Unmet Needs and Challenges in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

1. Introduction

Patients with cancer have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism, described as cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE). In the first 6 months following cancer diagnosis, the risk for VTE is reported to be 12-fold greater than VTE in the general population [ 1 ]. According to multiple population- and registry-based studies, 17–29% of the total VTE cases are associated with cancer [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Cohen et al. reported an incidence of 5.8 per 100 person-years in cancer patients for the occurrence of the first CA-VTE episode [ 5 ]. Raskob and colleagues reported a population-based study in which the age-adjusted incidence of CA-VTE was 70 per 100,000 adults in the general population, translating to an estimated annual number of 179,000 new cases among adults in the US population (2020) [ 5 , 6 ].

The incidence of CA-VTE seems to be increasing over time. In a California cohort of cancer patients, the cumulative incidence of CA-VTE in pancreatic cancer patients rose from 8.92% during the 2005–2007 era to 11.9% during the 2014–2017 era [ 7 ]. Similar incidence rates have also been found in patients with lung cancer and breast cancer [ 7 ]. The increasing incidence over time may be attributed to improved diagnosis with high-resolution imaging for cancer staging and response assessments, more appropriate ICD coding, and the introduction of anti-angiogenic agents, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs [ 7 ].

The rate of VTE recurrence in patients with CA-VTE is high and reported at 9.6 per 100 person-years [ 5 ]. Patients with pancreatic, ovarian, brain, or lung cancer, and those with advanced stage of cancer are at the highest risk of VTE events, with pulmonary embolism being the most common. After discontinuing anticoagulant therapy, the risk of recurrent VTE among patients with CA-VTE is 10 to 15% during the first six months. Recurrences reach 31% at 2 years and stabilize between 31 and 35% between 2 and 5 years [ 8 ].

To provide individualized care for patients with CA-VTE, it is essential to begin with the underlying risk determinants. Patient characteristics, cancer subtypes, and treatment exposures create the biological and clinical foundation upon which thrombotic events arise. These factors not only explain the heterogeneity in VTE incidence across oncology populations but also serve as the building blocks for risk prediction models. By first characterizing these risks, we can then critically evaluate the tools developed to quantify them, highlight their limitations, and outline emerging strategies—including novel biomarkers, computational approaches, and advances in prevention and treatment—that aim to improve outcomes for patients with cancer.

2. Risk Categorization (Factors Leading to CA-VTE)

The incidence of CA-VTE is contingent upon multiple variables, such as patient characteristics and preexisting comorbidities, cancer subtype and cancer-directed systemic treatment ( Figure 1 ) [ 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 ] Given that anticoagulant exposure causes an increased risk of bleeding, accurate assessment of bleeding and thrombotic risk is needed to assist clinicians in making individualized treatment decisions.

2.1. Patient Characteristics

Age, gender and ethnicity have been studied in association with risk for CA-VTE. Patients older than 65 have been shown to have a slightly increased risk of VTE in a retrospective hospitalized cohort with an odds ratio of 1.1 ( p -value significant) [ 13 ]; older patients (≥60 years) undergoing surgery are particularly at a much higher risk with a hazard ratio of 2.63 (95% CI, 1.2–5.7) [ 14 ]. However, age is not a significant risk factor among ambulatory cancer patients with good performance status [ 15 ].

There are contradictory reports for gender and its association with CA-VTE. While some studies indicate that sex is not a significant factor for CA-VTE [ 10 ], a study of all hospitalized patients reported that women have an overall increased risk of VTE [ 13 ]. This gender-related increase in VTE may not apply universally across all cancer subtypes. When assessed on its relation to cancer subtypes, a retrospective observational study reported women to have a lower risk for CA-VTE when compared to men for breast cancer (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54–0.83, p < 0.0001), bladder cancer (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80–0.98, p < 0.0199) and brain cancer HR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75–0.90, p < 0.0001) [ 7 ].

Furthermore, studies have indicated a potential link between the incidence of VTE and race, where African Americans have the highest risk of CA-VTE and Asians/Pacific Islanders have the lowest risk [ 6 , 7 , 16 , 17 ]. African American patients also had a significantly higher risk of recurrent CA-VTE compared to White patients in breast (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08–1.72), prostate (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.09–1.72), and pancreatic cancers (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01–1.86). Asians/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics, however, did not have significant differences from White patients for recurrent CA-VTE risk [ 17 ].

Other patient characteristics including BMI and the number of comorbidities at diagnosis are also associated with risk of CA-VTE. For instance, cancer patients with medical comorbidities, such as infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28), pulmonary disease (OR = 1.57), renal disease (OR = 1.41), and obesity (OR = 1.52), have an increased risk of CA-VTE [ 18 ]. Personal history of VTE increases the risk of developing CA-VTE by approximately seven-fold [ 18 ].

2.2. Cancer Subtype and Treatments

Type of cancer has an independent association with the risk of VTE [ 19 ]. It is important to recognize that different cancer subtypes of a specific organ system may also have different risks of thrombosis. Li et al. revised four categories of cancer subtypes based on their risk of thrombosis: (1) a very high-risk group—cholangiocarcinoma/gallbladder cancer added to traditional Khorana score cancer subtypes (esophageal/gastric and pancreatic); (2) a modified high-risk group—aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma instead of all lymphoma, ovarian and uterine cancer instead of all gynecologic cancers, myeloma, brain cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma along with lung, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancers; (3) a new risk category, intermediate, for colorectal cancer; (4) the remaining solid and hematologic cancers were grouped as low-risk ( Figure 2 ) [ 20 ].

Multiple treatment-related factors produce a proinflammatory state which can increase risk for CA-VTE. These include anticancer drugs, hospitalization, surgery and central venous catheters. Specific systemic anticancer drugs, such as platinums, anthracyclines, antihormonal and immunomodulatory agents, have historically been linked to a higher risk of VTE [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. In cases of Cisplatin-based chemotherapy, patients have increased incidence of VTE (1.92% (95% CI, 1.07 to 2.76), 0.79% (95% CI, 0.45 to 1.13), in addition to significantly increased risk of VTEs (RR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.23; p = 0.01) [ 21 ]. Furthermore, in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving induction chemotherapy, the addition of thalidomide to a multiagent regimen (including dexamethasone and doxorubicin) significantly increased the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) from 4% to 28% ( p = 0.002), with all events occurring within the first three cycles of treatment; this corresponded to a markedly elevated risk of DVT (odds ratio = 9.33, 95% CI not reported) [ 23 ]. Furthermore, Zangari et al. also reported that the presence of the doxorubicin regimen in MM treatment increased the cumulative incidence of VTE from 2.6% to 11.6%, and significantly increased the risk of DVT/VTE ( p = 0.01, odds ratio = 11.3) [ 22 ].

The advent of newer targeted agents and immune check point inhibitors can cause a treatment-induced hypercoagulable state. The most notable classes of drugs increasing the risk of VTE include epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies (relative risk 1.32–1.58) [ 24 , 25 ] and cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitors, especially abemaciclib (relative risk 2.62) [ 26 ]. EGFR antibodies, such as cetuximab, trigger the complement-mediated lysis (CML) of tumor cells through the alternative pathway, releasing anaphylatoxins (C3a, C4a, and C5a) and thus, enhancing platelet activation and aggregation [ 27 ]. Similarly, CDK inhibitors, such as abemaciclib, induce an increase in the platelet function and coagulation factors, elevating the risk of CA-VTE in breast cancer patients [ 28 ]. While vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapies and receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been associated with increased risk of arterial thromboembolism, the risk of VTE is not clearly established [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Recent studies indicate a clinically significant increase in VTE risk associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A large retrospective cohort reported a cumulative incidence of approximately 10% at 6 months and up to 15% at 12 months, independent of cancer type or stage [ 34 ]. Additionally, a systematic review and meta-analysis found a pooled VTE incidence of 3.7 per 100 person-years, with the highest risk observed among patients receiving combination ICI therapies [ 35 ]. ICIs are also reported to increase the levels of proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6 and TNF-a, promoting the expression of tissue factor on endothelial cells and monocytes—initiating the extrinsic coagulation pathway [ 36 ]. An increased risk associated with immune check point inhibitors in some studies, especially when treatment exceeds 6 months, suggests that an extended overall survival and exposure to treatment in these patients may also be responsible for these differences [ 1 , 37 ].

Hospitalizations for an acute medical illness and the perioperative period are also linked to an increased risk for VTE in patients with cancer. Duration of inpatient stay and type of surgery (with general surgery and gynecological surgery posing the highest risk) also determine the risk for thrombosis and should be considered along with patient characteristics and cancer-related factors. In the prospective RISTOS study of more than 2300 patients undergoing cancer surgery, clinically overt VTE was assessed up to 30 ± 5 days postoperatively, with nearly 40% of events occurring later than 21 days after surgery; notably, VTE emerged as the leading cause of death within 30 days of surgery [ 14 , 38 ].

Altogether, the constellation of patient characteristics, cancer subtypes, treatment exposures, and biomarkers underscores the multifactorial nature of CA-VTE. These factors provide a foundation for understanding why thrombotic risk varies so widely across oncology populations, but they remain difficult to interpret in isolation. To address this challenge, researchers have sought to integrate these variables into formal risk prediction models that can distill complex clinical and biological information into tools usable at the bedside.

3. Risk Prediction of Cancer-Associated VTE

With advancements in diagnostics and delivery of care, objective measures like lab parameters can be a useful addition to risk prediction models [ 39 ]. Some clinical laboratory parameters, such as hemoglobin, white blood count and platelet count along with biomarkers such as D-Dimer and soluble P-selectin, have already been added as variables to risk assessment models to improve their predictive potential [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. It is important to emphasize that D-dimer has high sensitivity but poor specificity and may be elevated in inflammatory and non-malignant conditions. The TiC-Onco score, which has been proposed as a risk-assessment model, utilizes novel genetic polymorphisms (e.g., SNPs in F5, F13, SERPINA10, and ABO loci) as a predictive variable [ 44 ]. Numerous biomarkers have been studied in primary and recurrent VTE in cancer patients but have not been included in risk assessment models [ 45 ]. The extent to which each of these variables impact predictive power remains largely unknown. Limited human studies, issues related to commercial availability and reliability of biomarkers pose a great challenge to their utility in risk prediction [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. The invasive strategies required for some other biomarkers, such as brain tumor podoplanin, restrict their potential use in clinical practice [ 56 ]. Newer techniques like next-generation proteomic platforms and data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry can provide better assessment and screening of novel biomarkers [ 57 ]. However, these techniques are far from being widely available. Ultimately, an ideal biomarker must balance accuracy and predictive value with feasibility and cost-effectiveness to be usable in oncology practice. Considerable progress is still required to equip clinicians with reliable biomarker-based tools for CA-VTE risk prediction.

Biomarker Assessments

Some biomarkers have been extensively investigated as predictive variables for the risk of CA-VTE. Leukocytosis, in particular neutrophilia and monocytosis, is associated with an increased risk of VTE in cancer patients. The ANC Study Group Registry and the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad Trombo-Embólica (RIETE) demonstrated a 1.6–2-fold increased risk of recurrent VTE in patients with elevated white blood cell count at baseline [ 40 , 58 ]. Similarly, thrombocytosis > 337,000/mm 3 and hemoglobin < 10 g/dL were found to be associated with an increased VTE risk [ 15 , 59 ]. Soluble P-selectin, a thrombogenic cell adhesion molecule, has been found to be independently associated with a risk of cancer thrombosis [ 60 ]. In a study by Ay et al., the presence of both D-dimer and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (F1 + 2) led to a higher cumulative incidence of VTE [ 61 ]. While the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study demonstrated that D-dimer and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 levels were predictive of VTE in cancer patients, these findings were derived from a single-cohort analysis without external validation. F1 + 2 is not widely available in routine laboratories and its incorporation into clinical risk models limits real-world applicability.

Although these findings underscore the biologic plausibility of hematologic and molecular markers as predictors of CA-VTE, most studies remain limited by single-cohort designs, lack of external validation, and heterogeneity in measurement. Without rigorous validation across independent populations, their clinical utility remains uncertain. The limitations of conventional biomarkers have prompted the exploration of newer technologies such as next-generation proteomic platforms and advanced mass spectrometry. These approaches offer the potential to systematically identify and validate novel biomarkers, though their current use remains largely confined to research settings.

Ultimately, the promise of biomarkers lies in their integration into comprehensive risk models that combine clinical, therapeutic, and molecular variables. Realizing this potential will likely require parallel advances in computational approaches, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, to manage the complexity of multimodal data and translate it into clinically actionable risk prediction.

4. Current Risk Prediction Models

To translate this understanding of risk into practice, several predictive models have been developed over the past two decades. These models aim to formalize risk stratification by combining patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors into scoring systems that can guide prophylaxis and management decisions. Beginning with the widely adopted Khorana score, and extending to subsequent iterations such as PROTECHT, CONKO, Vienna-CATS, and disease-specific scores, these tools represent important steps toward the systematic prediction of CA-VTE. Examining their development, validation, and limitations provides key insights into how the field has evolved and where opportunities remain for refinement.

4.1. Khorana Score

Developed by Khorana and colleagues, the Khorana Score is a clinical model that estimates the risk of VTE in cancer patients initiating chemotherapy [ 40 ]. It was constructed using data from a large prospective study with derivation ( n = 2701) and validation cohorts (n = 1365) [ 40 ]. The demographics within the study included ambulatory adult patients with a variety of cancer types who had not yet received chemotherapy, but anticipated at least four cycles of therapy [ 39 ]. The parameters for the predictive score included tumor site risk category (very high risk: pancreatic and gastric cancer; high risk: lung, lymphoma, gynecologic, bladder, testicular), laboratory parameters (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL; leukocyte count 11 G/L; platelet count ≥ 350 × 10 9 /L), and body mass index (≥35 kg/m 2 ) [ 39 ]. Amongst the total study population of 4066 patients, 2.2% percent of the derivation cohort experienced VTE across a median follow-up of 73 days [ 39 , 40 ]. Across both derivative and validation cohorts, the rates of VTE were 0.8% and 0.3% in low-risk (score 0), 1.8% and 2% in intermediate-risk (score 1–2), and 7.1% and 6.7% in high-risk (score > 3) [ 40 ]. In both cohorts, the C-statistic was 0.7 [ 40 ].

4.2. PROTECHT, CONKO and Vienna Score

While the Khorana score is a leading contemporary model in assessing the risk of VTE, there are some limitations of this risk assessment model (discussed in detail below). As a result, multiple other risk assessment models have been developed to increase the ability to predict VTE in cancer patients. One prediction model is the PROTECHT score, designed by implementing modifications to the Khorana Score to increase its sensitivity. In the PROTECHT score, therapy criteria were enhanced to include platinum-based and/or gemcitabine chemotherapy (each adding + 1 point), in addition to the predictive variable criteria of the Khorana Score [ 42 ]. The PROTECHT risk model was a post hoc analysis of data from the placebo cohort of a prospective interventional study of 378 patients. The analysis demonstrated that 4.0% of the patients developed VTE, which included 8.1% in the high-risk population (≥3 points), and 2.0% in the low-risk population. Overall, 67% of the high-risk population accounted for all the VTE occurring in the patients. The CONKO score is another risk model that includes data from 312 consecutively recruited patients of the CONKO-004 trial [ 43 ]. To improve predictive utility, the CONKO model replaced BMI with the patient’s WHO performance status, reflecting functional capacity as a relevant risk factor (+1 point for a WHO performance status of ≥2). In addition, the Vienna modification of the Khorana score included D-dimer and soluble P-selectin, including data from 819 patients with relapsed cancer in a prospective observational cohort study [ 62 ]. The modifications proposed in the PROTECHT, CONKO and Vienna models were externally validated via a prospective cohort study. To evaluate the discriminatory performance of the scores, the time-dependent concordance index (c-index) was calculated while accounting for death as a competing risk. The results indicated a C-index of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.42–0.57) for the Khorana score, 0.54 (0.45–0.63) for the PROTECHT score, 0.50 (0.44–0.57) for the CONKO score, and 0.57 (0.48–0.66) for the Vienna modification of the Khorana score [ 63 ].

Thus, this external validation indicated that these models did not achieve a clinically important improvement in predictive performance. This highlights the ongoing need for more robust and individualized risk assessment tools for VTE in oncology.

4.3. ONKOTEV Score

The ONKOTEV score was developed based on four risk factors: presence of metastasis, compression of vascular structures, prior history of VTE, and a Khorana score greater than two [ 64 ]. Within a retrospective cohort of 165 patients with pancreatic cancer, an ONKOTEV score greater than two (43.6% of patients) had an incidence of VTE of 58% [ 65 ]. Martín et al. proposed the Tic-Onco risk score, calculated during patients’ initial cancer diagnosis to evaluate clinical and genetic risk factors for thrombosis. With data included from 391 outpatients with a recent cancer diagnosis and candidacy for chemotherapy, the Tic-Onco model employs genetic risk scoring via identifying single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) risk alleles. The following clinical variables are also included the following: primary tumor site, tumor node metastasis stage, body mass index (BMI), use of tobacco, age, sex, family (first degree) history of VTE, the presence of diabetes, hypertension, and high blood cholesterol level, the Khorana score, previous surgery, platelet count, number of leukocytes, and immobilization. An internal validation recorded 71 VTE events with improved predictive capability and sensitivity in comparison to the Khorana Score (AUC 0.73 vs. 0.58, sensitivity 49 vs. 22%) [ 44 ]. The study found time-dependent AUCs at 3, 6, and 12 months of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.621–0.787), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.656–0.791), and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.652–0.773), respectively. It should be noted that the incorporation of SNP risk alleles in routine oncology practice is currently challenging.

4.4. COMPASS-CAT

Developed through a multicenter prospective study of 1023 patients, the COMPASS-CAT score is a clinical tool designed to evaluate VTE risk in individuals with cancers such as breast (61%), colorectum (17%), lung (13%), and ovarian malignancies (7%). The model incorporates variables including type and timing of therapy (e.g., antihormonal or anthracycline use), cancer stage, comorbid cardiovascular conditions, recent hospitalizations, platelet count, presence of a central venous catheter, and prior thromboembolic events [ 66 ]. Patients categorized as a low/intermediate risk had a 6-month VTE rate of 1.7% in comparison to 13.3% within high-risk populations. Within the derivation cohort, the study achieved a C-statistic of 0.85, in comparison to an external validation study (n = 3814), which had a C-statistic of 0.62 [ 66 , 67 ].

4.5. Ottawa Score

The Ottawa score was developed as another risk model to stratify patients according to their risk of recurrent VTE. Louzada et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study (n = 543) with four independent variables (sex, primary tumor site, stage, and prior VTE), demonstrating a 98.1% negative predictive value, 48.1% low-risk excluded proportion and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.155 [ 68 ]. However, the Ottawa score has shown poor results in recent external validation studies and thus its use is not currently recommended to assess the risk of VTE recurrence in cancer patients [ 69 , 70 ].

4.6. Myeloma-Specific Models

The SAVED-score risk assessment model was developed as a disease-specific risk-stratification model for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The pathophysiology and the treatment for MM (immunomodulatory drugs like lenalidomide or thalidomide) both lead to an increase in the risk of VTE [ 71 ]. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, where patients were included from the SEER-Medicare database (n = 2397). In the derivation cohort, five clinical variables were selected in the inclusion criteria, where patients had a 6-month VTE risk of 12%, compared to 7% in the low-risk group [ 72 ]. The SAVED-score model had a C-statistic of 0.61, and was confirmed in an independent external validation study (n = 501, C statistic = 0.74) [ 72 , 73 ]. Similarly, the IMPEDE VTE score was developed for MM patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Through a retrospective study (n = 4466), nine clinical variables were selected in the inclusion criteria and patients were stratified in risk groups where the incidence of cumulative 6-month VTE was 15.2% in the highest risk group (10.1% of patients), in comparison to 8.3% in the intermediate-, and 3.3% in the low-risk category [ 74 ]. The model had a C-statistic of 0.66 in the derivation cohort, and 0.68 in the external validation [ 74 , 75 ].

See Table 1 for an overview of established risk assessment models for cancer-associated thrombosis, showcasing specific cancer/tumor subtypes, risk factors, and their associated points, risk categories, and overall performance.

5. Gaps and Pitfalls in Existing Models

CA-VTE causes a significant impact on survival, quality of life and healthcare costs [ 4 , 82 ]. Its diagnosis increases healthcare utilization, requiring more frequent clinical assessments. Additionally, the treatment of CA-VTE carries the risk of increased bleeding.

There are multiple risk prediction models for CA-VTE [ 39 , 40 , 63 , 83 , 84 ]. While the Khorana score is currently the most established risk model for predicting CA-VTE, it has some limitations [ 85 , 86 ]. The most important limitation is that it does not account for newer cancer therapies, several of which are prothrombotic. With improved cancer care, the sensitivity of the score has also been questioned. In a Danish cohort of ~40,000 cancer patients, the VTE risk was much lower in patients with a Khorana score ≥ 2 compared to previous reports [ 14 ].

The decision to initiate thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients is further complicated by the limited discriminatory ability of existing risk models and the competing risk of bleeding. Anticoagulation trials in ambulatory cancer patients have consistently demonstrated that while prophylaxis lowers VTE risk, clinicians must manage the cost of bleeding complications. The AVERT study demonstrated that apixaban lowered the incidence of VTE in high-risk ambulatory cancer patients. However, this benefit was accompanied by an increased risk of major bleeding events, which occurred in approximately 2% of patients receiving apixaban versus 1% in the placebo group, while clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 7.3% of patients [ 87 ]. Similarly, in the CASSINI trial, rivaroxaban lowered VTE incidence but was associated with major bleeding in 2.0% of patients, in comparison to 1.0% in the placebo cohort [ 88 ]. Bleeding risk is particularly pronounced in patients with gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, where mucosal tumor involvement further predisposes the patient to hemorrhage [ 89 , 90 ].

Alongside bleeding risk, limitations in predictive accuracy complicate thromboprophylaxis decisions. A 2019 meta-analysis of 55 cohorts (N = 34,555) demonstrated that only 11% of high-risk patients (score ≥ 3) developed VTE within 6 months, while approximately 76% of VTE events occurred in low- or intermediate-risk groups—underscoring the Khorana score’s limited sensitivity [ 85 ]. However, when a lower threshold of ≥2 was used, the proportion of VTEs captured increased to 55%, but nearly half of the patients were classified as high-risk, diminishing specificity. The dual challenge of imperfect risk prediction and clinically meaningful bleeding risk underscores the urgent need for integrated models that can simultaneously account for thrombotic and bleeding risk, thereby guiding safer and more individualized prophylaxis strategies in cancer care.

This complexity is heighted by several factors, such as tumor location, invasion of vascular structures, chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia, and frequent invasive procedures—all of which elevate the risk of bleeding independent of coagulation [ 89 , 90 ]. Thus, clinicians are forced to balance the morbidity and mortality of VTE against potentially life-threatening bleeding complications, making thromboprophylaxis decisions highly nuanced and complex. These challenges underscore the need for both improved models, that accurately predict thrombotic and bleeding risks, and safer anticoagulants, in order to provide effective and safe anticoagulation strategies in cancer care.

Race and ethnicity are also associated with CA-VTE with African Americans having higher incidence of CA-VTE in most cancer subtypes [ 16 , 17 ]. This could be related to racial disparities in access to health care, leading to the presence of an advanced stage and preexisting comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. However, African Americans have been underrepresented in patient cohorts used for risk model development, making these tools unreliable in certain patient populations [ 17 ]. This suggests that addition of race/ethnicity as a variable in future risk prediction models could provide more optimal risk stratification.

Another potential variable for predicting risk for CA-VTE is the class of systemic therapy that a cancer patient is exposed to. The PROTECHT and COMPASS-CAT are the only risk prediction models that have addressed the role of prothrombotic chemotherapeutic and hormonal agents (e.g., platinums, gemcitabine, anthracycline and antihormonal therapy) [ 42 , 66 ]. Some additional systemic therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-angiogenic agents and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been associated with a prothrombotic risk. Incorporation of these in future risk prediction models is imperative for improved accuracy.

Efforts to improve CA-VTE prediction should emphasize refinement of strategies that incorporate validated biomarkers, systemic therapy class, and sociodemographic determinants to optimize discriminatory performance. The application of advanced computational techniques, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, offers the potential to create dynamic models responsive to changes in oncology practice and patient heterogeneity. Such frameworks may improve identification of high-risk individuals and support safer, more individualized prophylaxis strategies

6. Recommendations on Prophylaxis

Guidelines on thrombophylaxis in various settings provide a framework for clinicians when managing cancer patients and the risk of VTE [ 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 ]. Stronger data are needed to add strength to the level of evidence for each recommendation. However, as suggested by all guidelines, the decision to proceed with primary VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients needs to be based upon a patient–physician discussion on the risk–benefit profile of anticoagulation therapy in an individualized setting. Continual assessment of risk is essential, as it may change with improving or worsening cancer status. Incorporation of genetic polymorphisms and proteomic profiling into risk prediction models can help increase the sensitivity of risk models, providing improved risk assessment. Novel anticoagulants with a reduced bleeding risk may also help simplify decision-making in this regard. We recognize that genetic polymorphisms and proteomic profiling remain investigational at this time, and clinicians should rely on validated clinical risk scores.

In Table 2 the authors present risk categories and proposed thromboprophylaxis guidelines for CA-VTE.

7. Prevention and Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

7.1. Primary Prevention in Ambulatory Patients

While the routine use of primary thrombophylaxis is not indicated in all ambulatory cancer patients, multiple international clinical practice guidelines now recommend considering the use of thrombophylaxis in high-risk outpatients (Khorana score ≥ 2) undergoing treatment on an individualized basis [ 91 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 ]. However, the use of prophylactic anticoagulation comes with the risk of increased bleeding. Treatment with low molecular weight heparin (nadroparin or semuloparin) has previously been shown to reduce VTE rates in ambulatory cancer patients on systemic chemotherapy [ 99 , 100 ]. The leading trials on anticoagulation in cancer patients, namely PHACS, CASSINI and AVERT, have used the Khorana score to risk stratify the patients.

In the PHACS, study patients diagnosed with cancer were randomized and recruited with the criteria of a Khorana score ≥ 3 to prophylactic anticoagulation with a Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) or observation for 12 weeks. The results indicated a non-significant 9% absolute risk reduction in VTE (hazard ratio: 0.64 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.22–1.72)) and a significant increase in clinically relevant bleeding events (HR: 7.02; 95% CI: 1.24–131.6) within the LMWH group [ 101 ].

The CASSINI and AVERT trials were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, evaluating the safety and efficacy for ambulatory patients with cancer. These patients with a Khorana score of two or more received primary prophylaxis with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). Patients treated with rivaroxaban demonstrated a 6-month decrease in VTE risk (2.6% vs. 6.4%, hazard ratio (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.20–0.80)), together with a non-significant increase in major bleeding events (2.0% vs. 1.0%, HR: 1.96; 0.59–6.49) [ 88 ]. Similarly, the AVERT trial showcased that treatment with apixaban led to a decrease in VTE rates (4.2% vs. 10.2%, HR: 0.41; 95%CI: 0.26–0.65), but caused an increase in major bleeding complications (2.1% vs. 1.1%, HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 0.39–9.24) [ 87 ].

In a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials by Myat et al. on outpatient thrombophylaxis in patients with cancer with Khorana score ≥ 2 receiving chemotherapy, the VTE incidence was down to 5.20% and as much as 1.54% in patients receiving DOACs and LMWH respectively (RR of 0.56 vs. 0.22). This apparent discrepancy can be explained by several important methodological- and population-level differences. First, the pooled analysis focused on patients with a Khorana Score (KS) ≥ 2, whereas some landmark trials enriched higher-risk subsets (e.g., KS ≥ 3) or a higher thrombogenic cancer type (such as pancreatic cancer), resulting in different baseline thrombotic risk profiles. Second, heterogeneity across trials and variations in endpoint definitions (symptomatic vs. composite symptomatic plus incidental VTE) and follow-up duration further contribute to differences in reported VTE incidence. Third, the LMWH group included intermediate and therapeutic doses which may account for the differences in relative benefit. Finally, pooled analyses inherently average across diverse study designs and eras, whereas individual randomized trials reflect more internally consistent populations. Taken together, these factors likely account for the differing relative estimates between LMWH and DOACs [ 102 ].

Most international guidelines on prevention of CA-VTE suggest the preferential use of DOACS compared to LMWH in the absence of any contraindications (e.g., gastrointestinal or genitourinary malignancy) or drug–drug interactions. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) also incorporated certain high-risk cancer types (advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer) in their recommendations [ 93 , 96 , 97 ]. Similarly, recommendations are in place for patients with MM regarding the use of aspirin and LMWH based on their risk stratification (low- or high-risk, respectively) [ 93 , 95 , 97 , 98 ]. While the SEOM guidelines also include non-small cell lung cancer with ROS-1 and ALK rearrangement in the high-risk category where thrombophylaxis should be considered, the more recent ITAC guidelines do not recommend its use outside of a clinical trial due to increased risk of bleeding and no difference in survival [ 93 , 96 ].

7.2. Primary Prevention in Hospitalized Patients

While the risk of VTE is significantly increased in hospitalized cancer patients, there is limited consensus regarding primary prophylaxis [ 38 ]. The results from the ARTEMIS, PREVENT and Enoxaparin trials did not demonstrate a significant benefit of primary thrombophylaxis in this patient cohort. Small sample size is the biggest limitation for these trials, therefore reducing generalizability [ 103 , 104 , 105 ]. Multiple international guidelines have conflicting guidelines in regard to primary prevention in these patients. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), International Society of Hemostasis and Thrombosis (ISTH) and SEOM all recommend anticoagulation prophylaxis in cancer patients who have a concurrent acute medical illness without any contraindications [ 98 , 106 , 107 ]. ASCO recommends against thrombophylaxis in patients who are admitted for stem cell transplants or chemotherapy due to limited benefit in the face of increased bleeding rates in these patients. ISTH recommends individualized decision-making for use of anticoagulation in patients with thrombocytopenia. ITAC and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend anticoagulation prophylaxis in all hospitalized patients regardless of coexisting medical illness [ 93 , 95 , 97 ]. DOACs are usually not recommended in hospitalized patients; LMWH is the usual preferred agent.

7.3. Primary Prevention in Surgical Patients

The risk of venous thromboembolism in the postoperative period continues to remain high for several weeks after a major surgery in a cancer patient [ 108 ]. In the ENOXACAN study, for the group of cancer patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgeries, enoxaparin was established as having superior efficacy with similar bleeding complication when compared to unfractionated heparin [ 109 ]. The international guidelines on cancer thrombosis recommend thrombophylaxis with LMWH or UFH to be initiated preoperatively and to continue for 7–10 days after the surgery [ 93 , 95 , 97 , 98 , 106 ]. Extended-duration thromboprophylaxis for up to 4 weeks is recommended in high-risk patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic cancer surgery (high-risk is categorized as those patients with restricted mobility, obesity, previous VTE, or additional risk factors, anesthesia time > 2 h, gastrointestinal malignancies, previous VTE, advanced-stage disease, bed rest of ≥4 days, or age > 60 years) [ 95 , 106 ]. While LMWH was initially recommended for extended prophylaxis, ASCO recently updated their guidelines, adding potential use of rivaroxaban or apixaban in this setting as a weak recommendation [ 94 ]. This recommendation is based on two recent RCTs reporting safe and efficacious use of these DOACs in cancer patients undergoing major surgeries [ 110 , 111 ]. The use of mechanical prophylaxis or inferior vena cava filter is not recommended in the absence of anticoagulation contraindication.

8. Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Patients with CA-VTE are heterogenous and the choice of anticoagulant is dependent upon multiple factors, such as patient characteristics and preferences, cancer subtype and drug–drug interactions. Multiple RCTs involving head-to-head comparisons of different anticoagulants have allowed guideline recommendations in patients with CA-VTE. We summarize some treatment options below.

8.1. Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH)

The CLOT trial was the landmark study that established LMWH as the preferred agent for VTE treatment in cancer patients [ 112 ]. It demonstrated improved VTE recurrence rates with dalteparin when compared to warfarin (6 months; 17 vs. 9%) and similar safety and mortality outcomes. Alongside the CLOT trial, the CATCH and RIETECAT supported LMWH as an effective standard therapy for cancer-associated thrombosis prior to the widespread adoption of DOACs [ 113 , 114 ]. While some other RCTs failed to consistently prove a superior efficacy of LMWH over oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) agents, multiple systemic metanalysis studies published results in favor of LMWH [ 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]. The challenges associated with VKA monitoring and the data regarding the safety and efficacy of LMWH led to its adaptation as standard first-line therapy. Currently, all international guidelines recommend the use of LMWH as one of the possible strategies when dealing with treatment of CA-VTE [ 78 , 79 , 93 , 97 , 98 , 106 ].

8.2. Direct Oral Anticoagulants

With the advent of DOACs and their favorable side effect profile, reduced need for monitoring and ease of administration makes them a preferred option among clinicians and patients alike. However, caution is advised in certain situations as detailed below.

In 2018, two RCTs, SELECT-D [ 80 ] and Hokusai [ 81 ], studied the use of DOACs in CA-VTE. In the SELECT-D trial, the treatment with rivaroxaban reduced the occurrence of VTE at 6 months compared to dalteparin (6% vs. 11%, HR 0.43). However, this benefit was offset by a higher frequency of non-major bleeding events (13% vs. 4%), emphasizing the importance of individualized risk–benefit assessment in anticoagulation choice. Among patients with gastrointestinal cancers, there was a non-significant increase in major bleeding episodes which prompted the exclusion of these patients from the trial. In the Hokusa–VTE cancer study comparing edoxaban to dalteparin, the rate of recurrent VTE was numerically lower with edoxaban (7.9% vs. 11.3%, HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.48–1.06), but this was offset by a significantly higher rate of major bleeding (6.9% vs. 4.0%; HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.03–3.04), particularly in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (12.7% vs. 3.6%). In the meta-analysis by Li et al., DOACs overall were associated with a non-significant reduction in recurrent VTE (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.42–1.01), but a significantly higher incidence of major bleeding compared with LMWH (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.05–2.88) [ 120 ]. A real-world study under the OSCAR-US program, published in 2023, reported a decreased risk of VTE at 3 and 6 months with no difference in bleeding-related hospitalizations or mortality when rivaroxaban and LMWH were compared [ 121 ]. Of note, patients with cancers with an established high risk of bleeding on DOACs were excluded in this study. CASTA-DIVA, another open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial, compared rivaroxaban with dalteparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis; the study was terminated early because of slow accrual. Recurrent VTE occurred in 6.4% of patients receiving rivaroxaban and 10.1% receiving dalteparin, while major bleeding occurred in 1.4% and 3.7%, respectively. The trial was underpowered to demonstrate non-inferiority [ 122 ].

Three recent head-to-head trials of apixaban versus LMWH have established apixaban as a first-line agent in most cases of CA-VTE unless a contraindication is present [ 123 , 124 , 125 ]. The CARAVAGGIO trial, an open-label non-inferiority study comparing oral apixaban and subcutaneous dalteparin, had two primary efficacy and safety outcomes: recurrent VTE and major bleeding. The Caravaggio trial reported that apixaban was non-inferior to dalteparin in preventing recurrent VTE, with recurrence rates of 5.6% in the apixaban group versus 7.9% with dalteparin (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37–1.07), demonstrating non-inferiority [ 126 ]. Major bleeding rates were similar between the two groups, occurring in 3.8% of apixaban patients and 4.0% of dalteparin patients (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40–1.69) [ 126 ]. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was reported in 9.0% with apixaban versus 6.0% with dalteparin (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.88–2.30). In a subgroup analysis of the CARVAGGIO trial [ 126 ], patients with GI and GU cancers were at the highest risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding. Notably, however, there was no difference in these outcomes between the two anticoagulant arms across patients with other primary cancer sites.

ADAM-VTE trial also compared apixaban to dalteparin for CA-VTE treatment [ 125 ]. Major bleeding occurred in none of the 145 patients in the apixaban group and 1.4% of 142 patients in the dalteparin group. Rates of recurrent VTE were significantly lower in the apixaban arm compared with the dalteparin arm (0.7% vs. 6.3%, HR: 0.099; 95% CI 0.013 to 0.780). The frequency of CRNMB was 6% in both groups. The bleeding rate for the ADAM-VTE trail was lower than other trials comparing apixaban and dalteparin. This could be possible due to a lower proportion of GI and GU cancers in the ADAM-VTE cohort. Another trial compared apixaban and enoxaparin and did not report any differences in recurrent VTE and major bleeding events between the two arms [ 124 ].

Based on these studies showing non-inferiority of DOACs to LMWH in terms of VTE recurrence, the use of DOACs have been incorporated in almost all guidelines, with NCCN and ISTH preferentially recommending DOACs over LMWH unless there is a high risk of bleeding, drug–drug interactions or other contraindications [ 79 , 95 , 127 , 128 ]. LMWH is the preferred class in GI or GU cancers. Overall, guidelines recommend anticoagulation for as long as cancer is active or treatment is ongoing with a minimal duration of 3–6 months [ 78 , 79 , 93 , 95 , 97 , 98 , 106 ]. ASCO and NCCN also recommend treating incidental VTE in the same manner as a symptomatic VTE [ 95 , 98 ]. IVC filters are usually not recommended in these guidelines unless there is a long-term contraindication to anticoagulation or thrombus progression despite full-dose anticoagulation. Recurrent breakthrough VTEs require that a clinician does a thorough assessment of potential contributing reasons, such as medication adherence, drug–drug interactions, inappropriate dose reductions or etiologies leading to poor oral drug absorption. If any such issues are not identified, switching from prophylactic to therapeutic dosing between different classes of anticoagulants is acceptable [ 93 , 95 , 97 ].

The oral administration of DOACs makes it a convenient option with better patient adherence. However, some special populations with CA-VTE require the judicious use anticoagulation, especially DOACs ( Figure 3 ). Overall, the selection of anticoagulant needs to be individualized, considering both patient- and cancer-related risk factors, and associated comorbidities, drug–drug interactions, patient preferences and the cost of the drug.

8.3. Selective Parenteral Indirect Factor Xa Inhibitor

Fondaparinux is a synthetic pentasaccharide that functions as a selective factor Xa inhibitor through the antithrombin-mediated mechanisms, potentiating factor Xa neutralization by approximately 300-fold [ 129 ]. Unlike heparin and other LMWH, fondaparinux does not bind to platelet factor 4 (PF4), conferring negligible risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) [ 130 ]. The agent exhibits predictable pharmacokinetics with complete subcutaneous bioavailability (100%), consisting of a half-life of 17–21 h permitting once-daily dosing, and renal excretion without metabolism. These properties eliminate the need for routine laboratory monitoring in most patients [ 130 , 131 ].

In patients with lower extremity superficial vein thrombosis (SVT), at least 5 cm in length located more than 3 cm from the saphenofemoral junction, and the CALISTO trial demonstrated that having fondaparinux (2.5 mg) subcutaneously once daily for 45 days significantly reduced the composite outcome of mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), and SVT extension or recurrence compared with placebo (0.9% vs. 5.9%; relative risk 0.15, 95% CI 0.08–0.26) [ 132 , 133 ]. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) occurred in 0.2% of fondaparinux-treated patients versus 1.3% of placebo recipients, with comparable major bleeding rates (0.1% each group). Professional societies recommend fondaparinux (2.5 mg) daily for 45 days as first-line therapy for lower extremity SVT ≥5 cm in length and >3 cm from the saphenofemoral junction [ 132 , 133 ]. For lower extremity SVT in cancer patients, NCCN recommends consideration of prophylactic dose anticoagulation for at least 6 weeks if SVT ≥ 5 cm in length and above the knee [ 35 , 134 ]. Therapeutic dose anticoagulation for at least 3 months is recommended for SVT within 3 cm of the saphenofemoral junction [ 134 ]. Symptomatic management may be sufficient for catheter-related upper extremity SVT if the catheter is removed with a low threshold to consider anticoagulation, with evidence of progression or clot in close proximity to the deep venous system [ 134 ].

Fondaparinux is recognized in the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines as an acceptable parenteral anticoagulant for the initial management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, particularly during the first 5–10 days or longer when rapid and reliable anticoagulation is required. Its inclusion alongside low-molecular-weight and unfractionated heparins highlights its clinical utility in selected patients, especially those with contraindications to heparins such as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, intolerance to heparin products, or situations in which oral anticoagulants are not appropriate [ 78 ]. Fondaparinux offers advantages in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, with propensity-matched studies demonstrating comparable effectiveness and safety to approved non-heparin anticoagulants [ 130 , 135 ]. Despite guideline inclusion, fondaparinux remains underrecognized among oncologists, reflecting its lower grade of recommendation compared with LMWH (1A) and direct oral anticoagulants (1A), limited cancer-specific trial data, and absence from simplified treatment algorithms. Explicit inclusion in treatment pathways would enhance appropriate utilization in suitable clinical scenarios [ 93 ].

9. Duration of Anticoagulation and Potential for Low-Dose Regimen Use

Typically, the duration of anticoagulation for VTE treatment ranges from 4 to 12 weeks and beyond 12 weeks in certain situations. The duration can differ depending on indication, for example, treatment versus primary or secondary prophylaxis. Current guidelines suggest extending anticoagulant treatment if the patient has active cancer but evidence for anticoagulation beyond 6 months in cancer populations is limited to a few prospective studies [ 127 , 136 , 137 ]. Extended treatment with low molecular weight heparin has been evaluated in several prospective studies. In the DALTECAN trial, patients received dalteparin for up to 12 months, and the majority of thrombotic recurrences were observed within the initial 6-month period, while bleeding rates remained relatively constant beyond that time [ 127 ]. Comparable results were reported in the TiCAT study, which examined tinzaparin therapy and demonstrated persistently low rates of both recurrent VTE and major bleeding during the 6–12 month treatment interval [ 136 ]. Together, these studies support the safety and effectiveness of prolonged LMWH therapy in appropriately selected cancer patients. In contrast, the Hokusai VTE Cancer trial, which followed patients for 12 months, found a lower rate of VTE recurrence with edoxaban compared with dalteparin (7.9% vs. 11.3%), but this benefit was offset by significantly higher rates of major bleeding, particularly in GI cancers [ 137 ]. Collectively, these findings suggest that extended therapy is feasible and generally safe with LMWH, whereas DOAC use beyond 6 months may require caution in patients with high bleeding risk malignancies.

Within the general population, secondary prophylaxis with reduced-dose apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily) and rivaroxaban (10 mg daily) has been demonstrated to be protective against recurrent VTE without significantly increasing the rate of major bleeding—showcasing efficacy and safety [ 138 , 139 ]. Current guidelines on CA-VTE thus far continue to recommend a full-dose anticoagulation regimen for secondary prophylaxis beyond 3–6 months of primary treatment.

In an effort to explore the safety and efficacy of low-dose anticoagulation in cancer-associated VTE for secondary prophylaxis, a single arm interventional clinical trial was conducted in Norway where 298 patients were treated with full-dose apixaban (5 mg twice daily) for 6 months and 196 patients with active cancer after 6 months of treatment continued with apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for another 30 months [ 140 ]. Through the 30-month treatment with low-dose apixaban, 14 patients (7.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0–11.7%) experienced recurrent VTE, six patients (3.1%; 95% CI 1.1–6.5%) experienced major bleeding and 16 patients (8.1%, 95% CI: 4.7–12.8%) experienced clinically relevant non-major bleeding [ 140 ]. While there was a trend towards a small transient increase in VTE and a substantial decrease in major bleedings between 7 and 12 months, the incidence of recurrent VTE and major bleeding remained low with 2.5 mg of apixaban taken twice daily beyond 12 months. This study shows that a reduction in apixaban dosage to 2.5 mg is effective and safe.

The API-CAT phase 3 trial investigated whether a reduced-dose apixaban strategy could provide effective extended anticoagulation in patients with active cancer who had already completed at least 6 months of therapy. In this randomized, double-blind, multinational study conducted across 11 countries, 866 participants received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily and 900 participants received the standard dose of 5 mg twice daily for an additional 12 months [ 141 ]. Recurrent VTE occurred in 18 patients in the reduced-dose group and 24 patients in the full-dose group, corresponding to cumulative incidences of 2.1% and 2.8%, respectively (adjusted subhazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.41–1.41; p = 0.001 for non-inferiority). In the reduced-dose group, 102 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.1%) experienced clinically relevant bleeding, defined as major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding over 12 months (adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97; p = 0.03 for superiority), 24 patients (cumulative incidence, 2.9%) had major bleeding (adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.10) and 84 patients (cumulative incidence, 10.0%) experienced clinically relevant non-major bleeding (adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.05) [ 141 ]. These findings demonstrate that the reduced-dose regimen was non-inferior to the standard dose for prevention of VTE recurrence while showing a more favorable bleeding profile.

Secondary outcomes showed comparable rates of recurrent major VTE (2.0% vs. 2.4%) [subhazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.57] and all-cause mortality (17.7% vs. 19.6%) between groups. The net clinical benefit, defined as the composite of recurrent symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, or all-cause death, was similar in both groups (19.9% vs. 22.1%; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87–1.07). Serious adverse events, such as GI, vascular, renal and nervous systems disorders, occurred in 39.8% of patients in the reduced-dose group and 43.8% in the full-dose group.

Overall, this study shows that a reduced-dose apixaban regimen was non-inferior to full-dose apixaban in the incidence of recurrent VTE at 12 months. In addition, clinically relevant bleeding occurred significantly less frequently in the reduced-dose group. However, this study was unable to collect racial/ethnic data, thus limiting the ability to perform risk stratification based on demographic subgroups.

In Table 3 the authors present anticoagulant regiments for CA-VTE cases according to the treatment protocol.

10. Special and Challenging Scenarios in CA-VTE

10.1. Thrombocytopenia

LMWH is the preferred therapy for cancer patients with thrombocytopenia [ 142 ]. Full-dose anticoagulation is considered relatively safe in patients with platelet count more than 50,000/µL. Dose modification to reduced-dose LMWH is recommended if platelet counts are 25,000–50,000/µL. For severe thrombocytopenia with platelet count < 25,000 and an acute CA-VTE event, platelet transfusion should be considered in order to provide safe anticoagulation [ 96 ]. Frequent platelet transfusion is not always clinically feasible.

10.2. Brain Cancers and Metastases

Anticoagulation appears to be well-tolerated in patients with gliomas and most metastatic cancers to the brain [ 143 , 144 ]. Cautious use of anticoagulation and dose modification is usually recommended in certain secondary cerebral nervous system cancers from melanoma and kidney cancer. There is growing literature regarding the safer use of DOAC compared to LMWH in this high-risk population [ 145 ].

10.3. Concurrent Antiplatelet Therapy

Concurrent antiplatelet therapy along with anticoagulation can significantly increase the risk of bleeding in a cancer patient. This regimen should be reserved for exceptional situations of a recent acute coronary syndrome event or vascular stent placement [ 96 ]. LMWH may be preferred over DOAC in such cases [ 142 ].

10.4. Catheter-Related Thrombosis

Thrombophylaxis for catheter-related thrombosis is not usually recommended in cancer patients. In patients who develop a catheter-related thrombus, treatment dose of anticoagulation is warranted for at least 3–6 months unless a contraindication exists. Beyond 3–6 months, if the catheter is maintained, anticoagulation should be extended (possibly at a lower dose) [ 146 ]. Catheter removal should be considered if it is no longer clinically required.

11. Clinical Trials in Progress

There are several ongoing multi-institutional clinical trials currently enrolling patients to investigate the prophylaxis and treatment strategies in CA-VTE.

The START trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05255003 ) is a Phase 4 RCT, enrolling adult patients with acute CA-VTE (diagnosed within 14 days) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 50,000/µL) who will be randomized 1:1 to modified-dose LMWH or higher-dose LMWH with platelet transfusion support. The objective of this study is to evaluate the superiority of a modified dose LMWH strategy in reducing clinically relevant bleeding events compared to full-dose LMWH with platelet transfusion. The study is currently active and recruiting patients.

Abelacimab is a Factor XI inhibitor which has shown promising results for preventing VTE with a much better safety profile and the convenience of infrequent dosing [ 147 ]. NCT05171049 (ClinicalTrials.gov; ASTER trial), which compared abelacimab relative to apixaban in CA-VTE, and NCT05171075 (ClinicalTrials.gov; Magnolia trial), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of abelacimab and dalteparin to prevent recurrent VTE in patients with gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancers, have both been terminated prematurely following emerging concerns regarding inferior efficacy and potential harm with abelacimab compared with standard anticoagulation. The absence of a reversal agent for factor XI inhibitors and the implications for urgent surgery or trauma also make it particularly challenging to use in this high-risk population.

An early Phase 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02285738 ) is also ongoing to determine the efficacy of aspirin with and without simvastatin in solid tumor patients with high or intermediate risk for VTE, in reducing markers of platelet activation, inflammatory cytokines and measures of hemostatic activation. The trial has been completed, and participants are no longer being examined or treated.

12. Conclusions

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) remains a major source of morbidity and mortality in oncology, driven by complex interactions between tumor biology patient-specific factors and cancer therapies. While risk models such as the Khorana score have advanced clinicians’ ability to identify high-risk patients, their limitations highlight the urgent need for more precise tools that incorporate biomarkers, genomics, and treatment-related factors. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have expanded the therapeutic landscape, but safety concerns, particularly in GI and GU cancers, underscore the importance of individualized decision-making. Current guidelines recommend anticoagulation beyond the initial treatment phase for patients with active cancer, though data on optimal duration and dosing remain limited. Emerging trials and novel agents, including factor XI inhibitors, are poised to refine prophylaxis and treatment strategies. Moving forward, addressing disparities in clinical trial representation, integrating real-world evidence, and applying precision medicine approaches will be essential to improving outcomes for patients with CA-VTE.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.N. and S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.N. and S.K.; writing—review and editing, K.B. and G.R.; supervision, G.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Mulder F.I. Horvath-Puho E. van Es N. van Laarhoven H.W.M. Pedersen L. Moik F. Ay C. Buller H.R. Sorensen H.T. Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: A population-based cohort study Blood 2021 137 1959 1969 10.1182/blood.2020007338 33171494

2. Heit J.A. O’Fallon W.M. Petterson T.M. Lohse C.M. Silverstein M.D. Mohr D.N. Melton L.J. 3rd Relative impact of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: A population-based study Arch. Intern. Med. 2002 162 1245 1248 10.1001/archinte.162.11.1245 12038942

3. Spencer F.A. Lessard D. Emery C. Reed G. Goldberg R.J. Venous thromboembolism in the outpatient setting Arch. Intern. Med. 2007 167 1471 1475 10.1001/archinte.167.14.1471 17646600 PMC2762787

4. Gussoni G. Frasson S. La Regina M. Di Micco P. Monreal M. Investigators R. Three-month mortality rate and clinical predictors in patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer. Findings from the RIETE registry Thromb. Res. 2013 131 24 30 10.1016/j.thromres.2012.10.007 23141849

5. Cohen A.T. Katholing A. Rietbrock S. Bamber L. Martinez C. Epidemiology of first and recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer. A population-based cohort study Thromb. Haemost. 2017 117 57 65 10.1160/TH15-08-0686 27709226

6. Raskob G.E. Wendelboe A.M. Campbell J. Ford L. Ding K. Bratzler D.W. McCumber M. Adamski A. Abe K. Beckman M.G. Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Incidence and features in a racially diverse population J. Thromb. Haemost. 2022 20 2366 2378 10.1111/jth.15818 35830203 PMC9804159

7. Mahajan A. Brunson A. Adesina O. Keegan T.H.M. Wun T. The incidence of cancer-associated thrombosis is increasing over time Blood Adv. 2022 6 307 320 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005590 34649273 PMC8753193

8. Raskob G. Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in cancer patients after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy Bleeding Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2024 3 10.4081/btvb.2024.124

9. Elyamany G. Alzahrani A.M. Bukhary E. Cancer-associated thrombosis: An overview Clin. Med. Insights Oncol. 2014 8 129 137 10.4137/CMO.S18991 25520567 PMC4259501

10. Chew H.K. Wun T. Harvey D. Zhou H. White R.H. Incidence of venous thromboembolism and its effect on survival among patients with common cancers Arch. Intern. Med. 2006 166 458 464 10.1001/archinte.166.4.458 16505267

11. Wun T. White R.H. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer: Epidemiology and risk factors Cancer Investig. 2009 27 63 74 10.1080/07357900802656681 19291526

12. Khorana A.A. Connolly G.C. Assessing risk of venous thromboembolism in the patient with cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2009 27 4839 4847 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3271 19720906 PMC2764392

13. Khorana A.A. Francis C.W. Culakova E. Kuderer N.M. Lyman G.H. Frequency, risk factors, and trends for venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients Cancer 2007 110 2339 2346 10.1002/cncr.23062 17918266

14. Agnelli G. Bolis G. Capussotti L. Scarpa R.M. Tonelli F. Bonizzoni E. Moia M. Parazzini F. Rossi R. Sonaglia F. A clinical outcome-based prospective study on venous thromboembolism after cancer surgery: The @RISTOS project Ann. Surg. 2006 243 89 95 10.1097/01.sla.0000193959.44677.48 16371741 PMC1449979

15. Khorana A.A. Francis C.W. Culakova E. Lyman G.H. Risk factors for chemotherapy-associated venous thromboembolism in a prospective observational study Cancer 2005 104 2822 2829 10.1002/cncr.21496 16284987

16. Chen Y.W. Khorana A.A. The association between race and venous thromboembolism risk after initiation of chemotherapy: An analysis of the SAVE-ONCO trial control arm Am. J. Hematol. 2017 92 E101 E103 10.1002/ajh.24712 28263404

17. Datta T. Brunson A. Mahajan A. Keegan T. Wun T. Racial disparities in cancer-associated thrombosis Blood Adv. 2022 6 3167 3177 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006209 35171995 PMC9131919

18. Connolly G.C. Francis C.W. Cancer-associated thrombosis Hematol. Am. Soc. Hematol. Educ. Program. 2013 2013 684 691 10.1182/asheducation-2013.1.684 24319253

19. Moik F. Ay C. Pabinger I. Risk prediction for cancer-associated thrombosis in ambulatory patients with cancer: Past, present and future Thromb. Res. 2020 191 S3 S11 10.1016/S0049-3848(20)30389-3 32736775

20. Li A. La J. May S.B. Guffey D. da Costa W.L. Jr. Amos C.I. Bandyo R. Milner E.M. Kurian K.M. Chen D.C.R. Derivation and Validation of a Clinical Risk Assessment Model for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in Two Unique US Health Care Systems J. Clin. Oncol. 2023 41 2926 2938 10.1200/JCO.22.01542 36626707 PMC10431461

21. Seng S. Liu Z. Chiu S.K. Proverbs-Singh T. Sonpavde G. Choueiri T.K. Tsao C.K. Yu M. Hahn N.M. Oh W.K. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer treated with Cisplatin: A systematic review and meta-analysis J. Clin. Oncol. 2012 30 4416 4426 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.4358 23150697

22. Zangari M. Siegel E. Barlogie B. Anaissie E. Saghafifar F. Fassas A. Morris C. Fink L. Tricot G. Thrombogenic activity of doxorubicin in myeloma patients receiving thalidomide: Implications for therapy Blood 2002 100 1168 1171 10.1182/blood-2002-01-0335 12149193

23. Zangari M. Anaissie E. Barlogie B. Badros A. Desikan R. Gopal A.V. Morris C. Toor A. Siegel E. Fink L. Increased risk of deep-vein thrombosis in patients with multiple myeloma receiving thalidomide and chemotherapy Blood 2001 98 1614 1615 10.1182/blood.V98.5.1614 11520815

24. Young K. Paz-Ares L. Thatcher N. Spigel D.R. Shahidi J. Soldatenkova V. Grau G. Kurek R. Shepherd F.A. Venous thromboembolism with EGFR monoclonal antibody necitumumab in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective cohort analysis Thromb. Res. 2018 167 50 56 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.05.004 29787943

25. Miroddi M. Sterrantino C. Simmonds M. Caridi L. Calapai G. Phillips R.S. Stewart L.A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of severe and life-threatening thromboembolism in cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab or panitumumab) Int. J. Cancer 2016 139 2370 2380 10.1002/ijc.30280 27450994

26. Thein K.Z. Htut T.W. Ball S. Swarup S. Sultan A. Oo T.H. Venous thromboembolism risk in patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer treated with combined CDK 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2020 183 479 487 10.1007/s10549-020-05783-3 32647939

27. Rosner T. Lohse S. Peipp M. Valerius T. Derer S. Epidermal growth factor receptor targeting IgG3 triggers complement-mediated lysis of decay-accelerating factor expressing tumor cells through the alternative pathway amplification loop J. Immunol. 2014 193 1485 1495 10.4049/jimmunol.1400329 24973443

28. Hua M. Xiong F. Chong S. Zhang Z. Liu Q. Hou J. Zhang Z. Gu Z. Cui X. Cui Y. Abemaciclib increases the risk of venous thromboembolism in breast cancer: Integrate meta-analysis, pharmacovigilance database analysis, and in vitro validation Cancer Treat. Rev. 2024 130 102827 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102827 39278067

29. Scappaticci F.A. Skillings J.R. Holden S.N. Gerber H.P. Miller K. Kabbinavar F. Bergsland E. Ngai J. Holmgren E. Wang J. Arterial thromboembolic events in patients with metastatic carcinoma treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007 99 1232 1239 10.1093/jnci/djm086 17686822

30. Nalluri S.R. Chu D. Keresztes R. Zhu X. Wu S. Risk of venous thromboembolism with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab in cancer patients: A meta-analysis JAMA 2008 300 2277 2285 10.1001/jama.2008.656 19017914

31. Hurwitz H.I. Saltz L.B. Van Cutsem E. Cassidy J. Wiedemann J. Sirzen F. Lyman G.H. Rohr U.P. Venous thromboembolic events with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: A pooled analysis of patients in randomized phase II and III studies J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 29 1757 1764 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.3220 21422411

32. Qi W.X. Shen Z. Tang L.N. Yao Y. Risk of arterial thromboembolic events with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: An up-to-date meta-analysis Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2014 92 71 82 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.04.004 24878433

33. Qi W.X. Min D.L. Shen Z. Sun Y.J. Lin F. Tang L.N. He A.N. Yao Y. Risk of venous thromboembolic events associated with VEGFR-TKIs: A systematic review and meta-analysis Int. J. Cancer 2013 132 2967 2974 10.1002/ijc.27979 23225494

34. Lage Bodour Danielian P.L. Dave H.M. Wei W. Patel M.H. Angelini D.E. Khorana A.A. Outcomes in Patients with Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Matched Cohort Study Blood 2024 144 5578 10.1182/blood-2024-211304

35. Alok A.K. Jennell P. Lisa R. Radhika P. Ning H. Chi N. John B. Kerrin G. Bond T.C. Venous thromboembolism incidence and risk factors associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer J. Immunother. Cancer 2023 11 e006072 10.1136/jitc-2022-006072 36657815 PMC9853260

36. McCrae K.R. Swaidani S. Diaz-Montero C.M. Khorana A.A. Old is new again: Emergence of thromboembolic complications in cancer patients on immunotherapy Thromb. Res. 2022 213 S51 S57 10.1016/j.thromres.2022.01.006 36061419 PMC9435305

37. Nichetti F. Ligorio F. Zattarin E. Signorelli D. Prelaj A. Proto C. Galli G. Marra A. Apollonio G. Porcu L. Is There an Interplay between Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, Thromboprophylactic Treatments and Thromboembolic Events? Mechanisms and Impact in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Cancers 2019 12 67 10.3390/cancers12010067 31881699 PMC7016680

38. Kroger K. Weiland D. Ose C. Neumann N. Weiss S. Hirsch C. Urbanski K. Seeber S. Scheulen M.E. Risk factors for venous thromboembolic events in cancer patients Ann. Oncol. 2006 17 297 303 10.1093/annonc/mdj068 16282243

39. Moik F. Englisch C. Pabinger I. Ay C. Risk assessment models of cancer-associated thrombosis—Potentials and perspectives Throbosis Update 2021 5 100075 10.1016/j.tru.2021.100075

40. Khorana A.A. Kuderer N.M. Culakova E. Lyman G.H. Francis C.W. Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis Blood 2008 111 4902 4907 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116327 18216292 PMC2384124

41. Pabinger I. van Es N. Heinze G. Posch F. Riedl J. Reitter E.M. Di Nisio M. Cesarman-Maus G. Kraaijpoel N. Zielinski C.C. A clinical prediction model for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A development and validation study in two independent prospective cohorts Lancet Haematol. 2018 5 e289 e298 Correction in Lancet Haematol. 2018 , 5 , e332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(18)30063-2 10.1016/s2352-3026(18)30095-4 29885940 PMC7338218

42. Verso M. Agnelli G. Barni S. Gasparini G. LaBianca R. A modified Khorana risk assessment score for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: The Protecht score Intern. Emerg. Med. 2012 7 291 292 10.1007/s11739-012-0784-y 22547369

43. Pelzer U. Sinn M. Stieler J. Riess H. Primary pharmacological prevention of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with chemotherapy? Dtsch. Med. Wochenschr. 2013 138 2084 2088 10.1055/s-0033-1349608 24085361

44. Munoz Martin A.J. Ortega I. Font C. Pachon V. Castellon V. Martinez-Marin V. Salgado M. Martinez E. Calzas J. Ruperez A. Multivariable clinical-genetic risk model for predicting venous thromboembolic events in patients with cancer Br. J. Cancer 2018 118 1056 1061 10.1038/s41416-018-0027-8 29588512 PMC5931103

45. Kim A.S. Khorana A.A. McCrae K.R. Mechanisms and biomarkers of cancer-associated thrombosis Transl. Res. 2020 225 33 53 10.1016/j.trsl.2020.06.012 32645431 PMC8020882

46. Yuana Y. Bertina R.M. Osanto S. Pre-analytical and analytical issues in the analysis of blood microparticles Thromb. Haemost. 2011 105 396 408 10.1160/TH10-09-0595 21174005

47. Sciacca F.L. Ciusani E. Silvani A. Corsini E. Frigerio S. Pogliani S. Parati E. Croci D. Boiardi A. Salmaggi A. Genetic and plasma markers of venous thromboembolism in patients with high grade glioma Clin. Cancer Res. 2004 10 1312 1317 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-03-0198 14977830

48. Oto J. Navarro S. Larsen A.C. Solmoirago M.J. Plana E. Hervas D. Fernandez-Pardo A. Espana F. Kristensen S.R. Thorlacius-Ussing O. MicroRNAs and Neutrophil Activation Markers Predict Venous Thrombosis in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Distal Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 840 10.3390/ijms21030840 32012923 PMC7043221

49. Lim S.H. Woo S.Y. Kim S. Ko Y.H. Kim W.S. Kim S.J. Cross-sectional Study of Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Assessing the Effect of Host Status, Tumor Burden, and Inflammatory Activity on Venous Thromboembolism Cancer Res. Treat. 2016 48 312 321 10.4143/crt.2014.266 25761485 PMC4720058

50. Matsuo K. Hasegawa K. Yoshino K. Murakami R. Hisamatsu T. Stone R.L. Previs R.A. Hansen J.M. Ikeda Y. Miyara A. Venous thromboembolism, interleukin-6 and survival outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian clear cell carcinoma Eur. J. Cancer 2015 51 1978 1988 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.012 26238017 PMC7304744

51. Mauracher L.M. Posch F. Martinod K. Grilz E. Daullary T. Hell L. Brostjan C. Zielinski C. Ay C. Wagner D.D. Citrullinated histone H3, a biomarker of neutrophil extracellular trap formation, predicts the risk of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients J. Thromb. Haemost. 2018 16 508 518 10.1111/jth.13951 29325226 PMC6294121

52. Ferroni P. Riondino S. Formica V. Cereda V. Tosetto L. La Farina F. Valente M.G. Vergati M. Guadagni F. Roselli M. Venous thromboembolism risk prediction in ambulatory cancer patients: Clinical significance of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and platelet/lymphocyte ratio Int. J. Cancer 2015 136 1234 1240 10.1002/ijc.29076 25042739

53. van Es N. Hisada Y. Di Nisio M. Cesarman G. Kleinjan A. Mahe I. Otten H.M. Kamphuisen P.W. Berckmans R.J. Buller H.R. Extracellular vesicles exposing tissue factor for the prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A prospective cohort study Thromb. Res. 2018 166 54 59 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.04.009 29656167

54. Thaler J. Ay C. Weinstabl H. Dunkler D. Simanek R. Vormittag R. Freyssinet J.M. Zielinski C. Pabinger I. Circulating procoagulant microparticles in cancer patients Ann. Hematol. 2011 90 447 453 10.1007/s00277-010-1111-1 20981426

55. Almeida V.H. Rondon A.M.R. Gomes T. Monteiro R.Q. Novel Aspects of Extracellular Vesicles as Mediators of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Cells 2019 8 716 10.3390/cells8070716 31337034 PMC6679024

56. Riedl J. Preusser M. Nazari P.M. Posch F. Panzer S. Marosi C. Birner P. Thaler J. Brostjan C. Lotsch D. Podoplanin expression in primary brain tumors induces platelet aggregation and increases risk of venous thromboembolism Blood 2017 129 1831 1839 10.1182/blood-2016-06-720714 28073783 PMC5823234

57. Liu Y. Gao L. Fan Y. Ma R. An Y. Chen G. Xie Y. Discovery of protein biomarkers for venous thromboembolism in non-small cell lung cancer patients through data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry Front. Oncol. 2023 13 1079719 10.3389/fonc.2023.1079719 36874092 PMC9976579

58. Trujillo-Santos J. Di Micco P. Iannuzzo M. Lecumberri R. Guijarro R. Madridano O. Monreal M. Investigators R. Elevated white blood cell count and outcome in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism. Findings from the RIETE Registry Thromb. Haemost. 2008 100 905 911 10.1160/TH08-05-0339 18989537

59. Simanek R. Vormittag R. Ay C. Alguel G. Dunkler D. Schwarzinger I. Steger G. Jaeger U. Zielinski C. Pabinger I. High platelet count associated with venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: Results from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS) J. Thromb. Haemost. 2010 8 114 120 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03680.x 19889150

60. Ay C. Simanek R. Vormittag R. Dunkler D. Alguel G. Koder S. Kornek G. Marosi C. Wagner O. Zielinski C. High plasma levels of soluble P-selectin are predictive of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: Results from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS) Blood 2008 112 2703 2708 10.1182/blood-2008-02-142422 18539899

61. Ay C. Vormittag R. Dunkler D. Simanek R. Chiriac A.L. Drach J. Quehenberger P. Wagner O. Zielinski C. Pabinger I. D-dimer and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 predict venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: Results from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study J. Clin. Oncol. 2009 27 4124 4129 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.7752 19636003

62. Ay C. Dunkler D. Marosi C. Chiriac A.-L. Vormittag R. Simanek R. Quehenberger P. Zielinski C. Pabinger I. Prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients Blood 2010 116 5377 5382 10.1182/blood-2010-02-270116 20829374

63. van Es N. Di Nisio M. Cesarman G. Kleinjan A. Otten H.M. Mahe I. Wilts I.T. Twint D.C. Porreca E. Arrieta O. Comparison of risk prediction scores for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: A prospective cohort study Haematologica 2017 102 1494 1501 10.3324/haematol.2017.169060 28550192 PMC5685240

64. Cella C.A. Di Minno G. Carlomagno C. Arcopinto M. Cerbone A.M. Matano E. Tufano A. Lordick F. De Simone B. Muehlberg K.S. Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: The ONKOTEV Study Oncologist 2017 22 601 608 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0246 28424324 PMC5423517

65. Godinho J. Casa-Nova M. Moreira-Pinto J. Simoes P. Paralta Branco F. Leal-Costa L. Faria A. Lopes F. Teixeira J.A. Passos-Coelho J.L. ONKOTEV Score as a Predictive Tool for Thromboembolic Events in Pancreatic Cancer-A Retrospective Analysis Oncologist 2020 25 e284 e290 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0510 32043787 PMC7011666

66. Gerotziafas G.T. Taher A. Abdel-Razeq H. AboElnazar E. Spyropoulos A.C. El Shemmari S. Larsen A.K. Elalamy I. Group C.-C.W. A Predictive Score for Thrombosis Associated with Breast, Colorectal, Lung, or Ovarian Cancer: The Prospective COMPASS-Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Study Oncologist 2017 22 1222 1231 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0414 28550032 PMC5634762

67. Spyropoulos A.C. Eldredge J.B. Anand L.N. Zhang M. Qiu M. Nourabadi S. Rosenberg D.J. External Validation of a Venous Thromboembolic Risk Score for Cancer Outpatients with Solid Tumors: The COMPASS-CAT Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Model Oncologist 2020 25 e1083 e1090 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0482 32017293 PMC7356707

68. Louzada M.L. Carrier M. Lazo-Langner A. Dao V. Kovacs M.J. Ramsay T.O. Rodger M.A. Zhang J. Lee A.Y. Meyer G. Development of a clinical prediction rule for risk stratification of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism Circulation 2012 126 448 454 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.051920 22679142

69. Mulder F.I. Kraaijpoel N. Di Nisio M. Meyer G. Mahe I. Munoz A. Bertoletti L. Biosca M. Maraveyas A. Buller H.R. The Ottawa score performs poorly in cancer patients with incidental pulmonary embolism Thromb. Res. 2019 181 59 63 10.1016/j.thromres.2019.07.005 31352267

70. Girard P. Laporte S. Chapelle C. Falvo N. Falchero L. Cloarec N. Monnet I. Burnod A. Tomasini P. Boulon C. Failure of the Ottawa Score to Predict the Risk of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients: The Prospective PREDICARE Cohort Study Thromb. Haemost. 2022 122 151 157 10.1055/a-1486-7497 33878800

71. Blom J.W. Doggen C.J. Osanto S. Rosendaal F.R. Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis JAMA 2005 293 715 722 10.1001/jama.293.6.715 15701913

72. Li A. Wu Q. Luo S. Warnick G.S. Zakai N.A. Libby E.N. Gage B.F. Garcia D.A. Lyman G.H. Sanfilippo K.M. Derivation and validation of a risk assessment model for immunomodulatory drug–associated thrombosis among patients with multiple myeloma J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2019 17 840 847 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7273 PMC7808759 31319391

73. Dima D. Li A. Granat L.M. Dhillon P. Chamseddine F. Yalamanchali A. Mirzai S. Wei W. Samaras C.J. Valent J. External validation of the SAVED score for venous thromboembolism risk stratification in patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory drugs Br. J. Haematol. 2023 201 280 284 10.1111/bjh.18630 36604838

74. Sanfilippo K.M. Luo S. Wang T.F. Fiala M. Schoen M. Wildes T.M. Mikhael J. Kuderer N.M. Calverley D.C. Keller J. Predicting venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma: Development and validation of the IMPEDE VTE score Am. J. Hematol. 2019 94 1176 1184 10.1002/ajh.25603 31379000 PMC7058359

75. Covut F. Ahmed R. Chawla S. Ricaurte F. Samaras C.J. Anwer F. Garcia A.V.M. Angelini D.E. Mazzoni S. Faiman B. Validation of the IMPEDE VTE score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma: A retrospective cohort study Br. J. Haematol. 2021 193 1213 1219 10.1111/bjh.17505 33997961

76. Di Nisio M. van Es N. Rotunno L. Anzoletti N. Falcone L. De Tursi M. Natoli C. Tinari N. Cavallo I. Valeriani E. Long-term performance of risk scores for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 2019 48 125 133 10.1007/s11239-019-01845-6 30919253

77. Thaler J. Ay C. Kaider A. Reitter E.-M. Haselböck J. Mannhalter C. Zielinski C. Marosi C. Pabinger I. Biomarkers predictive of venous thromboembolism in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas Neuro-oncology 2014 16 1645 1651 10.1093/neuonc/nou106 24987133 PMC4232082

78. Committee E.G. Falanga A. Ay C. Di Nisio M. Gerotziafas G. Jara-Palomares L. Langer F. Lecumberri R. Mandala M. Maraveyas A. Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline Ann. Oncol. 2023 34 452 467 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.12.014 36638869

79. Khorana A.A. Noble S. Lee A.Y.Y. Soff G. Meyer G. O’Connell C. Carrier M. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH J. Thromb. Haemost. 2018 16 1891 1894 10.1111/jth.14219 30027649

80. Young A.M. Marshall A. Thirlwall J. Chapman O. Lokare A. Hill C. Hale D. Dunn J.A. Lyman G.H. Hutchinson C. Comparison of an Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor With Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Patients With Cancer With Venous Thromboembolism: Results of a Randomized Trial (SELECT-D) J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 2017 2023 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.8034 29746227

81. Raskob G.E. van Es N. Verhamme P. Carrier M. Di Nisio M. Garcia D. Grosso M.A. Kakkar A.K. Kovacs M.J. Mercuri M.F. Edoxaban for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 615 624 10.1056/NEJMoa1711948 29231094

82. Ay C. Pabinger I. Cohen A.T. Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Burden, mechanisms, and management Thromb. Haemost. 2017 117 219 230 10.1160/TH16-08-0615 27882374

83. Vladic N. Englisch C. Ay C. Pabinger I. Risk assessment and prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with solid malignancies Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost. 2025 9 102664 10.1016/j.rpth.2024.102664 39877524 PMC11772966

84. Dutia M. White R.H. Wun T. Risk assessment models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism Cancer 2012 118 3468 3476 10.1002/cncr.26597 22086826

85. Mulder F.I. Candeloro M. Kamphuisen P.W. Di Nisio M. Bossuyt P.M. Guman N. Smit K. Buller H.R. van Es N. CAT-Prediction Collaborators The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Haematologica 2019 104 1277 1287 10.3324/haematol.2018.209114 30606788 PMC6545838

86. Overvad T.F. Ording A.G. Nielsen P.B. Skjoth F. Albertsen I.E. Noble S. Vistisen A.K. Gade I.L. Severinsen M.T. Piazza G. Validation of the Khorana score for predicting venous thromboembolism in 40 218 patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy Blood Adv. 2022 6 2967 2976 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006484 35045569 PMC9131922

87. Carrier M. Abou-Nassar K. Mallick R. Tagalakis V. Shivakumar S. Schattner A. Kuruvilla P. Hill D. Spadafora S. Marquis K. Apixaban to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 711 719 10.1056/NEJMoa1814468 30511879

88. Khorana A.A. Soff G.A. Kakkar A.K. Vadhan-Raj S. Riess H. Wun T. Streiff M.B. Garcia D.A. Liebman H.A. Belani C.P. Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 720 728 10.1056/NEJMoa1814630 30786186

89. Johnstone C. Rich S.E. Bleeding in cancer patients and its treatment: A review Ann. Palliat. Med. 2018 7 265 273 10.21037/apm.2017.11.01 29307210

90. Escobar A. Salem A.M. Dickson K. Johnson T.N. Burk K.J. Bashoura L. Faiz S.A. Anticoagulation and bleeding in the cancer patient Support. Care Cancer 2022 30 8547 8557 10.1007/s00520-022-07136-w 35579752 PMC9529787

91. Lyman G.H. Carrier M. Ay C. Di Nisio M. Hicks L.K. Khorana A.A. Leavitt A.D. Lee A.Y. Macbeth F. Morgan R.L. American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Prevention and treatment in patients with cancer Blood Adv. 2021 5 927 974 Erratum in Blood Adv. 2021 , 13 , 1953 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003442 33570602 PMC7903232

92. Wang T.F. Zwicker J.I. Ay C. Pabinger I. Falanga A. Antic D. Noble S. Khorana A.A. Carrier M. Meyer G. The use of direct oral anticoagulants for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH J. Thromb. Haemost. 2019 17 1772 1778 10.1111/jth.14564 31353841 PMC6773470

93. Farge D. Frere C. Connors J.M. Khorana A.A. Kakkar A. Ay C. Munoz A. Brenner B. Prata P.H. Brilhante D. 2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19 Lancet Oncol. 2022 23 e334 e347 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00160-7 35772465 PMC9236567

94. Key N.S. Khorana A.A. Kuderer N.M. Bohlke K. Lee A.Y.Y. Arcelus J.I. Wong S.L. Balaban E.P. Flowers C.R. Gates L.E. Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update J. Clin. Oncol. 2023 41 3063 3071 10.1200/JCO.23.00294 37075273

95. Streiff M.B. Holmstrom B. Angelini D. Ashrani A. Elshoury A. Fanikos J. Fertrin K.Y. Fogerty A.E. Gao S. Goldhaber S.Z. Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2021 19 1181 1201 34666313 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0047

96. Pachon V. Trujillo-Santos J. Domenech P. Gallardo E. Font C. Gonzalez-Porras J.R. Perez-Segura P. Maestre A. Mateo J. Munoz A. Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Beyond Clinical Practice Guidelines-A Multidisciplinary (SEMI-SEOM-SETH) Expert Consensus TH Open 2018 2 e373 e386 10.1055/s-0038-1675577 31249964 PMC6524906

97. Farge D. Debourdeau P. Beckers M. Baglin C. Bauersachs R. Brenner B. Brilhante D. Falanga A. Gerotzafias G. Haim N. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer J. Thromb. Haemost. 2013 11 56 70 10.1111/jth.12070 23217107

98. Key N.S. Khorana A.A. Kuderer N.M. Bohlke K. Lee A.Y.Y. Arcelus J.I. Wong S.L. Balaban E.P. Flowers C.R. Francis C.W. Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 496 520 10.1200/JCO.19.01461 31381464

99. Agnelli G. Gussoni G. Bianchini C. Verso M. Mandala M. Cavanna L. Barni S. Labianca R. Buzzi F. Scambia G. 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 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70232-3 19726226

100. Agnelli G. George D.J. Kakkar A.K. Fisher W. Lassen M.R. Mismetti P. Mouret P. Chaudhari U. Lawson F. Turpie A.G. Semuloparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2012 366 601 609 10.1056/NEJMoa1108898 22335737

101. Khorana A.A. Francis C.W. Kuderer N.M. Carrier M. Ortel T.L. Wun T. Rubens D. Hobbs S. Iyer R. Peterson D. Dalteparin thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism: A randomized trial Thromb. Res. 2017 151 89 95 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.01.009 28139259

102. Myat Y.M. Win K.H.H. Htut T. Thein K.Z. Oo T.H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on outpatient thromboprophylaxis (OTP) in patients with cancers with khorana score (KS) ≥ 2 receiving chemotherapy Blood 2025 146 4470 10.1182/blood-2025-4470

103. Cohen A.T. Davidson B.L. Gallus A.S. Lassen M.R. Prins M.H. Tomkowski W. Turpie A.G. Egberts J.F. Lensing A.W. Investigators A. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: Randomised placebo controlled trial BMJ 2006 332 325 329 10.1136/bmj.38733.466748.7C 16439370 PMC1363908

104. Leizorovicz A. Cohen A.T. Turpie A.G. Olsson C.G. Vaitkus P.T. Goldhaber S.Z. Group P.M.T.S. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients Circulation 2004 110 874 879 10.1161/01.CIR.0000138928.83266.24 15289368

105. Samama M.M. Cohen A.T. Darmon J.Y. Desjardins L. Eldor A. Janbon C. Leizorovicz A. Nguyen H. Olsson C.G. Turpie A.G. A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin Study Group N. Engl. J. Med. 1999 341 793 800 10.1056/NEJM199909093411103 10477777

106. Munoz Martin A.J. Gallardo Diaz E. Garcia Escobar I. Macias Montero R. Martinez-Marin V. Pachon Olmos V. Perez Segura P. Quintanar Verduguez T. Salgado Fernandez M. SEOM clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer (2019) Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2020 22 171 186 10.1007/s12094-019-02263-z 31981080

107. Di Nisio M. Carrier M. Lyman G.H. Khorana A.A. Subcommittee on Haemostasis and Malignancy. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical cancer patients: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH J. Thromb. Haemost. 2014 12 1746 1749 10.1111/jth.12683 25099690

108. Irani S. Conen D. Should postoperative thromboembolism prevention be extended to the post-hospitalization phase? Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr. 1996 126 386 391 8643938

109. ENOXACAN Study Group Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in elective cancer surgery: A double-blind randomized multicentre trial with venographic assessment Br. J. Surg. 1997 84 1099 1103 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1997.d01-3882.x 9278651

110. Guntupalli S.R. Brennecke A. Behbakht K. Tayebnejad A. Breed C.A. Babayan L.M. Cheng G. Ramzan A.A. Wheeler L.J. Corr B.R. Safety and Efficacy of Apixaban vs Enoxaparin for Preventing Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism in Women Undergoing Surgery for Gynecologic Malignant Neoplasm: A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Netw. Open 2020 3 e207410 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.7410 32589230 PMC7320298

111. Becattini C. Pace U. Pirozzi F. Donini A. Avruscio G. Rondelli F. Boncompagni M. Chiari D. De Prizio M. Visona A. Rivaroxaban vs placebo for extended antithrombotic prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer Blood 2022 140 900 908 10.1182/blood.2022015796 35580191 PMC9412006

112. Lee A.Y. Levine M.N. Baker R.I. Bowden C. Kakkar A.K. Prins M. Rickles F.R. Julian J.A. Haley S. Kovacs M.J. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2003 349 146 153 10.1056/NEJMoa025313 12853587

113. Lee A.Y. Bauersachs R. Janas M.S. Jarner M.F. Kamphuisen P.W. Meyer G. Khorana A.A. CATCH: A randomised clinical trial comparing long-term tinzaparin versus warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in cancer patients BMC Cancer 2013 13 284 10.1186/1471-2407-13-284 23764005 PMC3691586

114. Trujillo-Santos J. Farge-Bancel D. Pedrajas J.M. Gómez-Cuervo C. Ballaz A. Braester A. Mahé I. Villalobos A. Porras J.A. Monreal M. Enoxaparin versus dalteparin or tinzaparin in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism: The RIETECAT study Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost. 2022 6 e12736 10.1002/rth2.12736 35664535 PMC9164243

115. Carrier M. Cameron C. Delluc A. Castellucci L. Khorana A.A. Lee A.Y. Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of acute cancer-associated thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Thromb. Res. 2014 134 1214 1219 10.1016/j.thromres.2014.09.039 25457583

116. Martinez-Zapata M.J. Mathioudakis A.G. Mousa S.A. Bauersachs R. Tinzaparin for Long-Term Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Clin. Appl. Thromb. Hemost. 2018 24 226 234 10.1177/1076029617696581 28288527 PMC6714676

117. Kahale L.A. Hakoum M.B. Tsolakian I.G. Matar C.F. Terrenato I. Sperati F. Barba M. Yosuico V.E. Schunemann H. Akl E.A. Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018 6 CD006650 10.1002/14651858.CD006650.pub5 29920657 PMC6389342

118. Lee A.Y.Y. Kamphuisen P.W. Meyer G. Bauersachs R. Janas M.S. Jarner M.F. Khorana A.A. CATCH Investigators Tinzaparin vs Warfarin for Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Active Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA 2015 314 677 686 Correction in JAMA 2017 , 318 , 2048. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.17820 10.1001/jama.2015.9243 26284719

119. Hull R.D. Pineo G.F. Brant R.F. Mah A.F. Burke N. Dear R. Wong T. Cook R. Solymoss S. Poon M.C. Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patients with cancer Am. J. Med. 2006 119 1062 1072 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.02.022 17145251

120. Li A. Garcia D.A. Lyman G.H. Carrier M. Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT): A systematic review and meta-analysis Thromb. Res. 2019 173 158 163 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.02.144 29506866 PMC6119655

121. Coleman C.I. Caroti K.S. Abdelgawwad K. Psaroudakis G. Fatoba S. Rivera M. Schaefer B. Brobert G. Khorana A.A. Becattini C. Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism JACC CardioOncol 2023 5 189 200 10.1016/j.jaccao.2022.10.014 37144109 PMC10152194

122. Planquette B. Bertoletti L. Charles-Nelson A. Laporte S. Grange C. Mahé I. Pernod G. Elias A. Couturaud F. Falvo N. Rivaroxaban vs Dalteparin in Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism: A Randomized Trial Chest 2022 161 781 790 10.1016/j.chest.2021.09.037 34627853

123. Agnelli G. Becattini C. Meyer G. Munoz A. Huisman M.V. Connors J.M. Cohen A. Bauersachs R. Brenner B. Torbicki A. Apixaban for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 382 1599 1607 10.1056/NEJMoa1915103 32223112

124. Mokadem M.E. Hassan A. Algaby A.Z. Efficacy and safety of apixaban in patients with active malignancy and acute deep venous thrombosis Vascular 2021 29 745 750 10.1177/1708538120971148 33153401

125. McBane R.D. 2nd Wysokinski W.E. Le-Rademacher J.G. Zemla T. Ashrani A. Tafur A. Perepu U. Anderson D. Gundabolu K. Kuzma C. Apixaban and dalteparin in active malignancy-associated venous thromboembolism: The ADAM VTE trial J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020 18 411 421 10.1111/jth.14662 31630479

126. Agnelli G. Munoz A. Franco L. Mahe I. Brenner B. Connors J.M. Gussoni G. Hamulyak E.N. Lambert C. Suero M.R. Apixaban and Dalteparin for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Different Sites of Cancer Thromb. Haemost. 2022 122 796 807 10.1055/s-0041-1735194 34530482

127. Farge D. Frere C. Connors J.M. Ay C. Khorana A.A. Munoz A. Brenner B. Kakkar A. Rafii H. Solymoss S. 2019 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 e566 e581 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30336-5 31492632

128. Lyman G.H. Kuderer N.M. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis Thromb. Res. 2020 191 S79 S84 10.1016/S0049-3848(20)30402-3 32736784

129. Garcia D.A. Baglin T.P. Weitz J.I. Samama M.M. Parenteral anticoagulants: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines Chest 2012 141 e24S e43S 10.1378/chest.11-2291 22315264 PMC3278070

130. Schindewolf M. Steindl J. Beyer-Westendorf J. Schellong S. Dohmen P.M. Brachmann J. Madlener K. Pötzsch B. Klamroth R. Hankowitz J. Use of Fondaparinux Off-Label or Approved Anticoagulants for Management of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017 70 2636 2648 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.1099 29169470

131. Bauer K.A. New pentasaccharides for prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis: Pharmacology Chest 2003 124 364s 370s 10.1378/chest.124.6_suppl.364S 14668419

132. Piazza G. Krishnathasan D. Hamade N. Ujueta F. Scimeca G. Ortiz-Rios M.D. McGonagle B. Galanaud J.-P. Jiménez D. Monreal M. Superficial Vein Thrombosis: A Review JAMA 2025 334 2020 2030 10.1001/jama.2025.15222 40952730

133. Decousus H. Prandoni P. Mismetti P. Bauersachs R.M. Boda Z. Brenner B. Laporte S. Matyas L. Middeldorp S. Sokurenko G. Fondaparinux for the Treatment of Superficial-Vein Thrombosis in the Legs N. Engl. J. Med. 2010 363 1222 1232 10.1056/NEJMoa0912072 20860504

134. National Comprehensive Cancer Network NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease (Version 2.2025) Available online: www.nccn.org (accessed on 28 January 2025)

135. Kang M. Alahmadi M. Sawh S. Kovacs M.J. Lazo-Langner A. Fondaparinux for the treatment of suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: A propensity score-matched study Blood 2015 125 924 929 10.1182/blood-2014-09-599498 25515959

136. Francis C.W. Kessler C.M. Goldhaber S.Z. Kovacs M.J. Monreal M. Huisman M.V. Bergqvist D. Turpie A.G. Ortel T.L. Spyropoulos A.C. Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients with dalteparin for up to 12 months: The DALTECAN Study J. Thromb. Haemost. 2015 13 1028 1035 10.1111/jth.12923 25827941

137. Jara-Palomares L. Solier-Lopez A. Elias-Hernandez T. Asensio-Cruz M. Blasco-Esquivias I. Marin-Barrera L. de la Borbolla-Artacho M.R. Praena-Fernandez J.M. Montero-Romero E. Navarro-Herrero S. Tinzaparin in cancer associated thrombosis beyond 6 months: TiCAT study Thromb. Res. 2017 157 90 96 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.07.004 28719850

138. Agnelli G. Buller H.R. Cohen A. Curto M. Gallus A.S. Johnson M. Porcari A. Raskob G.E. Weitz J.I. Apixaban for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 368 699 708 10.1056/NEJMoa1207541 23216615

139. Weitz J.I. Lensing A.W.A. Prins M.H. Bauersachs R. Beyer-Westendorf J. Bounameaux H. Brighton T.A. Cohen A.T. Davidson B.L. Decousus H. Rivaroxaban or Aspirin for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2017 376 1211 1222 10.1056/NEJMoa1700518 28316279

140. Larsen T.L. Garresori H. Brekke J. Enden T. Frøen H. Jacobsen E.M. Quist-Paulsen P. Porojnicu A.C. Ree A.H. Torfoss D. Low dose apixaban as secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients—30 months follow-up J. Thromb. Haemost. 2022 20 1166 1181 10.1111/jth.15666 35114046

141. Mahe I. Carrier M. Mayeur D. Chidiac J. Vicaut E. Falvo N. Sanchez O. Grange C. Monreal M. Lopez-Nunez J.J. Extended Reduced-Dose Apixaban for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2025 392 1363 1373 10.1056/NEJMoa2416112 40162636

142. O’Connell C. Escalante C.P. Goldhaber S.Z. McBane R. Connors J.M. Raskob G.E. Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin or Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Patient Selection, Controversies, and Caveats Oncologist 2021 26 e8 e16 10.1002/onco.13584 33275319 PMC7794180

143. Levin J.M. Schiff D. Loeffler J.S. Fine H.A. Black P.M. Wen P.Y. Complications of therapy for venous thromboembolic disease in patients with brain tumors Neurology 1993 43 1111 1114 10.1212/WNL.43.6.1111 8170553

144. Donato J. Campigotto F. Uhlmann E.J. Coletti E. Neuberg D. Weber G.M. Zwicker J.I. Intracranial hemorrhage in patients with brain metastases treated with therapeutic enoxaparin: A matched cohort study Blood 2015 126 494 499 10.1182/blood-2015-02-626788 25987658 PMC4548746

145. Giustozzi M. Becattini C. Roila F. Agnelli G. Mandala M. DOACs in patients with brain cancers: Promising but still a long way to go Blood Adv. 2023 7 283 284 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022009192 36453644 PMC9939354

146. Marin A. Bull L. Kinzie M. Andresen M. Central catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis in cancer: Clinical course, prophylaxis, treatment BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2021 11 371 380 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002106 34413028 PMC8606430

147. Verhamme P. Yi B.A. Segers A. Salter J. Bloomfield D. Buller H.R. Raskob G.E. Weitz J.I. Investigators A.-T. Abelacimab for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2021 385 609 617 10.1056/NEJMoa2105872 34297496