Patients with cancer have an increased risk of both arterial and venous thrombotic events compared with the general population. Both the site and stage of cancer are known to contribute to the increased risk of thrombotic events. In addition, several treatment-related factors enhance the risk of thrombosis, including hospitalization, surgery, central venous catheters, radiation, and anticancer agents. Chemotherapy serves as a mainstay treatment for a broad range of malignancies. Chemotherapeutic agents typically exert antineoplastic effects through either direct cytotoxicity or inhibition of cellular processes necessary for the proliferation of malignant cells. Unfortunately, in addition to targeting malignant cells, chemotherapeutic agents are also cytotoxic to nonmalignant cells. Chemotherapeutic agents have been associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. More recently, targeted agents have been developed that offer improved selectivity towards malignant cells. However, some of these agents are also associated with an increased risk of both arterial and venous thrombosis. Here, we review the association between specific anticancer agents and thrombotic events in patients with cancer. Despite an established association in most cases, the mechanism by which these agents increase thrombosis is poorly understood. Anticancer agents may damage the endothelium, decrease anticoagulants or increase procoagulants leading to activation of coagulation, or activate platelets. An improved understanding of the mechanisms that drive the increased risk of thrombotic events associated with anticancer agents will enable treatment strategies that mitigate this risk.

Reactive and clonal neutrophil expansion has been associated with thrombosis, suggesting that neutrophils play a role in this process. However, although there is no doubt that activated monocytes trigger coagulation in a tissue factor-dependent manner, it remains uncertain whether stimulated neutrophils can also directly activate coagulation. After more than a decade of debate, it is now largely accepted that normal human neutrophils do not synthetize tissue factor, the initiator of the extrinsic pathway of coagulation. However, neutrophils may passively acquire tissue factor from monocytes. Recently, the contact system, which initiates coagulation via the intrinsic pathway, has been implicated in the pathogenesis of thrombosis. After the recent description of neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) release by activated neutrophils, some animal models of thrombosis have demonstrated that coagulation may be enhanced by direct NET-dependent activation of the contact system. However, there is currently no consensus on how to assess or quantify NETosis in vivo, and other experimental animal models have failed to demonstrate a role for neutrophils in thrombogenesis. Nevertheless, it is likely that NETs can serve to localize other circulating coagulation components and can also promote vessel occlusion independent of fibrin formation. This article provides a critical appraisal of the possible roles of neutrophils in thrombosis and highlights some existing knowledge gaps regarding the procoagulant activities of neutrophil-derived extracellular chromatin and its molecular components. A better understanding of these mechanisms could guide future approaches to prevent and/or treat thrombosis.

Polycythemia vera (PV) is a hematopoietic stem cell neoplasm defined by activating somatic mutations in the JAK2 gene and characterized clinically by overproduction of red blood cells, platelets, and neutrophils; a significant burden of disease-specific symptoms; high rates of vascular events; and evolution to a myelofibrosis phase or acute leukemia. The JAK2V617F variant allele frequency (VAF) is a key determinant of outcomes in PV, including thrombosis and myelofibrotic progression. Here, we critically review the dynamic role of JAK2V617F mutation burden in the pathogenesis and natural history of PV, the suitability of JAK2V617F VAF as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker, and the utility of JAK2V617F VAF reduction in PV treatment.

For eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), standard of care includes induction therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Daratumumab as monotherapy and in combination treatment is approved across multiple lines of therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), and lenalidomide is an effective and commonly used agent for induction and maintenance therapy in MM. However, there is concern that lenalidomide and daratumumab given as induction therapy might impair mobilization of stem cells for ASCT. Therefore, we assessed stem cell mobilization in patients following frontline induction therapy in the MASTER and GRIFFIN phase 2 clinical studies by examining stem cell mobilization yields, apheresis attempts, and engraftment outcomes for patients from each study. Adult transplantation-eligible patients with NDMM received induction therapy consisting of daratumumab plus carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-KRd) for four 28-day cycles in the single-arm MASTER trial or lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) with or without daratumumab (D) for four 21-day cycles in the randomized GRIFFIN trial, followed by stem cell mobilization and ASCT in both studies. Institutional practice differed regarding plerixafor use for stem cell mobilization; the strategies were upfront (ie, planned plerixafor use) or rescue (ie, plerixafor use only after mobilization parameters indicated failure with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] alone). Descriptive analyses were used to summarize patient characteristics, stem cell mobilization yields, and engraftment outcomes. In MASTER, 116 D-KRd recipients underwent stem cell mobilization and collection at a median of 24 days after completing induction therapy. In GRIFFIN, 175 patients (D-RVd, n = 95; RVd, n = 80) underwent mobilization at a median of 27 days after completing D-RVd induction therapy and 24 days after completing RVd induction therapy. Among those who underwent mobilization and collection, 7% (8 of 116) of D-KRd recipients, 2% (2 of 95) of D-RVd recipients, and 6% (5 of 80) of RVd recipients did not meet the center-specific minimally required CD34⁺ cell yield in the first mobilization attempt; however, nearly all collected sufficient stem cells for ASCT on remobilization. Among patients who underwent mobilization, plerixafor use, either upfront or as a rescue strategy, was higher in patients receiving D-KRd (97%; 112 of 116) and D-RVd (72%; 68 of 95) compared with those receiving RVd (55%; 44 of 80). The median total CD34⁺ cell collection was 6.0 × 10⁶/kg (range, 2.2 to 13.9 × 10⁶/kg) after D-KRd induction, 8.3 × 10⁶/kg (range, 2.6 to 33.0 × 10⁶/kg) after D-RVd induction, and 9.4 × 10⁶/kg (range, 4.1 to 28.7 × 10⁶/kg) after RVd induction; the median days for collection were 2, 2, and 1, respectively. Among patients who underwent mobilization, 98% (114 of 116) of D-KRd patients, 99% (94 of 95) of D-RVd patients, and 98% (78 of 80) of RVd patients underwent ASCT using median CD34⁺ cell doses of 3.2 × 10⁶/kg, 4.2 × 10⁶/kg, and 4.8 × 10⁶/kg, respectively. The median time to neutrophil recovery was 12 days in all 3 treatment groups across the 2 trials. Because both trials used different criteria to define platelet recovery, data on platelet engraftment using the same criteria are not available. Four cycles of daratumumab- and lenalidomide-based quadruplet induction therapy had a minimal impact on stem cell mobilization and allowed predictable stem cell harvesting and engraftment in all patients who underwent ASCT. Upfront plerixafor strategy may be considered, but many patients were successfully collected with the use of G-CSF alone or rescue plerixafor.

Evidence of the effectiveness of prophylactic use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in thrombocytopenia is lacking. To determine whether TXA safely reduces bleeding incidence in patients undergoing treatment for hematologic malignancies, a randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted from June 2016 through June 2020. Of 3120 screened adults, 356 patients were eligible and enrolled, and 337 patients (mean age, 53.9; 141 [41.8%] women), randomized to 1300 mg TXA orally or 1000 mg TXA through IV (n = 168) vs placebo (n = 169) thrice daily for maximum 30 days. Three hundred thirty patients were activated when their platelet counts fell below 30 000 per µL; 279 (83%) had complete outcome ascertainment. World Health Organization (WHO) grade ≥2 bleeding was observed in the 30 days following activation in 50.3% (73/145) and 54.2% (78/144) of patients in the TXA and placebo groups, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-1.34; P = .44). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of platelet transfusions (mean difference, 0.1; 95% CI, −1.9 to 2.0), mean days alive without grade ≥2 bleeding (mean difference, 0.8; 95% CI, −0.4 to 2.0), thrombotic events (6/163 [3.7%] TXA, 9/163 [5.5%] placebo), or deaths due to serious bleeding. Most common adverse events were: diarrhea (116/164 [70.7%] TXA and 114/163 [69.9%] placebo); febrile neutropenia (111/164 [67.7%] TXA, 105/163 [64.4%] placebo); fatigue (106/164 [64.6%] TXA, 109/163 [66.9%] placebo); and nausea (104/164 [63.4%] TXA, 97/163 [59.5%] placebo). Among patients with hematologic malignancy undergoing chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, prophylactic treatment with TXA compared with placebo did not significantly reduce the risk of WHO grade ≥2 bleeding.

The randomized, phase 2 GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) evaluated daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We present final post hoc analyses (median follow-up, 49.6 months) of clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) per revised definition (del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], and/or gain/amp[1q21]). Patients received 4 induction cycles (D-RVd/RVd), high-dose therapy/transplant, 2 consolidation cycles (D-RVd/RVd), and lenalidomide±daratumumab maintenance (≤ 2 years). Minimal residual disease–negativity (10⁻⁵) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd in patients ≥ 65 years (67.9% vs 17.9%), with HRCAs (54.8% vs 32.4%), and with gain/amp(1q21) (61.8% vs 28.6%). D-RVd showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival versus RVd (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) in patients ≥ 65 years (0.29 [0.06–1.48]), with HRCAs (0.38 [0.14–1.01]), and with gain/amp(1q21) (0.42 [0.14–1.27]). In the functional high-risk subgroup (not MRD negative at the end of consolidation), the hazard ratio was 0.82 (0.35–1.89). Among patients ≥ 65 years, grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd (88.9% vs 77.8%), as were TEAEs leading to discontinuation of ≥ 1 treatment component (37.0% vs 25.9%). One D-RVd patient died due to an unrelated TEAE. These results support the addition of daratumumab to RVd in transplant-eligible patients with high-risk NDMM.