Search

Background: Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer., Search Methods: We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach., Main Results: Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia., Authors' Conclusions: Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through an antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), with no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Search Methods: We conducted comprehensive searches on 14 June 2021, following the original electronic searches performed in February 2016 (last major search). We electronically searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase. In addition, we handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory people with cancer (i.e., not hospital inpatients during the time of their participation in trials) These people are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardised form, two review authors independently extracted data on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach., Main Results: Of 12,620 identified citations, 10 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in six of these RCTs, and a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in the remaining four RCTs (three studies used apixaban; one used rivaroxaban). The comparator was either placebo or no prophylaxis. Compared to no prophylaxis, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) probably reduce mortality at six months slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 72 fewer to 41 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduce mortality at 12 months slightly (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate-certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of a VKA compared to no prophylaxis on thrombosis; the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of VKA compared to no VKA on pulmonary embolism and symptomatic DVT (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low-certainty evidence; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 37 fewer to 16 more; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). Also, VKAs probably increase major and minor bleeding at 12 months (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate-certainty evidence for major bleeding, and RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate-certainty evidence for minor bleeding). Compared to no prophylaxis, at three to six months, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) probably reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.38, RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 67 fewer to 70 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism slightly compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.98; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 1 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce symptomatic DVT slightly (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.15; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 8 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably do not increase major bleeding (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.80; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 40 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase minor bleeding (RR 3.58, 95% CI 0.55 to 23.44; RD 55 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 482 more; low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: In ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), the current evidence on VKA thromboprophylaxis suggests that the harm of major bleeding might outweigh the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolism. With DOACs, the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolic events outweighs the risk of major bleeding. Editorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the 'What's new' section in the  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Multiple myeloma is a malignant plasma cell disorder characterised by clonal plasma cells that cause end-organ damage such as renal failure, lytic bone lesions, hypercalcaemia and/or anaemia. People with multiple myeloma are treated with immunomodulatory agents including lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide. Multiple myeloma is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, which appears to be further increased in people receiving immunomodulatory agents., Objectives: (1) To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of aspirin, oral anticoagulants, or parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents who otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. (2) To maintain this review as a living systematic review by continually running the searches and incorporating newly identified studies., Search Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search that included (1) a major electronic search (14 June 2021) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid; (2) hand-searching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of reference lists of included studies; and (4) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches, and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants such as vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), anti-platelet agents such as aspirin (ASA), and parenteral anticoagulants such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardised form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, and minor bleeding. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and the risk difference (RD) with its 95% CI. We then assessed the certainty of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook)., Main Results: We identified 1015 identified citations and included 11 articles reporting four RCTs that enrolled 1042 participants. The included studies made the following comparisons: ASA versus VKA (one study); ASA versus LMWH (two studies); VKA versus LMWH (one study); and ASA versus DOAC (two studies, one of which was an abstract). ASA versus VKA One RCT compared ASA to VKA at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to VKA on all-cause mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.24; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; RD 27 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 48 fewer to 21 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.95; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 54 more; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.72; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 134 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 49.43; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 220 more; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared ASA to VKA at two years follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to VKA on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.47; RD 5 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 9 fewer to 41 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.44; RD 