4.6 Review

Low molecular weight heparin and cancer survival: clinical trials and experimental mechanisms

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-016-2131-6

关键词

Cancer; Low molecular weight heparin; Survival; Randomized trial; Molecular mechanisms

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [81101972, 81272884]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-15691]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between cancer and thrombosis is complex, as the hemostatic system is inextricably linked to the mechanisms of cancer growth and metastasis. The coagulation system thus appears to be a site for oncogenic events and necessary for the survival and spread of malignant cells. Although several meta-analyses on the effectiveness of unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) have suggested a lower mortality risk in cancer patients receiving LMWH, this contention has not received general acceptance. In fact, there exist no sufficiently powered studies to date supporting the routine use of LMWH to improve cancer survival. Meanwhile, the molecular mechanism underlying the anti-neoplastic effect of LMWH which is independent of its anti-coagulant function is largely unexplored and is a topic of active investigation. In this communication, we aimed to review comprehensively evidences from clinical trials, meta-analysis as well as experimental molecular research and to identify future research areas of importance so as to stimulate future research on the potential anti-tumor action of LMWH. Although benefit of LMWH on cancer patients' survival is controversial depending on the tumor type, cancer stage as well as LMWH type, it appears to be associated with a reduction in VTE and increased bleeding is minor and controllable; thus, randomized controlled trials targeting the survival benefit of certain specific LWMH are needed and justified, and more in-depth experimental researches are imperative to elucidate the anti-tumor effect of anticoagulants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据