Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33274815›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2021

Prediction and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism.

Alok A Khorana, Maria T DeSancho, Howard Liebman, Rachel Rosovsky, Jean M Connors, Jeffrey Zwicker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ten tips for kidney biopsy in cancer patients.Clinical kidney journal · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alok A KhoranaDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Maria T DeSanchoDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Howard LiebmanJane Anne Nohl Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Southern California - Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Rachel RosovskyDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jean M ConnorsHematology Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jeffrey ZwickerDivision of Hematology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Venous and arterial thromboembolism are prevalent, highly burdensome, and associated with risk of worse outcomes for patients with cancer. Risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies widely across specific cancer subpopulations. The ability to predict risk of cancer-associated VTE is critical because an optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy is best achieved by targeting high-risk patients with cancer and avoiding prophylaxis in patients with cancer at low risk for VTE. A validated risk tool for solid tumors has been available for a decade. Newer tools have focused on specific populations, such as patients with multiple myeloma. Emerging studies continue to optimize risk prediction approaches in patients with cancer. Recent randomized trials have specifically addressed risk-adapted thromboprophylaxis using direct oral anticoagulants, and revised guidelines have included these new data to formulate recommendations for outpatient thromboprophylaxis. Implementation science approaches to enhance use of outpatient prophylaxis in the context of these guideline changes are under way. However, major knowledge gaps remain, including a lack of data for inpatient thromboprophylaxis in the cancer setting and a lack of formal tools for identifying risk of bleeding. This review describes optimal approaches to risk prediction and patient selection for primary pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis of cancer-associated VTE, addresses barriers to implementing these practices, and highlights strategies to overcome them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies widely among patients with cancer. Individual risk can be determined using validated approaches. Inpatient and postsurgical thromboprophylaxis is more widely accepted. However, most patients with cancer develop VTE in the outpatient setting. Recent randomized trials have demonstrated benefit to risk-adapted outpatient thromboprophylaxis. High-risk patients may therefore be considered for outpatient thromboprophylaxis as recommended by recently updated guidelines. System-wide implementation approaches are necessary to improve compliance with prophylaxis.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantsHemorrhageHumansRisk FactorsAnticoagulantsArterial thromboembolismCancer-associated thrombosisPreventionRisk assessmentVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID33274815
PMCPMC7794203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.