ReviewCancers2026
Anticoagulation for Cancer Patients in Special Situations: A Narrative Review of Guidelines and Literature.
Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The management of special situations-including recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombosis at unusual sites, and central venous catheter-associated thrombosis (CVC-AT)-remains particularly challenging because of the limited availability of high-quality evidence. This narrative review synthesizes recommendations from major international and Spanish clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus documents, including those from SEOM, ESMO, ASCO, NCCN, ITAC and SEMI, to provide a structured framework for the management of these complex scenarios. Our analysis identified substantial heterogeneity across guidelines, particularly regarding anticoagulant selection, dosing strategies, and treatment duration. Although some convergence exists in the management of CVC-AT, important discrepancies and evidence gaps persist in areas such as splanchnic vein thrombosis, hepatic impairment, central nervous system involvement, and recurrent VTE despite treatment. In many cases, recommendations are based primarily on expert opinion rather than robust trial data, and several clinical scenarios are addressed by only a limited number of guidelines. These findings underscore the need for more standardized management strategies and prospective clinical studies to better inform decision-making in daily practice. Overall, this review highlights the growing importance of individualized anticoagulant management aimed at balancing thrombotic and bleeding risks in high-risk oncology patients, thereby helping to bridge the gap between expert consensus and evidence-based precision anticoagulation.
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.