Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology logoLink to Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology
. 2020 Mar 18;12:1758835920907540. doi: 10.1177/1758835920907540

Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Miao Liu 1,2, Guiyue Wang 3,4, Yuhang Li 5,6, Hongliang Wang 7, Haitao Liu 8, Nana Guo 9, Ci Han 10, Yahui Peng 11, Mengyuan Yang 12, Yansong Liu 13, Xiaohui Ma 14, Kaijiang Yu 15, Changsong Wang 16,✉
PMCID: PMC7081475  PMID: 32215058

Abstract

Background:

Thrombosis is a common complication in patients with cancer. Whether thromboprophylaxis could benefit patients with cancer is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy.

Methods:

We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published before May 2018 to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis measures were more effective than a placebo in patients with cancer.

Results:

In total, 33 trials with 11,942 patients with cancer were identified. In patients with cancer undergoing surgery, the administration of thromboprophylaxis was associated with decreasing trends in venous thromboembolism (VTE) [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–0.81] and DVT (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.87). In patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, the administration of thromboprophylaxis reduced the incidences of VTE, DVT, and pulmonary embolism compared with no thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40–0.73; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31–0.73; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.81, respectively). The pooled results regarding major bleeding showed no significant difference between prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in either the surgical or the chemotherapy groups (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.74–7.52, p = 0.1482, I2 = 0%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93–1.83, p = 0.1274, I2 = 0%, respectively).

Conclusion:

Thromboprophylaxis did not increase major bleeding events or the incidence of thrombocytopenia. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who received thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. This meta-analysis provides evidence that thromboprophylaxis can reduce the number of VTE and DVT events, with no apparent increase in the incidence of major bleeding in patients with cancer.

Keywords: cancer, major bleeding, thromboprophylaxis, venous thromboembolism

Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major complication of cancer that occurs in 4–20% of patients with cancer.1 The incidence of VTE in patients with cancer is 4–7-times higher than in patients without cancer.2,3 VTE not only prolongs the hospitalization time of patients but is also related to higher medical expenses.4,5 Furthermore, it complicates the clinical management of cancer and may terminate or delay the required anticancer treatment.6 The survival rate in patients with cancer with VTE is only one-third of that in other patients with cancer.7

Thromboprophylaxis may be beneficial for patients with cancer; however, it also increases the risk of bleeding and thrombocytopenia.8 Currently, scholars are debating the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. Different guidelines give different recommendations regarding whether to use thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. The European Society for Medical Oncology guideline recommends the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin or fondaparinux in patients with cancer admitted for medical complications, citing lower VTE incidence without increased major bleeding with these drugs compared with the alternatives.9 The 2017 Asian venous thromboembolism guidelines indicate that in patients undergoing chemotherapy, adequate hydration and frequent mobilization decrease the risk of VTE. Pharmacological prophylaxis may not be indicated.10 Whether thromboprophylaxis is beneficial for patients with cancer is unclear.

The mechanism underlying VTE in patients with cancer receiving different therapies is multifactorial and includes tissue factor-induced activation of coagulation, stasis as a result of surgery, limb paresis and vessel wall injury due to chemotherapy.11 In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis to a placebo or no thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy.

Materials and methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines12 (Table S1). The review protocol is available on PROSPERO under registration number CRD42018104521 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases from 1 January 1960 to 30 May 2018, using a combination of medical subject headings and keywords (Table S2). Reference lists from published meta-analyses and review articles were manually searched to identify any other relevant studies.

Study selection

The titles and abstracts of the identified articles were independently reviewed by two groups of authors to determine their eligibility.

Summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

  • All randomized and quasirandomized trials were eligible.

  • Age of patients in the study was >18 years.

  • Patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy.

  • Interventions included parenteral or oral anticoagulants (bemiparin/enoxaparin/dalteparin/warfarin/low-molecular-weight heparin/gemcitabine/apixaban/certoparin/subcutaneous/semuloparin/unfractionated heparin/nadroparin/calcium heparin/LMWH anti-FXa) or mechanical intervention (pneumatic compression).

  • The intervention and control arms included placebo, no treatment, standard care, observation, and chemotherapy groups.

  • Types of outcome measures: the inclusion criteria included one or more of the following outcomes: venous thromboembolism (VTE)/deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE)/major bleeding/all-cause mortality/thrombocytopenia.

Exclusion criteria

  • Editorials, reviews, abstracts or conference proceedings.

  • Ineligible study designs.

  • Controlled studies, observational cohort studies, or case–control studies.

  • No relevant population or study setting.

  • Patients aged <18 years.

  • No relevant intervention or outcome.

  • Animal studies.

Data extraction and quality assessment

We extracted the following basic study information from each eligible article: the name of the first author, publication year, country of the study, study design, sample size, demographic and procedural characteristics, diagnostic methods, follow-up duration, details of the experimental interventions, and the clinical and safety outcomes for the patients with cancer. When publications with overlapping populations were available, the publication with the most complete and relevant set of data was chosen.

The primary outcomes of this study were VTE, DVT, and PE in patients with cancer. The secondary outcomes of this study were major bleeding, all-cause mortality and thrombocytopenia. VTE included asymptomatic or symptomatic PE and DVT. DVT and PE in the same patient was recorded as a single event. VTE, DVT, and PE were diagnosed by Doppler imaging, ventilation/perfusion scanning, computed tomography angiography, venography, or autopsy. Major bleeding was defined as clinically overt bleeding associated with a decrease in the hemoglobin level of at least 2 g/dl or the need for a transfusion of two or more units of packed red cells. Thrombocytopenia was defined as a fall in platelet count below 100,000/ml or a fall >50% from baseline.

Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool,13,14 and the graphs were generated by Review Manager. The data were separately extracted by two groups of authors, and data comparison, quality assessment and verification procedures were performed afterwards. Disagreements about study data extraction and quality assessment were resolved by consensus or by discussion with a third party.

Quality of evidence assessment

We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach15–17 to assess the quality of evidence of the main outcomes. The quality of evidence was based on the presence of the following: limitations in study design, inconsistencies, indirectness, imprecision of the results, and publication bias. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was graded as very low, low, moderate, or high.

Statistical analyses

The statistical analyses were performed using the Meta package in R (version 3.4.1). We used relative risk (RR) values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as approximations of the outcomes of the included patients. When the 95% CI does not include 1.0, the difference is considered statistically significant. Data with an RR > 1 indicated a high incidence of VTE, DVT and PE. The heterogeneity of the eligible studies was measured using Cochran’s Q statistic and the I2 test. Both I2 < 50% and p > 0.1 were considered to indicate a low level of heterogeneity. A random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) was applied in the meta-analysis. The funnel plot is a universal method for identifying publication bias; it provides a visual sense of the relationship between effect size and precision. We assessed bias associated with small study size, such as publication bias, using funnel plots by plotting RRs on the vertical axis and comparing them to standard errors on the horizontal axis. We used asymmetry coefficients to assess asymmetry; that is, we examined the difference in unit relative risk increases in the standard error, which is primarily a sample size substitute. Symmetry can be expected if there are no biases associated with small-scale research. For results with significant heterogeneity, we conducted a subgroup analysis to explore sources of heterogeneity, including tumor type, drug type, and surgery. We also performed sensitivity analyses by assessing the effect of removing individual studies on the pooled RR.

Subgroup analyses

We reclassified the included studies and performed subgroup analyses according to the different types of interventions, the different types of cancers or surgeries, the terminal stage of the cancer and whether central venous catheters (CVCs) were used in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. We classified the thromboprophylaxis interventions as LMWH and warfarin, removing a study in which semuloparin was used. In addition, the studies involving mechanical interventions were stratified by type of intervention in a single forest plot. For patients who underwent chemotherapy, we classified the studies into those examining hematological malignancies, lung tumors and abdominal tumors. For patients who underwent surgeries, we classified the studies into those examining gynecologic tumors, brain tumors and abdominal tumors.

Results

Study selection

In total, 13,086 studies were initially returned by the database searches; 12,993 were excluded because they were duplicates, unrelated trials, or non randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or because they involved adult patients without cancer. Therefore, 93 studies were eligible for full text review. Of these, 42 did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 18 did not report the outcomes investigated herein. Finally, 33 studies were included, and their data were included in the meta-analysis. The article selection process is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Study selection.

RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Study characteristics

The 33 studies11,18–49 included a total of 11,942 patients with cancer, of whom 2037 received surgical treatment11,18–27 and 9950 received chemotherapy.28–49 We performed meta-analyses stratified by treatment type. The most commonly used prophylactic drugs were heparin or heparin-like compounds, which were used in 16 studies. Overall, five studies used warfarin, and two used mechanical preventive measures as interventions. Only one study used multiple treatments (enoxaparin plus intermittent pneumatic compression) to prevent thrombosis. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis differs from pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with regard to the risk profile of the patient.50 In addition, from a clinical viewpoint, it does not make sense to include the studies that used mechanical thromboprophylaxis in the surgical group. Therefore, these two studies were not included in the main analyses for each outcome. Instead, we grouped them together in the subgroup analyses. The characteristics of the included trials and the outcomes assessed are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of included trials.

First author Country Number of patients (n) Cancer Intervention (n)
 Placebo Outpatients/inpatients
Drugs or nondrugs Dosage Administration
Bergqvist et al.18 France 332 Abdominal or pelvic cancer Enoxaparin 40 mg s.c. enoxaparin once daily for 19–21 days Placebo Inpatients
Cerrato et al.19 Italy 100 Brain cancer Calcium heparin 5000 U Give calcium heparin subcutaneously 2 h before surgery and every 8 h thereafter for at least 7 days. No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Clarke-Pearson et al.20 USA 185 Gynecological tumor Sodium heparin 5000 U s.c. 2 h preoperatively and every 12 h postoperatively for the first 7 postoperative days. Placebo Inpatients
Clarke-Pearson et al.21 USA 194 Gynecological tumor Perioperative external pneumatic calf compression NA Calf compression continued until discharge from the recovery room or through the first 24 h postoperatively No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Gondret et al.22 France 40 Head and neck cancer Enoxaparin 0.2 ml Once a day, for 8 days after the operation Placebo Inpatients
Kakkar et al.23 Italy 625 Abdominal or pelvic cancer Bemiparin 0.2 ml s.c. injections of bemiparin sodium for 20 ± 2 additional days. Placebo Inpatients
Negm et al.24 Egypt 40 Hepatocellular carcinoma LMWH enoxaparin 1 IU/kg Twice daily for 2 weeks from the first day of TACE No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Perry et al.11 Canada 186 Malignant glioma LMWH dalteparin 5000 IU s.c. once daily Placebo Inpatients
Shukla et al.25 India 99 Colorectal cancer Dalteparin sodium 2500 IU s.c. about 2 h before surgery, followed by 2500 IU daily subcutaneously in the morning the prophylaxis was continued until day 6 ± 1. No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Srikuea et al.26 Thailand 108 Gynecological and urological cancer Enoxaparin 0.4 ml Started after drain removal until 4 weeks postoperatively No thromboprophylaxis Outpatients
Turpie et al.27 Canada 128 Brain cancer Pneumatic compression NA Intermittent calf compression was started during the immediate postoperative period and was continued for a maximum of 5 days No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Abdelkefi et al.28 Tunisia 108 Hematological malignancies UFH 100 IU/kg/d Continuous infusion of 100 IU/kg/daily, with a maximal dose of UFH 10,000 IU daily No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Agnelli et al.29 Italy 1150 Metastatic or locally advanced solid cancer Nadroparin 3800 IU Receive subcutaneous injections of nadroparin once a day. Study treatment was started on the same day as chemotherapy, and was given for the duration of chemotherapy or up to a maximum of 120 days (±10 days). Placebo Ambulatory patients
Agnelli et al.30 3212 Cancer of the lung, pancreas, stomach, colon or rectum, bladder, or ovary s.c. semuloparin 20 mg 20 mg once daily, or placebo until there was a change of chemotherapy regimen Placebo Inpatients
Bern et al.31 England 87 Colon, breast Warfarin 1 mg Warfarin therapy was continued at this dose for 90 days or until there was venogram evidence of thrombosis. Placebo Inpatients
Boraks et al.32 UK 223 Hematological malignancies Warfarin 1 mg/d From the time of line insertion until removal No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Doormaal et al.33 Italy 498 Hormone-refractory prostate cancer, non-small cell lung cancer IIIB, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer Nadroparin 50 kg, 3800 IU twice daily; 50–70 kg, 11,400 IU once daily; 70 kg, 15,200 IU once daily Followed by half-therapeutic doses for an additional 4 weeks (50 kg, 3800 IU once daily; 50–70 kg, 5700 IU once daily; 70 kg, 7600 IU once daily) No thromboprophylaxis group Inpatients
Ek et al.34 Canada, Sweden, Denmark 377 SCLC Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg Study drug was started on day 1 of chemotherapy and continued until the 21st day of the last chemotherapy cycle. No thromboprophylaxis group Inpatients
Haas et al.35 Germany, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Romania, and Belarus. 898 Metastatic breast cancer or stage III/IV lung cancer Certoparin 3000 IU Once daily for 6 months Placebo Inpatients
Heaton et al.36 New Zealand 88 Hematological malignancies Warfarin NA Receive either a daily minidose of warfarin No anticoagulation Inpatients
Kakkar et al.37 UK 385 Advanced Cancer Dalteparin 5000 IU Receive once-daily s.c. injections of dalteparin Placebo Inpatients
Karthaus et al.38 Germany 439 Cancer Dalteparin 5000 IU Within 5–7 days of catheter placement, to receive dalteparin injected subcutaneously once daily. Placebo Inpatients
Levine et al.39 Canada 311 Breast cancer very-low-dose warfarin 1 mg Daily for 6 weeks while placebo patients took an identical inert tablet daily Placebo Inpatients?
Levine et al.40 Canada, USA 125 Advanced or metastatic lung, breast, gastrointestinal, bladder, ovarian or prostate cancers, cancer of unknown origin, myeloma or selected lymphomas Apixaban 5 mg, 10 mg or 20 mg Once daily of apixaban Placebo Inpatients
Maraveyas et al.43 UK 123 Advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Burris schedule) for 3 months stratified by extent of disease (LA versus M), and KPS (90–100 versus 80–60). No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Maraveyas et al.42 UK 121 Pancreatic adenocarcinoma Gemcitabine with weight-adjusted dalteparin 200 IU/kg Once daily subcutaneously for 4 weeks followed by a step down to 150 IU/kg for a further 8 weeks Gemcitabine Inpatients
Monreal et al.41 Spain 29 Cancer LMWH 2500 IU s.c. Once a daily, starting 2 h before insertion of the catheter No thromboprophylaxis Inpatients
Niers et al.44 Netherlands 113 Hematological malignancies LMWH anti-FXa 2850 U Started 2 h before insertion of the CVC, and was continued for 3 weeks or until the day of CVC removal Placebo Inpatients
Pelzer et al.45 Germany 312 Advanced pancreatic cancer enoxaparin 1 mg/kg Once daily subcutaneously Observation group Outpatients
Young et al.46 UK 812 Cancer Warfarin 1 mg/d From 3 days before CVC insertion. Patients took oral warfarin every day until thrombosis occurred or the catheter had to be removed for any reason and patients were able to temporarily discontinue treatment in the event of thrombocytopenia No thromboprophylaxis N/a
Khorana et al.47 USA 98 Malignancy cancer Dalteparin 500 units 5000 units s.c. daily or observation for a period of 12 weeks Observation group Inpatients
Verso et al.48 Italy 385 Cancer Enoxaparin 40 mg Dose of 40 mg once daily Placebo Inpatients
Lecumberri et al.49 Spain 38 Cancer Bemiparin 3500 IU The same first-line therapy + bemiparin 3500 IU subcutaneous daily for 26 weeks (or until disease progression, whatever appeared first), starting the first day of chemotherapy Chemoradiotherapy Inpatients
Open in a new tab

CVC, central venous catheter; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; LA, xxxxxx; LMWH, low-molecular-weight heparin; M, xxxxxxx; N/A, not available; s.c., subcutaneously; SCLC, xxxxxxx; TACE, xxxxxxx; UFH, unfractionated heparin.

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias ratings for the included studies using the Cochrane tool are presented in Figures S1, S2 and Appendix 1. The two abstracts26,42 included in this report were assessed as having an unclear risk of bias. A total of 18 RCTs were identified with low to moderate levels of risk of bias. We identified 1 trial43 with a high risk of bias in terms of the sequence generation and 2 trials46,47 with high levels of risk of bias in terms of the blinding of the outcome assessors. The funnel plots and Egger’s regression test for primary and secondary outcomes suggested no statistically significant publication bias. For all-cause mortality in patients undergoing chemotherapy, publication bias was observed. The sensitivity analysis and funnel plots of every outcome are shown in Figures S3–S24.

Primary outcomes

VTE

The primary outcome was the incidence of VTE. A total of 9 trials, including 1577 patients in the surgery group and 20 trials, including 9377 patients in the chemotherapy group were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of this outcome. The results revealed significant differences in VTE between the groups that received prophylaxis and those that did not (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.81, p = 0.0046, I2 = 46.4%; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.4–0.73, p < 0.0001, I2 = 49%, respectively; Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the risk ratio for VTE between thromboprophylaxis and no thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery (upper panel) and chemotherapy (lower panel).

CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

DVT

A total of 7 trials, including 1497 patients in the surgery group and 12 trials, including 7751 patients in the chemotherapy group reported data on DVT events. Significant differences were observed for this outcome between those who received prophylaxis and those who did not (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, p = 0.0111, I2 = 31.6%; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31–0.73, p = 0.0007, I2 = 46%, respectively; Figure 3). The sensitivity analysis showed no substantive differences.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the risk ratio for DVT between thromboprophylaxis and no thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery (upper panel) and chemotherapy (lower panel).

CI, confidence interval; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; RR, relative risk.

PE

With regard to PE, five trials with 1289 patients in the surgery group showed no significant difference between the prophylaxis and no prophylaxis treatment groups (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.26–2.19, p = 0.6105, I2 = 0%). In the chemotherapy group, which comprised 11 trials including 7776 patients, the results revealed differences in PE between the prophylaxis and no prophylaxis groups (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.81, p = 0.0048, I2 = 0%; Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the risk ratio for PE between thromboprophylaxis and no thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery (upper panel) and chemotherapy (lower panel).

CI, confidence interval; PE, pulmonary embolism; RR, relative risk.

Secondary outcomes

Major bleeding

With regard to major bleeding, the pooled results showed no significant difference between prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in either the surgical or the chemotherapy groups (RR 2.2, 95% CI 0.65–7.39, p = 0.2036, I2 = 0%; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87–1.75, p = 0.2444, I2 = 0%, respectively; Figure S25).

All-cause mortality

Thrombus prophylaxis did not result in a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared with no prophylaxis in either the surgery group or the chemotherapy group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85–1.63, p = 0.3159, I2 = 0%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82–1.05, p = 0.2461, I2 = 27%, respectively; Figure S26).

Thrombocytopenia

Only eight studies, including 2436 patients in the chemotherapy group were eligible for the assessment of this outcome. The results revealed no significant difference in thrombocytopenia between the prophylaxis and no prophylaxis groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76–1.17, p = 0.5857, I2 = 0%; Figure S27).

Results of subgroup analyses

For patients who underwent chemotherapy using CVCs, there were no significant differences in VTE (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.39–1.78, p = 0.01, I2 = 63%). After classification according to cancer type, the results showed no difference in VTE between patients with hematological malignancy (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.94–4.03, p = 0.58, I2 = 0) and patients with gynecological tumors (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.41–1.75, p = 0.05, I2 = 63%; Appendix 2).

Quality of evidence

In patients with cancer who had surgery, the quality of evidence was graded as high for VTE. The quality of evidence for DVT was assessed as moderate because one study identified a high risk of bias in blinding. The quality of evidence for PE and major bleeding was assessed as moderate due to imprecision. The quality of evidence for all-cause mortality was considered to be moderate because the result crossed the line of no effect and was imprecise, with wide CIs. For the patients who underwent chemotherapy, the evidence regarding VTE, DVT and PE outcomes was of high GRADE quality. The evidence regarding major bleeding was of moderate quality due to the high risk of bias for blinding. The evidence regarding thrombocytopenia was of moderate quality because the 95% CI excluded a RR of 1.0. Due to publication bias and crossing the line of no effect, the evidence related to all-cause mortality was graded as low quality in this group (Table S3).

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the evidence concerning the use of thromboprophylaxis in adult patients with cancer, and different types of drug and nondrug thromboprophylaxis treatments are represented. In terms of efficacy, we evaluated the incidence of VTE, DVT and PE in both groups. Statistically significant decreases in VTE and DVT events were found in patients who received thromboprophylaxis compared with those who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. Furthermore, the incidence of PE decreased in patients who underwent chemotherapy. It was important to evaluate the safety of the thromboprophylaxis treatments, so we compared the incidences of major bleeding and thrombocytopenia. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients who did and did not receive thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylaxis did not increase major bleeding events or the incidence of thrombocytopenia.

Thrombosis is a serious complication in cancer and surgical patients, and its prevalence is increasing yearly. The research on thromboprophylaxis has recently been updated. In 2012, Di Nisio and colleagues conducted a study on thromboprophylaxis in outpatient chemotherapy patients and found that anticoagulant drugs reduced the incidence of thrombosis.51 In 2015, the same conclusion was reached for thoracic and cardiac surgery.52 The American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism suggest that patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive preoperative preventive thromboprophylaxis and continue treatment for at least 7–10 days.53 However, these recommendations were based on older meta-analyses that included only a small number of gynecological and general surgeries.43–56 Our study included 30 RCTs that were high-quality, large-scale trials in this field and used GRADEpro to assess the methodologic quality of the included studies. Our study adds more credible research evidence to support the guidelines. In 2016, Qiang and colleagues focused on the prevention of thrombosis in perioperative patients with cancer and found that thromboprophylaxis reduced the incidence of VTE to a certain extent but increased the incidence of bleeding.57 Akl and colleagues analyzed different drugs and reported that LMWH reduced 90-day mortality compared with unfractionated heparin, but neither VTE nor bleeding events showed significant differences according to the drug used.58 In Brunetti’s meta-analysis, direct oral anticoagulants seemed to be as effective and well tolerated as the conventional treatment for the prevention of VTE in patients with cancer in comparison with vitamin-K inhibitors. Higher bleeding rates were found when direct oral anticoagulants were used compared with LMWH.59 In contrast, although the outcome for VTE in our study was the same as those in the other studies, our meta-analysis was larger than those previously published and included more patients and more interventions. We chose major bleeding rather than all relevant bleeding events as a safety outcome. Major bleeding is a serious adverse clinical event related to hospitalization time and medical expenses.

Because of the varied clinical therapies used, the mechanisms and incidence of thrombosis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery and chemotherapy are significantly different. Patients with cancer undergoing surgery have a VTE risk 2–4 times that of nonsurgical patients with cancer.60 The reasons for thrombosis in this population are mainly extensive tissue and vascular injury, postoperative tissue factor exposure, procoagulant active cytokine release and postoperative patient activity to reduce blood stasis.11

Nonsurgical treatments for cancer, such as chemotherapy, also increase the risk of VTE. Several studies have found that the incidence of VTE in patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy drugs increased by 2–5-times compared with the incidence in those not treated with chemotherapy.61 Chemotherapy can cause vascular endothelial injury, initiate endothelial procoagulant mechanisms, reduce the levels of anticoagulants and increase the levels of type I plasminogen activator inhibitors.62,63 In addition, the risk of VTE in chemotherapy patients with long-term use of central venous catheterization is significantly higher than in those without central venous catheterization.32 Due to the difference between surgical and chemotherapy patients, we analyzed the two groups separately. Our review is the first comprehensive assessment of this issue and is valuable for guiding clinical practice.

While in subgroup analyses, we found that there were no differences in VTE in patients who underwent chemotherapy using CVCs, patients with hematological malignancy and patients with gynecological tumors underwent surgeries. Patients with hematological malignancy often required high-dose chemotherapy, and CVCs were usually used as vascular pathways for delivering chemotherapeutic drugs. In the context of chemotherapy, more RCTs are required to verify the significance of the thrombus prevention effect of thromboprophylaxis in this group of patients. In addition, severe thrombocytopenia may lead to prevention concerns in patients with hematological malignancy.64 However, for patients with gynecological tumors, preventive measures are recommended because of the high incidence of VTE65 and low quality of evidence.

We have identified several limitations of this review. First, the outcomes could be biased by the cancer type, etiology and staging. Moreover, the dose of the antithrombosis drug, the administration time and the type of prophylaxis may cause variations in the results. In addition, potential interactions with other drugs used by patients with cancer may alter the concentration of antithrombotic drugs, thereby affecting the occurrence of adverse events.

In summary, this meta-analysis provides evidence that thromboprophylaxis can reduce VTE events (high quality), with no apparent increase in the incidence of major bleeding (moderate quality) in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy. These results provide clinicians with a comprehensive assessment of and high-quality evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy.

Supplemental Material

Appendix_1 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (166KB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Appendix_1 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Appendix_2 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (3.8MB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Appendix_2 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Table_1_4 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (152.1KB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Table_1_4 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Table_S2_2 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (121.8KB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Table_S2_2 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Table_S3 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (167.9KB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Table_S3 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Acknowledgments

Guiyue Wang and Miao Liu contributed equally to this work. YHL and HLW take responsibility for the content of the manuscript. CH was involved in the conception, hypothesis delineation, and design of the study and in the acquisition and analysis of the data. ML wrote and edited the manuscript. CSW was involved in designing the study, analyzing the data, and writing and editing the manuscript. KJY was involved in designing the study, analyzing the data and editing the manuscript. GYW was involved in extracting data and editing the manuscript. MYY was involved in conceiving the idea for the study and editing the manuscript. HTL was involved in conceiving the idea for the study, generating the hypotheses and editing the manuscript. XHM conceived and delineated the hypothesis, designed the study, acquired and analyzed the data, and wrote and edited the manuscript of the previous analysis. YSL and YHP edited the manuscript of the present analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. CSW is the guarantor of the article.

Footnotes

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81571871 and 81770276), the Yuweihan Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars and the Nn10 program of Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Distinguished Young Scholars Fund of Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital.

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest in preparing this article.

ORCID iD: Changsong Wang Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0079-5259

Supplementary material: Supplementary material for this article is available online.

Contributor Information

Miao Liu, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China; Department of Anesthesiology, Capital Medical University Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing, China.

Guiyue Wang, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China; Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of China, Tianjin, China.

Yuhang Li, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China; Department of Anesthesiology, the First Affiliated Hospital Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Hongliang Wang, Department of Critical Care Medicine, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.

Haitao Liu, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.

Nana Guo, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.

Ci Han, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.

Yahui Peng, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.

Mengyuan Yang, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.

Yansong Liu, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.

Xiaohui Ma, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.

Kaijiang Yu, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.

Changsong Wang, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, No. 150 Haping Rd., Nangang District, Harbin, 150081, China.

References

  • 1. Ben-Aharon I, Stemmer SM, Leibovici L, et al. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for primary thrombo-prophylaxis in patients with solid malignancies–systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncologica 2014; 53: 1230–1237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Blom JW, Doggen CJ, Osanto S, et al. Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis. JAMA 2005; 293: 715–722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN, et al. Risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based case-control study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 809–815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Khorana AA. Cancer and thrombosis: Implications of published guidelines for clinical practice. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1619–1630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Bullano MF, Willey V, Hauch O, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of health plan cost per venous thromboembolism or bleed event in patients with a prior venous thromboembolism event during hospitalization. J Manag Care Pharm 2005; 11: 663–673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Elting LS, Escalante CP, Cooksley C, et al. Outcomes and cost of deep venous thrombosis among patients with cancer. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 1653–1661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Sorensen HT, Mellemkjaer L, Olsen JH, et al. Prognosis of cancers associated with venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1846–1850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Akl EA, Kahale L, Neumann I, et al. Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 19: CD00664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Mandalà M, Falanga A, Roila F. Management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: vi85–vi92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Liew NC, Alemany GV, Angchaisuksiri P. Asian venous thromboembolism guidelines: updated recommendations for the prevention of venous thromboembolism. Int Angiol 2017; 36: 1–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Perry JR, Julian JA, Laperriere NJ, et al. PRODIGE: a randomized placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed malignant glioma. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 1959–1965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing the risk of bias in the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924–926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Bergqvist D, Agnelli G, Cohen AT, et al. Duration of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism with enoxaparin after surgery for cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 975–980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Cerrato D, Ariano C, Fiacchino F. Deep vein thrombosis and low-dose heparin prophylaxis in neurosurgical patients. J Neurosurg 1978; 49: 378–381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Clarke-Pearson DL, Coleman RE, Synan IS, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in gynecologic oncology: a prospective, controlled trial of low-dose heparin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 145: 606–613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Clarke-Pearson DL, Creasman WT, Coleman RE, et al. Perioperative external pneumatic calf compression as thromboembolism prophylaxis in gynecologic oncology: report of a randomized controlled trial. Gynecol Oncol 1984; 18: 226–232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Gondret R, Dominici L, Angelard B, et al. Safety of preoperative enoxaparin in head and neck cancer surgery. Head Neck 1995; 17: 1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Kakkar VV, Balibrea JL, Martínez-González J, et al. Extended prophylaxis with bemiparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 1223–1229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Negm O, Abou Saif S, El Gharib M, et al. Role of low-molecular-weight heparins in prevention of thromboembolic complication after transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 29: 317–321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Shukla PJ, Siddachari R, Ahire S, et al. Postoperative deep vein thrombosis in patients with colorectal cancer. Indian J Gastroenterol 2008; 27: 71–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Benyakorn T, Orrapin S, Srikuea K, et al. Endovascular aneurysm sealing system (EVAS) for infected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Vascular 2017; 25: NP1.28134059 [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Turpie AG, Gallus A, Beattie WS, et al. Prevention in patients with intracranial disease by pneumatic of venous thrombosis with intracranial intermittent compression of the calf. Neurology 1977; 27: 435–438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Abdelkefi A, Ben Othman T, Kammoun L, et al. Prevention of central venous line-related thrombosis by continuous infusion of low-dose unfractionated heparin, in patients with haemato-oncological disease. A randomized controlled trial. Thromb Haemost 2004; 92: 654–661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Agnelli G, Gussoni G, Bianchini C, et al. Nadroparin for the prevention of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid cancer receiving chemotherapy: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 943–949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Agnelli G, George DJ, Kakkar AK, et al. Semuloparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 16; 366: 601–609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Bern MM, Lokich JJ, Wallach SR, et al. Very low doses of warfarin can prevent thrombosis in central venous catheters. A randomized prospective trial. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112: 423–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Boraks P, Seale J, Price J, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter associated thrombosis using minidose warfarin in patients with haematological malignancies. Br J Haematol 1998; 101: 483–486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. van Doormaal FF, Di Nisio M, Otten HM, et al. Randomized trial of the effect of the low molecular weight heparin nadroparin on survival in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2071–2076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Ek L, Gezelius E, Bergman B, et al. Randomized phase III trial of low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin in addition to standard treatment in small-cell lung cancer: the RASTEN trial. Ann Oncol 2018; 29: 398–404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Haas SK, Freund M, Heigener D, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in metastatic breast cancer or stage III/IV lung cancer. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2012; 18: 159–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Heaton DC, Han DY, Inder A. Minidose (1 mg) warfarin as prophylaxis for central vein catheter thrombosis. Intern Med J 2002; 32: 84–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Kakkar AK, Levine MN, Kadziola Z. Low molecular weight heparin, therapy with dalteparin, and survival in advanced cancer: the fragmin advanced malignancy outcome study (FAMOUS). J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1944–1948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Karthaus M, Kretzschmar A, Kröning H, et al. Dalteparin for prevention of catheter-related complications in cancer patients with central venous catheters: final results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Ann Oncol 2006; 17: 289–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Levine MN, Gu C, Liebman HA, et al. A randomized phase II trial of apixaban for the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with metastatic cancer. J Thromb Haemost 2012; 10: 807–814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Levine M, Hirsh J, Gent M, et al. Double-blind randomised trial of a very-low-dose warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in stage IV breast cancer. Lancet 1994; 343: 886–889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Monreal M, Alastrue A, Rull M, et al. Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients with venou access devices-prophylaxis with a low molecular weight heparin. Thromb Haemost 1996; 75: 251–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Maraveyas A, Waters J, Roy R, et al. Gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus dalteparin thromboprophylaxis in pancreatic cancer. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 1283–1292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Maraveyas A, Waters J, Roy R, et al. Gemcitabine with or without prophylactic weight-adjusted dalteparin (WAD) in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (APC): a multicentre, randomised phase IIB trial (the UK FRAGEM study). Thromb Res 2010; 2: S161–S165. [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Niers TM, Di Nisio M, Klerk CP, et al. Prevention of catheter-related venous thrombosis with nadroparin in patients receiving chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Thromb Haemost 2007; 5: 1878–1882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Pelzer U, Opitz B, Deutschinoff G, et al. Efficacy of prophylactic low-molecular weight heparin for ambulatory patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: outcomes from the CONKO-004 trial. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2028–2034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Young AM, Billingham LJ, Begum G, et al. Warfarin thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters (WARP): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 567–574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Khorana AA, Francis CW, Kuderer NM, et al. Dalteparin thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism: a randomized trial. Thromb Res 2017; 151: 89–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Verso M, Agnelli G, Bertoglio S, et al. Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism associated with central vein catheter: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4057–4062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Lecumberri R, López Vivanco G, Font A, et al. Adjuvant therapy with bemiparin in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer: results from the ABEL study. Thromb Res 2013; 132: 666–670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Tamowicz B, Mikstacki A, Urbanek T, et al. Mechanical methods of venous thromboembolism prevention: from guidelines to clinical practice. Pol Arch Intern Med 2019; 129: 335–341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Di Nisio M, Porreca E, Candeloro M, et al. Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 12: CD008500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Di Nisio M, Peinemann F, Porreca E, et al. Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing cardiac or thoracic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 6: CD009658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Lyman GH, Bohlke K, Khorana AA, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update 2014. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 654–656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Mismetti P, Laporte S, Darmon JY, et al. Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 913–930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Einstein MH, Pritts EA, Hartenbach EM. Venous thromboembolism prevention in gynecologic cancer surgery: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 105: 813–819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Oates-Whitehead RM, D’Angelo A, Mol B. Anticoagulant and aspirin prophylaxis for preventing thromboembolism after major gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 4: CD003679. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Guo Q, Huang B, Zhao J, et al. Perioperative pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2017; 265: 1087–1093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Akl EA, Kamath G, Yosuico V, et al. Thromboprophylaxis for patients with cancer and central venous catheters: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Cancer 2008; 112: 2483–2492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Brunetti ND, Gesuete E, De Gennaro L, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants compared with vitamin-K inhibitors and low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis study. Int J Cardiol 2017; 230: 214–221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. White RH, Zhou H, Romano PS. Incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after different elective or urgent surgical procedures. Thromb Haemost 2003; 90: 446–455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 1652–1662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Bick RL. Cancer-associated thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 109–111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Falanga A. The incidence and risk of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer and non-surgical treatment. Cancer Invest 2009; 27: 472–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Annibali O, Napolitano M, Avvisati G, et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism and use of anticoagulation in hematological malignancies: critical review of the literature. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2018; 124: 41–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Graul A, Latif N, Zhang X, et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism by type of gynecologic malignancy and surgical modality in the national surgical quality improvement program. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27: 581–587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix_1 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (166KB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Appendix_1 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Appendix_2 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (3.8MB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Appendix_2 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Table_1_4 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (152.1KB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Table_1_4 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Table_S2_2 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (121.8KB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Table_S2_2 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Table_S3 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Click here for additional data file. (167.9KB, pdf)

Supplemental material, Table_S3 for Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Miao Liu, Guiyue Wang, Yuhang Li, Hongliang Wang, Haitao Liu, Nana Guo, Ci Han, Yahui Peng, Mengyuan Yang, Yansong Liu, Xiaohui Ma, Kaijiang Yu and Changsong Wang in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Articles from Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES