patients. World J. Emerg. Surg. 2016 Dec 8;11(1):24. 10.1186/s13017-016-0078-1

26. Kröger K, Weiland D, Ose C, et al. : Risk factors for venous thromboembolic events in cancer patients. Ann. Oncol. 2006 Feb;17(2):297–303. 10.1093/annonc/mdj068

27. Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R: Venous and arterial thrombosis in patients who received adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 1991 Feb;9(2):286–294. 10.1200/JCO.1991.9.2.286

28. Howell A, Cuzick J, Baum M, et al. : Results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial after completion of 5 years’ adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Lancet. 2005 Jan;365(9453):60–62. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17666-6

29. Barlogie B, Desikan R, Eddlemon P, et al. : Extended survival in advanced and refractory multiple myeloma after single-agent thalidomide: identification of prognostic factors in a phase 2 study of 169 patients. Blood. 2001 Jul 15;98(2):492–494. 10.1182/blood.V98.2.492

30. Rajkumar SV, Blood E, Vesole D, et al. : Phase III Clinical Trial of Thalidomide Plus Dexamethasone Compared With Dexamethasone Alone in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Clinical Trial Coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24(3):431–436. 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.0221

31. Cavo M, Zamagni E, Cellini C, et al. : Deep-vein thrombosis in patients with multiple myeloma receiving first-line thalidomide-dexamethasone therapy. Blood. 2002 Sep 15;100(6):2272–2272,2273. 10.1182/blood-2002-06-1674

32. Zangari M, Anaissie E, Barlogie B, et al. : Increased risk of deep-vein thrombosis in patients with multiple myeloma receiving thalidomide and chemotherapy. Blood. 2001 Sep 1;98(5):1614–1615. 10.1182/blood.V98.5.1614

33. Shah MA, Ilson D, Kelsen DP: Thromboembolic Events in Gastric Cancer: High Incidence in Patients Receiving Irinotecan- and Bevacizumab-Based Therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005 Apr 10;23(11):2574–2576. 10.1200/JCO.2005.81.908

34. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. : Bevacizumab plus Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004 Jun 3;350(23):2335–2342. 10.1056/NEJMoa032691

35. Zangari M, Tricot G, Polavaram L, et al. : Survival Effect of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Treated With Lenalidomide and High-Dose Dexamethasone. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):132–135. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.0169

36. Bohlius J, Wilson J, Seidenfeld J, et al. : Recombinant Human Erythropoietins and Cancer Patients: Updated Meta-Analysis of 57 Studies Including 9353 Patients. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006 May 17;98(10):708–714. 10.1093/jnci/djj189

37. Bennett CL: Venous Thromboembolism and Mortality Associated With Recombinant Erythropoietin and Darbepoetin Administration for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Anemia. JAMA. 2008 Feb 27;299(8):914–924. 10.1001/jama.299.8.914

38. Falanga A, Marchetti M, Evangelista V, et al. : Neutrophil activation and hemostatic changes in healthy donors receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Blood. 1999 Apr 15;93(8):2506–2514. 10.1182/blood.V93.8.2506

39. Canales MA, Arrieta R, Gomez-Rioja R, et al. : Induction of a Hypercoagulability State and Endothelial Cell Activation by Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Donors. J. Hematother. Stem Cell Res. 2002 Aug;11(4):675–681. 10.1089/15258160260194820

40. Spiel A, Bartko J, Schwameis M, et al. : Increased platelet aggregation and in vivo platelet activation after granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration. Thromb. Haemost. 2011 Nov 28;105(04):655–662. 10.1160/TH10-08-0530

41. Agnelli G, Bolis G, Capussotti L, et al. : A Clinical Outcome-Based Prospective Study on Venous Thromboembolism After Cancer Surgery. Ann. Surg. 2006 Jan;243(1):89–95. 10.1097/01.sla.0000193959.44677.48

42. Gardiner C, Pennaneac’h C, Mackie IJ, et al. : Falsely elevated D-dimer results in a healthy patient on account of heterophiletul antibodies. Br. J. Haematol. 2003 Sep;122(5):871–873. 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04515.x

43. Khorana AA: Venous thromboembolism and prognosis in cancer. Thromb. Res. 2010 Jun;125(6):490–493. 10.1016/j.thromres.2009.12.023

44. Khorana AA, Francis CW, Culakova E, et al. : Thromboembolism is a leading cause of death in cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2007 Mar;5(3):632–634. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02374.x

45. Nauffal D, Ballester M, Reyes RL, et al. : Influence of recent immobilization and recent surgery on mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2012 Sep;10(9):1752–1760. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04829.x

46. Cushman M: Epidemiology and risk factors for venous thrombosis. Semin. Hematol. 2007 Apr;44(2):62–69. 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2007.02.004

47. Esmon CT: Basic mechanisms and pathogenesis of venous thrombosis. Blood Rev. 2009 Sep;23(5):225–229. 10.1016/j.blre.2009.07.002

48. Hillegass E, Puthoff M, Frese EM, et al. : Role of Physical Therapists in the Management of Individuals at Risk for or Diagnosed With Venous Thromboembolism: Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline. Phys. Ther. 2016 Feb 1;96(2):143–166. 10.2522/ptj.20150264

