ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2026
Direct oral anticoagulants in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: trial robustness and clinical trade-offs.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are often favored over low-molecular-weight heparin for cancer-associated thrombosis, the robustness of trial evidence supporting their use remains uncertain. Objectives: We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and statistical robustness of DOACs vs dalteparin in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods: We identified phase 3 to 4 randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs with dalteparin in PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE up to August 2025. Primary efficacy was total recurrent VTE; secondary outcomes included recurrent deep vein thrombosis, recurrent PE, and all-cause mortality. Fragility index (FI), reverse FI, and fragility quotients were calculated alongside absolute and relative risk reductions, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm (NNH). Results: Five randomized controlled trials including 3055 patients were analyzed. DOACs reduced recurrent VTE across trials (NNT, 17.7-41.9), but benefits were frequently counterbalanced by risk of major bleeding (NNH, 17.6-45). Fragility analyses revealed limited robustness: FI/reverse FI of ≤5 in most efficacy and mortality outcomes. Smaller trials (apixaban and dalteparin in active malignancy associated venous thromboembolism and Selected Cancer Patients at Risk of Recurrence of Venous Thromboembolism) demonstrated higher absolute efficacy (NNT, <20) but extreme fragility (FI, 0-2), whereas larger trials (Hokusai VTE Cancer, Caravaggio, and Cancer Associated Thrombosis, a Pilot Treatment Study Using Rivaroxaban) showed modest absolute benefits with slightly higher stability. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism recurrence outcomes were particularly fragile, while mortality effects were inconsistent across studies. Conclusions: DOACs are viable alternatives to low-molecular-weight heparin for cancer-associated thrombosis, but their comparative efficacy is statistically fragile and offset by bleeding risk. Considering these findings, treatment decisions require an individualized approach, weighing comorbidities and bleeding risk.
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.