ReviewESMO open2017
Antithrombotic therapy for prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: review of the literature on current practice and emerging options.
Review in ESMO open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Associations between model-predicted rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics and efficacy and safety outcomes in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2020Trial
- Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Oncology: A MITO-MaNGO Survey.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Heparin beyond anti-coagulation.Current research in translational medicine · 2021Review
- Review
- Review
- Direct oral anticoagulants compared to low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Article
- ONKOTEV Score as a Predictive Tool for Thromboembolic Events in Pancreatic Cancer-A Retrospective Analysis.The oncologist · 2020Article
- Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke Risk in Patients With Cancer: A Primer for Oncologists.Journal of oncology practice · 2019Review
- Anticoagulation Strategies in Patients With Cancer: JACC Review Topic of the Week.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2019Review
- Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) as an Alternative Treatment Option in Tumor-Related Venous Thromboembolism.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019Article
- Review
- How I treat cancer special issue.ESMO open · 2019Article
- Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill.Thrombosis journal · 2019Review
- Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with an increased risk of bleeding.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2018Article
- Evaluation of Venous Thromboembolic Event Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Cancer Patients: A Single-Centered Retrospective Study.Journal of research in pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is difficult because cancer patients with VTE on anticoagulation are at an increased risk of bleeding compared with patients without VTE. This review summarises the evidence supporting the current standard of care and emerging treatment options. In difficult-to-treat subpopulations, where clinical data are often lacking, this review also provides the best clinical practice strategies based on the available data. The use of therapeutic doses of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with cancer-associated VTE for at least 3 to 6 months is supported by the current clinical data. After major cancer surgery, extended thromboprophylaxis for approximately 1 month following hospital discharge is also supported. In select populations of ambulatory cancer patients with solid tumours, or in patients with myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents in combination with chemotherapy and/or corticosteroids, pharmacological prophylaxis could be considered. Although parenteral anticoagulants may not be tolerated by some patients, the data pertaining to the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in cancer patients with VTE at this point can only be considered hypothesis generating. Clarity of the use of DOACs is awaiting the results of head-to-head trials between DOACs and parenteral anticoagulants. In addition, because of the lack of clinical trials, there are still unanswered questions on the optimal treatment regimens in subpopulations at increased risk of bleeding, including cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and those with brain metastases. For clinicians to balance the risk of recurrent thrombosis with the chance of bleeding, they need to assess the relevant clinical data. Current data support the use of parenteral anticoagulants in cancer patients with VTE, but many unanswered questions pertaining to the optimal regimens in special subpopulations and regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs remain. To address this need, there are currently several clinical trials under way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.