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 34 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.95; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 54 more; very low-certainty evidence). ASA versus LMWH Two RCTs compared ASA to LMWH at six months follow-up. The pooled data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.81; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 38 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.08; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 11 fewer to 43 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 7.71, 95% CI 0.97 to 61.44; RD 7 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 60 more; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 6.97, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.11; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 133 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.78; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 50 more; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared ASA to LMWH at two years follow-up. The pooled data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.89; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 68 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.72; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 78 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 166.17; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 165 more; very low-certainty evidence). VKA versus LMWH One RCT compared VKA to LMWH at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.10; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 32 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 5.93; RD 36 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 135 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 8.96, 95% CI 0.49 to 165.42; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 164 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.17; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 30 more; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no major bleeding occurred in either arm. One RCT compared VKA to LMWH at two years follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.90; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.63; RD 32 more per 1000, 95% CI 9 fewer to 120 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 166.17; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 165 more; very low-certainty evidence). ASA versus DOAC One RCT compared ASA to DOAC at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to DOAC on DVT, PE, and major bleeding and minor bleeding (minor bleeding: RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 79.94; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 79 more; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no DVT, PE, or major bleeding events occurred in either arm. These results did not change in a meta-analysis including the study published as an abstract., Authors' Conclusions: The certainty of the available evidence for the comparative effects of ASA, VKA, LMWH, and DOAC on all-cause mortality, DVT, PE, or bleeding was either low or very low. People with multiple myeloma considering antithrombotic agents should balance the possible benefits of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis for people with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of different anticoagulants., Objectives: To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer., Search Methods: This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a comprehensive literature search conducted on 14 June 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2018, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with cancer undergoing a surgical intervention and assessed the effects of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to unfractionated heparin (UFH) or to fondaparinux on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, PE, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), asymptomatic DVT, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, health related quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook)., Main Results: Of 7670 identified unique citations, we included 20 RCTs with 9771 randomized people with cancer receiving preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. We identified seven reports for seven new RCTs for this update.The meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.07; risk difference (RD) 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 4 more; moderate-certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 3 more; moderate-certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.69; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 7 more; moderate-certainty evidence), asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 23 fewer to 4 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 15 more; moderate-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.33; RD 1 more per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence), reoperation for bleeding (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; RD 4 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 26 more; moderate-certainty evidence), intraoperative transfusion (mean difference (MD) -35.36 mL, 95% CI -253.19 to 182.47; low-certainty evidence), postoperative transfusion (MD 190.03 mL, 95% CI -23.65 to 403.72; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.33; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 82 more; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.92; RD 26 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 39 fewer to 7 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses found the following additional results: outcomes intraoperative blood loss (MD -6.75 mL, 95% CI -85.49 to 71.99; moderate-certainty evidence); and postoperative drain volume (MD 30.18 mL, 95% CI -36.26 to 96.62; moderate-certainty evidence).In addition, the meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with Fondaparinux for the following outcomes: any VTE (DVT or PE, or both; RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.03; RD 57 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 228 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.05; RD 8fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), thrombocytopenia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.30; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 20 fewer to 48 more; low-certainty evidence), any PE (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.64; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and postoperative drain volume (MD -20.00 mL, 95% CI -114.34 to 74.34; low-certainty evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH versus UFH and LMWH compared with fondaparinux in their effects on mortality, thromboembolic outcomes, major bleeding, or minor bleeding in people with cancer. There was a lower incidence of wound hematoma with LMWH compared to UFH.

