Search

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) disease is the second leading cause of mortality in cancer patients. In the general population, the annual incidence of a thromboembolic event is about 117 cases per 100,000 persons, but cancer increases this risk about fourfold, while in patients receiving chemotherapy and surgical treatment, it is about sevenfold. Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is the most common form of oral cancer and represents a multistep process in which environmental factors and genetic alterations are implicated. Thrombotic risk is considered empirically low in OSCC patients, although few data are available. Having limited information available may result in poor awareness of VTE prevention in OSCC, risking jeopardising the oncologic treatment and increasing the morbidity and mortality among these patients. In this paper, the topic of OSCC-associated thrombosis will be discussed.

Background. Regular treatment to prevent bleeding and consequent joint deterioration (prophylaxis) is the standard of care for persons with severe hemophilia A, traditionally based on intravenous infusions of the deficient clotting FVIII concentrates (CFCs). In recent years, extended half‐life (EHL) CFCs and the non‐replacement agent emicizumab, subcutaneously administered, have reduced the treatment burden. Methods. To compare and integrate the opinions on the different therapies available, eight hemophilia specialists were involved in drafting items of interest and relative statements through the Estimate‐Talk‐Estimate (ETE) method (“mini‐Delphi”), in this way reaching consensus. Results. Eighteen items were identified, then harmonized to 10, and a statement was generated for each. These statements highlight the importance of personalized prophylaxis regimens. CFCs, particularly EHL products, seem more suitable for this, despite the challenging intravenous (i.v.) administration. Limited real‐world experience, particularly in some clinical settings, and the lack of evidence on long‐term safety and efficacy of non‐replacement agents, require careful individual risk/benefit assessment and multidisciplinary data collection. Conclusions. The increased treatment options extend the opportunities of personalized prophylaxis, the mainstay of modern management of hemophilia. Close, long‐term clinical and laboratory follow‐up of patients using newer therapeutic approaches by specialized hemophilia treatment centers is needed.