49. Chatsis V, Visintini S: Early Mobilization for Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines. 2018 [cited 2023 May 16]. Reference Source

50. Segal R, Zwaal C, Green E, et al. : Exercise for People with Cancer: A Systematic Review. Curr. Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;24(4):290–315. 10.3747/co.24.3619

51. Spencer RP: Cancer staging and survival rates: an analysis. Anticancer Res. 1988;8(4):685–687.

52. Morgan MA, Iyengar TD, Napiorkowski BE, et al. : The Clinical Course of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients with Gynecologic Cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2002 Jan;84(1):67–71. 10.1006/gyno.2001.6452

53. Gupta SL, Jaiswal RK: Neutralizing antibody: a savior in the Covid-19 disease. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2022 Mar 6;49(3):2465–2474. 10.1007/s11033-021-07020-6

54. Brierley J, Gospodarowicz M, O’Sulivan B: The principles of cancer staging. Ecancermedicalscience. 2016 Nov 24;10. 10.3332/ecancer.2016.ed61

55. Kim J, Kim HJ, Park S, et al. : Predictive Factors of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Gynecologic Cancer Survivors with Lower Extremity Edema: A Single-Center and Retrospective Study. Healthcare. 2020 Feb 27;8(1):48. 10.3390/healthcare8010048

56. Crosby D, Bhatia S, Brindle KM, et al. : Early detection of cancer. Science (1979). 2022 Mar 18;375(6586). 10.1126/science.aay9040

57. Zheng Y, Chen Y, Yu K, et al. : Fatal Infections Among Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Study in the United States. Infect. Dis. Ther. 2021 Jun 24;10(2):871–895. 10.1007/s40121-021-00433-7

58. Elhadi M, Khaled A, Msherghi A: Infectious diseases as a cause of death among cancer patients: a trend analysis and population-based study of outcome in the United States based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Infect. Agent Cancer. 2021 Dec 31;16(1):72. 10.1186/s13027-021-00413-z

59. David EA, Andersen SW, Beckett LA, et al. : Survival benefits associated with surgery for advanced non–small cell lung cancer. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2019 Apr;157(4):1620–1628.

60. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG, et al. : Determinants of Long-Term Survival After Major Surgery and the Adverse Effect of Postoperative Complications. Ann. Surg. 2005 Sep;242(3):326–343. 10.1097/01.sla.0000179621.33268.83

61. Temraz S, Moukalled N, Gerotziafas GT, et al. : Association between Radiotherapy and Risk of Cancer Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Sub-Analysis of the COMPASS—CAT Study. Cancers (Basel). 2021 Mar 2;13(5):1033. 10.3390/cancers13051033

62. Bosco C, Garmo H, Adolfsson J, et al. : Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy and Risk of Thromboembolic Events. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017 Apr;97(5):1026–1031. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.218

63. Daguenet E, Maison M, Tinquaut F, et al. : Venous thromboembolism and radiation therapy: The final radiation-induce thrombosis study analysis. Cancer Med. 2022 Apr 24;11(8):1753–1762. 10.1002/cam4.4559

64. Guy JB, Falk AT, Chargari C, et al. : Thromboembolic events following brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2015;1:76–78. 10.5114/jcb.2015.48580

65. Byrne M, Reynolds JV, O’Donnell JS, et al. : Long-term activation of the pro-coagulant response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and major cancer surgery. Br. J. Cancer. 2010 Jan 1;102(1):73–79. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605463

66. Oppelt P, Betbadal A, Nayak L: Approach to chemotherapy-associated thrombosis. Vasc. Med. 2015 Apr 1;20(2):153–161. 10.1177/1358863X14568705

67. Meier CR, Jick H: Tamoxifen and risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1998 Jun 4;45(6):608–612.

68. Lyman GH, Eckert L, Wang Y, et al. : Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Patients With Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy: A Real-World Analysis. Oncologist. 2013 Dec 1;18(12):1321–1329. 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0226

69. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. : Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021 May 4;71(3):209–249. 10.3322/caac.21660

70. Okushi Y, Kusunose K, Okayama Y, et al. : Acute Hospital Mortality of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer From Registry Data. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2021 Jun;10(11).

71. Chew HK, Wun T, Harvey D, et al. : Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Its Effect on Survival Among Patients With Common Cancers. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006 Feb 27;166(4):458. 10.1001/archinte.166.4.458

72. Flinterman LE, Hylckama VA, Cannegieter SC, et al. : Long-Term Survival in a Large Cohort of Patients with Venous Thrombosis: Incidence and Predictors. PLoS Med. 2012 Jan 10;9(1):e1001155. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001155

73. Fennerty A: Venous thromboembolic disease and cancer. Postgrad. Med. J. 2006 Oct 1;82(972):642–648. 10.1136/pgmj.2006.046987

74. Rachman A: Raw Data - The Factors Affecting the Survivability of Malignant Cancer Patients with Deep Vein Thrombosis among Subjects with Gynecologic and Non Gynecologic Cancer An Ambispective Cohort Study.sav. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2023. 10.6084/m9.figshare.22838087.v1