ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of novel anticoagulant therapies in patients with chronic kidney disease-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban versus Dalteparin as a Treatment for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of pulmonary embolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of Factor Xa Inhibitors Versus Placebo in Thromboprophylaxis for Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Low-Molecular Weight Heparin for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in a Thai University-Affiliated Hospital.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Direct oral anticoagulants compared to low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism among individuals with gastrointestinal cancer: an updated meta-analysis.Thrombosis journal · 2025Review
- Rivaroxaban versus dalteparin for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Comparison of rivaroxaban and low molecular weight heparin in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a Swedish national population-based register study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Observational
- Risks, diagnosis, and management of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT): a narrative review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Review
- DOACs or VKAs or LMWH - What is the optimal regimen for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients.
methodsLiterature was searched in databases including Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible studies were included, and data were collected independently by 2 reviewers. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of DOACs in the treatment of VTE in cancer patients. The odds ratios (ORs) of different DOACs compared with LMWHs for VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) recurrence, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), were calculated in meta-analyses and subgroup analyses.
resultsA total of 18 articles were eligible for analyses, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective studies. Both RCTs and retrospective studies confirmed that DOACs decreased the risk of VTE recurrence [RCTs: OR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.80; retrospective studies: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90] and DVT recurrence (RCTs: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80; retrospective studies: OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.63), but not PE recurrence or fatal PE in cancer patients. Subgroup analyses revealed an important role of rivaroxaban in decreasing recurrent VTE. Meanwhile, major bleeding events were not increased in the DOAC group, but the risks of CRNMBs were significantly elevated. Subgroup analyses confirmed the role of rivaroxaban in increasing the risk of major bleeding events and CRNMBs.
conclusionsCompared with LMWHs, DOACs (especially rivaroxaban) significantly reduce the risk of VTE and DVT, but not PE recurrence, in patients with cancer. Although DOACs did not increase the major bleeding events in pooled analysis, rivaroxaban showed an elevated risk of this adverse effect in subgroup analysis. In addition, the risk of CRNMB events was increased after the application of DOACs including rivaroxaban.
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.