ReviewActa haematologica2025
Clinical Challenges in Treating Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Clinically Oriented Review.
Review in Acta haematologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment outcomes of combination versus monotherapy inAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Venous thromboembolism and secondary outcomes of bleeding and mortality in patients with gliomas: a multicenter cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Plasma D-dimer and prothrombin fragment 1+2 in evaluating the occurrence of venous thromboembolism in advanced cancer patients and the effect of preventive anticoagulant therapy.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundManaging cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a significant clinical challenge due to several factors such as increased bleeding tendency, frailty, and drug-drug interactions. For many years, the drug of choice for treating CAT was low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) entered to the therapeutic milieu of CAT. However, due to the large diversity among patients with CAT in clinical and laboratory characteristics, not all patients will equally benefit from treatment with DOACs. Furthermore, several subgroups of patients with CAT have specific characteristics that influence the anticoagulant decision-making process. SUMMARY: In this review, we present four different theoretical clinical case scenarios, each representing a different challenge that is associated with thrombosis management; brain metastasis, malignancies of the gastrointestinal tract, drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and thrombocytopenia. By reviewing current literature, we suggest our clinical approach for managing these cases in the era of DOACs. KEY MESSAGES: (1) The management of patients with brain tumors and CAT is challenging due to increased risk for both intracranial hemorrhage and recurrent venous thromboembolism. Both LMWH and DOACs are optional treatment in this setting. (2) There are conflicting data regarding the bleeding risk in patients with GI malignancies. Treatment with LMWH should be considered specifically in patients with advanced disease and unresectable tumors. (3) There is a paucity of data regarding DDI in patients with CAT. However, caution should be exercised when prescribing DOACs to patients receiving concurrent medications that either affect DOAC metabolism or influence bleeding risk. (4) The management of patients with CAT and thrombocytopenia depends on the severity of thrombocytopenia and the timing of the thrombotic event.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.