Key result
Thromboprophylaxis strategies for cancer patients vary by setting, with established models for ambulatory patients but significant evidence gaps remaining for hospitalized and surgical patients.
Why the study?
Venous thromboembolism is a common, burdensome complication in cancer patients, making high-risk patient identification and primary thromboprophylaxis clinically important despite ongoing evidence gaps.
This review outlines current strategies and evidence gaps for primary VTE prevention in cancer patients across ambulatory, hospitalized, and surgical settings.
Evidence gaps in hospitalized and surgical cancer patients caution against uniform strategies; leaves open optimal thromboprophylaxis for dedicated trials.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in cancer patients, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality as well as high risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding. Furthermore, it impairs quality of life, interferes with anti-cancer treatment schedules, and increases costs. Therefore, identifying patients at high VTE risk and primary prevention are of clinical importance. In ambulatory patients, specific risk assessment models and clinical trials on primary thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparins and direct oral factor Xa inhibitors are available. In hospitalized medical patients, there is lack of evidence. In surgical patients, no specific VTE risk assessment tools have been developed. However, extended thromboprophylaxis after major abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery is recommended because VTE risk persists beyond hospital discharge. In this review, we provide an overview on thromboprophylaxis strategies for patients with cancer in the ambulatory, hospitalized, and surgical setting. We also highlight recent advances and discuss evidence gaps.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steiner et al. (2022) conducted a review in Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. Thromboprophylaxis was evaluated. Thromboprophylaxis strategies for cancer patients vary by setting, with established models for ambulatory patients but significant evidence gaps remaining for hospitalized and surgical patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: