Why the study?
The management of cancer-associated thrombosis remains complex, and DOACs have gained attention as potential alternatives to LMWHs in selected oncology populations.
Does direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) improve clinical efficacy and safety compared to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis?
Does direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) improve clinical efficacy and safety compared to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis?
This narrative review highlights DOACs as a practical oral alternative to LMWHs for cancer-associated thrombosis, emphasizing the need for individualized dosing due to bleeding risks and drug interactions.
DOACs may warrant consideration in select CAT patients; narrative review leaves open need for definitive RCTs.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent and serious complication observed in patients with malignancy. The management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) remains complex and multifactorial, influenced by cancer type, stage, comorbidities, and ongoing therapeutic regimens. Among anticoagulation strategies, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have gained increasing attention as potential alternatives to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in selected oncology populations. This narrative review evaluates the role of DOACs in the treatment of CAT, focusing on their clinical efficacy, safety considerations, and practical advantages, including oral administration and patient adherence. However, their use may be limited in certain cancer types and patients with renal or hepatic impairment. DOACs have also raised concerns regarding bleeding risks, drug interactions, and individualized dosing strategies. This review also highlights ongoing challenges such as optimal treatment duration, real-world applicability, and patient-specific considerations. The discussion aims to assess current data and clinical guidance while identifying future directions for integrating DOACs into standard oncology practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qureshi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: