Highlights
1. Patients with active cancer face a 2.75-fold higher risk of recurrent ischemic stroke or vascular events within 90 days compared to patients without cancer, even when treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).
2. The safety profile of DAPT is significantly altered in active cancer, with a 2.5-fold increase in bleeding risk, whereas patients with cancer in remission show no significant increase in bleeding compared to non-cancer controls.
3. Hematological malignancies represent a particularly high-risk subgroup, associated with an 8-fold higher risk of new ischemic events compared to solid tumors.
4. Clinical management of minor stroke in cancer patients requires a nuanced approach, as the standard ‘one-size-fits-all’ DAPT strategy may not provide the same benefit-to-risk ratio seen in the general population.
Introduction: The Intersection of Malignancy and Cerebrovascular Disease
The management of minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) has been revolutionized by large-scale trials like CHANCE and POINT, which established short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)—typically aspirin plus clopidogrel—as the gold standard for preventing early recurrence. However, these landmark trials often excluded or under-represented patients with significant comorbidities, most notably active malignancy. As cancer survivorship increases and the population ages, clinicians are increasingly encountering patients who suffer ‘minor’ neurological events in the setting of an underlying cancer diagnosis.
Cancer-associated stroke (CAS) is a complex clinical entity. It is characterized by a unique pathophysiology involving hypercoagulability, non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis, and treatment-related complications (such as chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia or radiation-induced vasculopathy). Despite the widespread use of DAPT, it has remained unclear whether the presence of cancer—either active or in remission—modifies the effectiveness and safety of this regimen in the acute phase of minor stroke. The secondary analysis of the READAPT study provides critical evidence to fill this knowledge gap.
Study Design: Methodology of the READAPT Analysis
The READAPT study (NCT05476081) was a prospective, multicentric study designed to evaluate antiplatelet strategies in real-world clinical practice. This secondary analysis focused specifically on the influence of cancer on short-term outcomes. The inclusion criteria were stringent: patients had to have experienced a non-cardioembolic minor ischemic stroke (defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score of 5 or less) or a high-risk TIA (defined as an ABCD2 score of 4 or greater). Crucially, all included patients initiated DAPT within 48 hours of symptom onset.
The researchers categorized cancer status into ‘active’ (diagnosed within the last 6 months, receiving treatment, or metastatic) and ‘in remission’ (history of cancer but currently disease-free). To ensure a robust comparison and minimize confounding variables such as age and baseline comorbidities, the team utilized Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW). The primary effectiveness endpoint was the 90-day risk of new ischemic stroke or other major vascular events, while the primary safety endpoint was any bleeding within the same period.
Key Findings: The Burden of Active Malignancy
Out of the 1,561 patients analyzed (mean age 70.3 years), 206 (13.2%) had a history of cancer. When comparing the cancer cohort as a whole to the non-cancer cohort, the results were sobering. Even after rigorous statistical weighting, cancer patients had a significantly higher risk of 90-day new ischemic events (weighted HR 1.78; 95% CI 1.20-2.63; p = 0.004). Furthermore, their functional recovery was poorer, as evidenced by a worse 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score distribution (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.10-1.41; p < 0.001).
Active Cancer vs. Remission
The most striking findings emerged when the researchers stratified patients by cancer activity. Patients with active cancer were at the highest risk, with a weighted Hazard Ratio (wHR) of 2.75 for recurrent ischemic events. This group also experienced a significantly higher risk of bleeding (wHR 2.51; 95% CI 1.27-4.97; p = 0.008), suggesting a narrowed therapeutic window for DAPT. In sharp contrast, patients whose cancer was in remission had outcomes—both in terms of effectiveness and safety—that were statistically indistinguishable from patients who had never had cancer. This suggests that once malignancy is controlled, the cerebrovascular risk profile of these patients returns toward the baseline of the general population.
The Hematological Red Flag
The study also highlighted the extreme vulnerability of patients with hematological malignancies. Compared to those with solid tumors, patients with blood-borne cancers had a staggering 8.15-fold higher risk of new ischemic events. This likely reflects the intense systemic hypercoagulability and profound inflammatory states associated with leukemias and lymphomas, which may be less responsive to traditional platelet inhibition alone.
Expert Commentary: Mechanistic Insights and Clinical Implications
The READAPT secondary analysis underscores that ‘minor’ stroke in a patient with active cancer is rarely a minor clinical problem. The elevated risk of both ischemia and hemorrhage creates a ‘prothrombotic-hemorrhagic paradox.’ In patients with active cancer, the mechanism of stroke is often embolic from an undetermined source (ESUS) or related to Trousseau syndrome, where the coagulation cascade is activated by mucins or tissue factors released by tumor cells. Standard DAPT, which targets platelet aggregation pathways (COX-1 and P2Y12), may be insufficient to counteract this systemic thrombin generation.
From a clinical perspective, these findings suggest that for patients in cancer remission, clinicians can confidently apply standard DAPT protocols. However, for those with active malignancy—and especially hematological types—the high recurrence rate despite DAPT suggests that alternative or adjunctive strategies might be needed. Some experts suggest that low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) might play a role in specific cancer-associated stroke cases, though evidence for this in the setting of minor stroke is still emerging.
The increased bleeding risk in active cancer patients also warrants caution. Factors such as tumor-related friability, thrombocytopenia from chemotherapy, and malnutrition-induced coagulopathy likely contribute to this risk. Clinicians must carefully weigh the urgency of secondary prevention against the very real danger of major hemorrhage.
Conclusion: Moving Toward Personalized Secondary Prevention
The secondary analysis of the READAPT study provides a clear message: the effectiveness and safety of DAPT in minor stroke are heavily dependent on cancer status. While DAPT remains a safe and effective strategy for patients in cancer remission, it is associated with significantly higher risks of both recurrence and bleeding in those with active disease. These findings highlight the need for specialized management pathways for cancer-associated stroke, potentially involving multidisciplinary collaboration between neurologists, oncologists, and hematologists. Future research should focus on whether anticoagulation or intensified antiplatelet monitoring can improve outcomes in the high-risk ‘active’ and ‘hematological’ subgroups.
Funding and ClinicalTrials.gov
The READAPT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05476081. The research was supported by various institutional grants from participating Italian stroke centers and academic neurological departments.
References
1. Foschi M, De Santis F, D’Anna L, et al. Effectiveness and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and cancer: A secondary analysis of the READAPT study. Eur Stroke J. 2025;10(4):1489-1501. doi:10.1177/23969873251333282.
2. Johnston SC, Easton JD, Farrant M, et al. Clopidogrel and Aspirin in Acute Ischemic Stroke and High-Risk TIA. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(3):215-225.
3. Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhao X, et al. Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(1):11-19.
4. Navi BB, Kasner SE, Elkind MSV, et al. Cancer and Carcinoma-Associated Stroke: State of the Art and Future Directions. Stroke. 2021;52(9):2984-2997.
