4.6 Review

Unanswered questions in cancer-associated thrombosis

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 198, Issue 5, Pages 812-825

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18276

Keywords

anticoagulants; cancer; cancer-associated venous thromboembolism; direct oral anticoagulant; low molecular weight heparin; treatment; venous thromboembolism

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cancer-associated VTE is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Treatment of cancer-associated VTE requires considering the risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding and individualizing care based on patient factors. Available evidence suggests that direct oral anticoagulants are effective, ongoing anticoagulation is needed for patients with active cancer, and 'breakthrough' thrombotic events can be effectively treated.
Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Treatment of cancer-associated VTE comes with a heightened risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding that differs by choice of anticoagulant as well as by patient- and disease-specific risk factors. Available data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies in cancer-associated VTE suggest that direct oral anticoagulants are effective, continuing anticoagulation beyond six months is indicated in those with active cancer and that patients who develop 'breakthrough' thrombotic events can be effectively treated. We review the evidence that addresses these key clinical questions and offer pragmatic approaches in individualizing care. While significant investigative efforts over the past decade have made impactful advances, future research is needed to better define the factors that contribute to anticoagulant-related bleeding and VTE recurrence, in order to aid clinical decision-making that improves the care of patients with cancer-associated VTE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available