ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Unmet Needs and Challenges in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antithrombotic Therapy After PCI in High-Risk Cardiovascular Patients: Navigating Complexity Beyond Guidelines.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) is a significant complication in oncology, contributing to morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare utilization. Due to multiple patient- and disease-related factors, patients with cancer are at a markedly elevated risk for VTE, particularly within the first 6 months of diagnosis. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of current challenges and unmet needs in CA-VTE prediction, prevention and management. While the Khorana score remains the most widely used risk stratification tool, its limited sensitivity has prompted the development of more refined models such as PROTECHT, CONKO, ONKOTEV, Vienna-CATS, and COMPASS-CAT. These models incorporate additional clinical variables including cancer subtype, systemic therapies, comorbidities, and emerging biomarkers. However important gaps remain, particularly in addressing bleeding risk, underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, and adapting to novel cancer therapeutics. Recent clinical trials (AVERT, CASSINI) have supported the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for primary and secondary prophylaxis in select high-risk populations. However, anticoagulation strategies in complex populations, including those with thrombocytopenia, brain tumors, or concurrent antiplatelet therapy, remain areas of active investigation. Future directions include the integration of genomics, proteomics, and machine learning into risk modeling to enable precision medicine approaches. Ongoing clinical trials are testing the promise of safer prophylactic and therapeutic strategies. Personalized risk assessment and treatment of CA-VTE remain essential to improving patient outcomes in oncology. By consolidating existing evidence and identifying key unmet needs, this review seeks to guide more personalized and effective management of CA-VTE.
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.