Background: Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events, especially in people receiving anticoagulation treatments., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with cancer., Search Methods: We conducted a literature search including a major electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching conference proceedings; checking references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we run searches continually, incorporating new evidence after it is identified. Last search date 14 May 2018., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of long-term treatment with LMWHs, DOACs or VKAs in people with cancer and symptomatic VTE., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data in duplicate on study characteristics and risk of bias. Outcomes included: all-cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (QoL). We assessed the certainty of the evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook)., Main Results: Of 15,785 citations, including 7602 unique citations, 16 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 5167 people with cancer and VTE.Low molecular weight heparins versus vitamin K antagonistsEight studies enrolling 2327 participants compared LMWHs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of five studies probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 45 fewer to 48 more; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of four studies did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on major bleeding (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more, moderate-certainty evidence) or minor bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; RD 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 92 fewer to 47 more; low-certainty evidence), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.69). Meta-analysis of five studies showed that LMWHs probably reduced the recurrence of VTE compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; RD 53 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 29 fewer to 72 fewer, moderate-certainty evidence).Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonistsFive studies enrolling 982 participants compared DOACs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of four studies may not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to VKAs on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 51 fewer to 37 more; low-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.31; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 12 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.57, RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 54 fewer to 28 more; low-certainty evidence). One study reporting on DOAC versus VKA was published as abstract so is not included in the main analysis.Direct oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparinsTwo studies enrolling 1455 participants compared DOAC with LMWH. The study by Raskob did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to LMWH on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; RD 27 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 95 more; low-certainty evidence). The data also showed that DOACs may have shown a likely reduction in VTE recurrence up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; RD 36 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 1 more; low-certainty evidence). DOAC may have increased major bleeding at 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.88; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and likely increased minor bleeding up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 92 more; low-certainty evidence). The second study on DOAC versus LMWH was published as an abstract and is not included in the main analysis.Idraparinux versus vitamin K antagonistsOne RCT with 284 participants compared once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) for three or six months. The data probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of idraparinux compared to VKAs on mortality at six months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; RD 31 more per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 167 more; moderate-certainty evidence), VTE recurrence at six months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.32; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 25 more; low-certainty evidence) or major bleeding (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.56; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 98 more; low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: For the long-term treatment of VTE in people with cancer, evidence shows that LMWHs compared to VKAs probably produces an important reduction in VTE and DOACs compared to LMWH, may likely reduce VTE but may increase risk of major bleeding. Decisions for a person with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWHs versus oral anticoagulation should balance benefits and harms and integrate the person's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.Editorial note: this is a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs offer new approaches to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Background: Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in people with cancer. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis-related morbidity and mortality. This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2014., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC., Search Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in May 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 May 2018., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux or comparing the effects of two of these anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized form, we extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, symptomatic catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, catheter-related infection, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011)., Main Results: Thirteen RCTs (23 papers) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 3420 participants. Seven RCTs compared LMWH to no LMWH (six in adults and one in children), six RCTs compared VKA to no VKA (five in adults and one in children), and three RCTs compared LMWH to VKA in adults.LMWH versus no LMWHSix RCTs (1537 participants) compared LMWH to no LMWH in adults. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably decreased the incidence of symptomatic catheter-related VTE up to three months of follow-up compared to no LMWH (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.81; risk difference (RD) 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 52 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the analysis did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH on mortality at three months of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 36 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.28; RD 0 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 35 more; very low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.92; RD 14 more per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 79 more; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 58 more; low-certainty evidence).VKA versus no VKAFive RCTs (1599 participants) compared low-dose VKA to no VKA in adults. The meta-analyses did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of low-dose VKA compared to no VKA on mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.64; RD 31 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 51 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 57.78; RD 12 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 110 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.26; RD 15 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 13 more; low-certainty evidence), premature catheter removal (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 114 fewer to 202 more; low-certainty evidence), and catheter-related infection (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.85; RD 71 more per 1000, 95% CI 109 fewer to 356; low-certainty evidence).LMWH versus VKAThree RCTs (641 participants) compared LMWH to VKA in adults. The available evidence did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH relative to VKA on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59; RD 6 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 41 fewer to 56 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.61; RD 15 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 122 more; very low-certainty evidence), PE (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.92; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 144 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.11; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.61; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably increased the risk of thrombocytopenia compared to VKA at three months of follow-up (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.39; RD 149 more per 1000, 95% CI 43 fewer to 300 more; moderate-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence was not conclusive for the effect of LMWH on mortality, the effect of VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE, and the effect of LMWH compared to VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE. We found moderate-certainty evidence that LMWH reduces catheter-related VTE compared to no LMWH. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Background: Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer., Search Methods: A comprehensive search included a major electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and a search for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 January 2018., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach., Main Results: Of 15440 identified citations, 7387 unique citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH enrolling 1025 participants, one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH enrolling 477 participants, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin enrolling 113 participants. The meta-analysis of mortality at three months included 418 participants from five studies and that of recurrent VTE included 422 participants from 3 studies. The findings showed that LMWH likely decreases mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence), but did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in VTE recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of fondaparinux on mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; moderate certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; moderate certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; moderate certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence)The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of dalteparin on mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Background: Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through both an antitumor effect and antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Search Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in February 2016 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; a search for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 December 2017., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory people with cancer. These participants are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, target therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook)., Main Results: Of 8545 identified citations, including 7668 unique citations, 16 papers reporting on 7 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 1486 participants. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The meta-analysis of the studies comparing VKA to no VKA did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of VKA on thrombotic outcomes. The study did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in PE when comparing VKA to no VKA (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low certainty evidence), but found that VKA compared to no VKA likely decreases the incidence of DVT (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 38 fewer to 16 more; low certainty evidence). VKA increased both major bleeding (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate certainty evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study assessing the effect of DOAC compared to no DOAC did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at three months (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.56; RD 51 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 104 more; low certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; RD 93 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 100 fewer to 32 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 79.68; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 8 more; low certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: The existing evidence does not show a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in people with cancer but suggests an increased risk for bleeding.Editorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Background: Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through a speculated anti-tumour effect, in addition to the antithrombotic effect, although may increase the risk of bleeding., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Search Methods: A comprehensive search included (1) a major electronic search (February 2016) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2016; accessed via OVID) and Embase (1980 to February 2016; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running searches continually and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August, 2017., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized form we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook)., Main Results: Of 6947 identified citations, 18 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 9575 participants. Trial registries' searches identified nine registered but unpublished trials, two of which were labeled as 'ongoing trials'. In all included RCTs, the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 10 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 35 fewer to 15 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and mortality at 24 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; RD 8 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 31 fewer to 8 more; moderate certainty of evidence). Heparin therapy reduces the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; RD 30 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 36 fewer to 22 fewer; high certainty of evidence), while it increases in the risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% 0.94 to 1.79; RD 4 more per 1000; 95% CI 1 fewer to 11 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.70; 95% 1.13 to 2.55; RD 17 more per 1000; 95% CI 3 more to 37 more; high certainty of evidence). Results failed to confirm or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on thrombocytopenia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; RD 33 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 66 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty of evidence); quality of life (moderate certainty of evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It reduces symptomatic VTE and likely increases major and minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.Editorial note:This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Our aim was to evaluate the link between diffusion parameters measured by intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and the perfusion metrics obtained with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI in soft tissue tumors (STTs). Twenty-eight patients affected by histopathologically confirmed STT were included in a prospective study. All patients underwent both DCE MRI and IVIM DWI. The perfusion fraction f, diffusion coefficient D and perfusion-related diffusion coefficient D* were estimated using a bi-exponential function to fit the DWI data. DCE MRI was acquired with a temporal resolution of 3-5 s. Maps of the initial area under the gadolinium concentration curve (IAUGC), time to peak (TTP) and maximum slope of increase (MSI) were derived using commercial software. The relationships between the DCE MRI and IVIM DWI measurements were assessed by Spearman's test. To exclude false positive results under multiple testing, the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure was applied. The Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate the differences between all variables in patients with non-myxoid and myxoid STT. No significant relationship was found between IVIM parameters and any DCE MRI parameters. Higher f and D*f values were found in non-myxoid tumors compared with myxoid tumors (p = 0.004 and p = 0.003, respectively). MSI was significantly higher in non-myxoid tumors than in myxoid tumors (p = 0.029). From the visual assessments of single clinical cases, both f and D*f maps were in satisfactory agreement with DCE maps in the extreme cases of an avascular mass and a highly vascularized mass, whereas, for tumors with slight vascularity or with a highly heterogeneous perfusion pattern, this association was not straightforward. Although IVIM DWI was demonstrated to be feasible in STT, our data did not support evident relationships between perfusion-related IVIM parameters and perfusion measured by DCE MRI., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in people with cancer. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis-related morbidity and mortality., Objectives: To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE Ovid (January 1966 to February 2013), and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to February 2013). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, used the 'related citations' feature within PubMed, and searched clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux with no intervention or placebo or comparing the effects of two different anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC., Data Collection and Analysis: Teams of two review authors independently used a standardized form to extract data in duplicate. They resolved any disagreements by discussion. They extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Outcomes of interest included mortality, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT), asymptomatic DVT, major bleeding, minor bleeding, infection, and thrombocytopenia. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model., Main Results: Of 9559 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs (17 publications) reporting follow-up data on 2823 participants. Two of the RCTs included children. Of the 10 RCTs including 2564 adults, one compared prophylactic dose heparin with low-dose VKA. Three RCTs compared VKA with no VKA and four RCTs compared heparin with no heparin. Two additional trials had three separate arms comparing heparin, VKA, and no intervention. Prophylactic-dose heparin, compared with no heparin, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in symptomatic DVT (risk ratio (RR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). However, results did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on mortality (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; moderate-quality evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.03 to 7.84; low-quality evidence), infection (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.85; moderate-quality evidence); thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; moderate-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.35; 95% CI: 0.62 to 2.92). Low-dose VKAs, compared with no VKAs, were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62). Results did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKAs on mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22; low-quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.22; low-quality evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.60; 95% CI 0.94 to 61.49; very-low-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 3.14; 95% CI 0.14 to 71.51). The use of heparin, compared with VKA was associated with a statistically significant increase in thrombocytopenia (RR 3.73; 95% CI 2.26 to 6.16; low-quality evidence) and asymptomatic DVT (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.52). However, results did not show or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect on any of the other outcomes of interest (very-low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Compared with no anticoagulation, we found a statistically significant reduction of symptomatic DVT with heparin and asymptomatic DVT with VKA. Heparin was associated with a higher risk of thrombocytopenia and asymptomatic DVT when compared with VKA. However, the findings did not rule out other clinically important benefits and harms. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Background: Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events in patients including those receiving anticoagulation treatments., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer., Search Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including 1. a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE, and EMBASE; 2. a handsearch of conference proceedings; 3. checking of references of included studies; 4. use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and 5. a search of clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form, we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and postphlebitic syndrome. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach., Main Results: Of 9559 identified citations, 10 RCTs (11 reports) were eligible and reported data for 1981 patients with cancer. We excluded 14 studies in which patients with cancer constituted study subgroups, but did not report outcome data for them. Meta-analysis of seven RCTs comparing LMWH with VKA found no statistically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71). The remaining findings did not exclude a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with VKA for the outcomes of major bleeding (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.19), minor bleeding (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.55), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.66). We judged the quality of evidence as low for mortality, major bleeding, and minor bleeding, and as moderate for recurrent VTE.One RCT comparing dabigatran with VKA did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects of one agent over the other. One RCT comparing six months' extension of anticoagulation with 18 months of ximelagatran 24 mg twice daily versus no extended ximelagatran did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of reduction in VTE, mortality, and minor bleeding. One RCT comparing once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux for three or six months versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) suggested a reduction in recurrent VTE (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.11) at six months, but did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of mortality (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.48) and major bleeding (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.39 to 2.83)., Authors' Conclusions: For the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared with VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not mortality. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and harms and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.

Background: Several basic research and clinical studies have led to the hypothesis that oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to their antithrombotic effect., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Search Methods: We performed a comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including 1. a February 2013 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE; 2. a handsearch of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (starting with its first volume, 1982) and of the American Society of Hematology (starting with the 2003 issue); 3. checking of references of included studies; 4. use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and 5. searching clinical trials.gov for ongoing studies., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin K antagonist or other oral anticoagulants with no intervention or placebo in patients with cancer without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form, we extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all-cause mortality, venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and minor bleeding., Main Results: Of 9559 identified citations, seven RCTs (eight reports) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The use of warfarin had no effect on mortality at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.22), one year (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04), two years (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18), or five years (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). One study assessed the effect of warfarin on venous thromboembolism and did not show or exclude a beneficial or detrimental of effect (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR 4.24; 95% CI 1.86 to 9.65) and minor bleeding (RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.83 to 5.55). We judged the quality of evidence as moderate for all outcomes.The study assessing the effect of apixaban did not show or exclude a beneficial effect or detrimental of apixaban on mortality at six months (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.66); major bleeding (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 6.63); and minor bleeding (RR 2.87; 95% CI 0.16 to 51.82). We judged the quality of evidence as low for all outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: Existing evidence does not suggest a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer while the risk for bleeding is increased.

Background: The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)., Objectives: To update a systematic review of the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of LMWH and UFH for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer., Search Methods: We performed a comprehensive search for trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We also handsearched conference proceedings, reviewed reference list of included studies, used the 'related citations' feature in PubMed, and searched clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled patients with cancer undergoing a surgical intervention and compared the effects of LMWH to UFH on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding outcomes, or thrombocytopenia., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently used a standardized form to extract in duplicate data on participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model., Main Results: Of 9559 identified unique citations, we included 16 RCTs with 12,890 patients with cancer, all using preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. We identified no new study with this update. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.08), PE (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.54), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.28), asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.01),major bleeding (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.37), and minor bleeding (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.79). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88) but higher volume of intraoperative transfusion (mean difference (MD) 74 mL; 95% CI 47 to 102). The meta-analyses found no statistically significant differences for any of the following outcomes: reoperation for bleeding (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.06 to 8.48) , intraoperative blood loss (MD= -6mL; 95% CI -87 to 74), postoperative transfusion (MD= 79mL; 95% CI -54 to 211), postoperative drain volume (MD= 27mL; 95% CI -44 to 98), and thrombocytopenia (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.59 to 3.00)., Authors' Conclusions: We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH versus UFH in their effects on mortality, thromboembolic outcomes, major bleeding, or minor bleeding in patients with cancer. Further trials are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of different heparin thromboprophylaxis strategies in this population more thoroughly.

Background: Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer., Search Methods: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science., Selection Criteria: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form, review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodologic quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia., Main Results: Of 9559 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH with UFH, two compared fondaparinux with heparin, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow-up with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodologic quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63), or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73)., Authors' Conclusions: LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

Objective: An open pilot study to evaluate the effect of pregabalin (PGB) as add-on therapy on seizure control, quality of life, and anxiety in patients with brain tumour-related epilepsy (BTRE)., Materials and Methods: We recruited 25 consecutive patients with BTRE and uncontrolled seizures. At baseline and during follow-up, patients underwent a complete physical and neurological examination and were evaluated using the QOLIE 31P (V2), EORTC QLQ C30, Adverse Events Profile, and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). At baseline, a seizure diary was given., Results: During follow-up, 17 patients underwent chemotherapy, none underwent radiotherapy, 9 had disease progression, and 3 died. Mean duration of follow-up was 4.1 months. Mean PGB dosage was 279 mg/day. At baseline, mean weekly seizure frequency was 5.3 (±10) and at last available follow-up visit was 2.8±5. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.016). The responder rate was 76%. Ten patients dropped out; 4 as a result of seizure worsening, 1 as a result of unchanged seizure frequency, 3 as a result of a lack of compliance, and 2 as a result of side effects. Based on the QOLIE-31-P, a significant improvement of the subscale "seizure worry" (p=0.004) and a significant decrease in distress scores related to AEDs and social life (p=0.009 and p=0.008, respectively) were observed. A significant decrease in HAM-A score (p=0.002) was documented. CONCLUSIONS; These data indicate that PGB may represent a valid alternative as add-on treatment in this patient population, based on its efficacy on seizure control and anxiety.

Background: The same information about the evidence on health effects can be framed either in positive words or in negative words. Some research suggests that positive versus negative framing can lead to different decisions, a phenomenon described as the framing effect. Attribute framing is the positive versus negative description of a specific attribute of a single item or a state, for example, "the chance of survival with cancer is 2/3" versus "the chance of mortality with cancer is 1/3". Goal framing is the description of the consequences of performing or not performing an act as a gain versus a loss, for example, "if you undergo a screening test for cancer, your survival will be prolonged" versus "if you don't undergo screening test for cancer, your survival will be shortened"., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of attribute (positive versus negative) framing and of goal (gain versus loss) framing of the same health information, on understanding, perception of effectiveness, persuasiveness, and behavior of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 3 2007), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to October 2007), PsycINFO (Ovid) (1887 to October 2007). There were no language restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of related systematic reviews, included studies and of excluded but closely related studies. We also contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cross-over studies with health professionals, policy makers, and consumers evaluating one of the two types of framing., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors extracted data in duplicate and independently. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using standardized mean difference (SMD). We stratified the analysis by the type of framing (attribute, goal) and conducted pre-planned subgroup analyses based on the type of message (screening, prevention, and treatment). The primary outcome was behaviour. We did not assess any adverse outcomes., Main Results: We included 35 studies involving 16,342 participants (all health consumers) and reporting 51 comparisons.In the context of attribute framing, participants in one included study understood the message better when it was framed negatively than when it was framed positively (1 study; SMD -0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.94 to -0.22); moderate effect size; low quality evidence). Although positively-framed messages may have led to more positive perception of effectiveness than negatively-framed messages (2 studies; SMD 0.36 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.85); small effect size; low quality evidence), there was little or no difference in persuasiveness (11 studies; SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.37); low quality evidence) and behavior (1 study; SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.31); moderate quality evidence).In the context of goal framing, loss messages led to a more positive perception of effectiveness compared to gain messages for screening messages (5 studies; SMD -0.30 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.10); small effect size; moderate quality evidence) and may have been more persuasive for treatment messages (3 studies; SMD -0.50 (95% CI -1.04 to 0.04); moderate effect size; very low quality evidence). There was little or no difference in behavior (16 studies; SMD -0.06 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.03); low quality evidence). No study assessed the effect on understanding., Authors' Conclusions: Contrary to commonly held beliefs, the available low to moderate quality evidence suggests that both attribute and goal framing may have little if any consistent effect on health consumers' behaviour. The unexplained heterogeneity between studies suggests the possibility of a framing effect under specific conditions. Future research needs to investigate these conditions.

Background: The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)., Objectives: To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of LMWH and UFH for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer., Search Methods: A comprehensive search for trials of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled cancer patients undergoing a surgical intervention and compared the effects of LMWH to UFH on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors used a standardized form to independently extract in duplicate data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model., Main Results: Of 8187 identified citations, we included 16 RCTs with 11,847 patients in the meta-analyses, all using preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The meta-analysis did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared to UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.28), PE (RR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.25 to1.41), minor bleeding (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.66) and major bleeding (RR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.36). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.43, 0.84) while UFH was associated with higher incidence of intra-operative transfusion (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.69,1.62)., Authors' Conclusions: We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH verus UFH in their effects on mortality and embolic outcomes in patients with cancer. Further trials are needed to more carefully evaluate the benefits and harms of different heparin thromboprophylaxis strategies in this population.

Background: Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer., Search Strategy: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science., Selection Criteria: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia., Main Results: Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73)., Authors' Conclusions: LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

Background: A number of basic research and clinical studies have led to the hypothesis that oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to their antithrombotic effect., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Search Strategy: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including (1) a February 2010 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI the Web of Science; (2) hand search of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (starting with its first volume, 1982) and of the American Society of Hematology (starting with its 2003 issue); (3) checking of references of included studies; and (4) use of "related article" feature in PubMed., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin K antagonist or other oral anticoagulants to no intervention or placebo in cancer patients without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form we extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all cause mortality, venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and minor bleeding., Main Results: Of 8187 identified citations, five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Warfarin was the oral anticoagulant in all of these RCTs and it was compared to either placebo or no intervention. The quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes. The effect of warfarin on reduction in mortality was not statistically significant at six months (Relative risk (RR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16), at one year (RR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.03) at two years (RR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08) or at five years (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). One study assessed the effect of warfarin on venous thromboembolism and showed a RR reduction of 85% (P = 0.031). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR = 4.24; 95% CI 1.85 to 9.68) and minor bleeding (RR = 3.34; 95% CI 1.66 to 6.74)., Authors' Conclusions: Existing evidence does not suggest a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer while increasing the risk for bleeding.

Background: Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events even while on anticoagulation., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer., Search Strategy: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively-confirmed VTE., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and postphlebitic syndrome. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach., Main Results: Of 8187 identified citations, nine RCTs were eligible and reported data for 1908 patients with cancer. Meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that LMWH, compared to VKA provided no statistically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71). Other results did not exclude a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared to VKA for the outcomes of major bleeding (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.53 to 2.10) or thrombocytopenia (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.74). The quality of evidence was low for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding and moderate for recurrent VTE. One RCT comparing six months extension of anticoagulation with 18 months ximelagatran 24 mg twice daily versus placebo found a reduction in VTE (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30) but did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of mortality and bleeding. One RCT, comparing dabigatran to VKA, did not exclude beneficial or harmful effect of one agent over the other., Authors' Conclusions: For the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared to VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not death. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.

Background: Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in cancer patients with a CVC., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2010; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2010; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science (1975 to February 2010). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies and used the "related article" feature within PubMed., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo or comparing two different anticoagulants in cancer patients with a CVC., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data from each included study and resolved their disagreements by discussion., Main Results: Of 8187 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs enrolling 3611 patients and assessing either prophylactic dose heparin or low dose VKAs. Prophylactic dose heparin was not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (relative risk (RR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53 to 1.37), symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.05) asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.02), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78), thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46), or infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.68). Similarly, low dose VKAs were not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.15), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11) or major bleeding (RR = 6.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 56.08). However, they were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.61). Studies comparing heparin to VKA found no effects on any of the outcomes of interest., Authors' Conclusions: We found no statistically significant effect of heparin or VKA on the outcomes of interest. However, the findings did not rule out clinically important benefits and harms. Patients with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Background: The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers., Search Strategy: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD)., Main Results: We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour., Authors' Conclusions: Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.

Background: A number of basic research and clinical studies have led to the hypothesis that oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to their antithrombotic effect., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation., Search Strategy: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including (1) a February 2010 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI the Web of Science; (2) hand search of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (starting with its first volume, 1982) and of the American Society of Hematology (starting with its 2003 issue); (3) checking of references of included studies; and (4) use of "related article" feature in PubMed., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin K antagonist or other oral anticoagulants to no intervention or placebo in cancer patients without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form we extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all cause mortality, venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and minor bleeding., Main Results: Of 8187 identified citations, five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Warfarin was the oral anticoagulant in all of these RCTs and it was compared to either placebo or no intervention. The quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes. The effect of warfarin on reduction in mortality was not statistically significant at six months (Relative risk (RR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16), at one year (RR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.03) at two years (RR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08) or at five years (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). One study assessed the effect of warfarin on venous thromboembolism and showed a RR reduction of 85% (P = 0.031). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR = 4.24; 95% CI 1.85 to 9.68) and minor bleeding (RR = 3.34; 95% CI 1.66 to 6.74)., Authors' Conclusions: Existing evidence does not suggest a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer while increasing the risk for bleeding.

Background: The authors compared the relative efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) between patients with and without cancer., Methods: By using Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews, separate meta-analyses were conducted for subgroups of patients with and without cancer, and relative risks (RRs) were compared for statistical significance. The methodologic quality for each outcome was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach., Results: LMWH reduced mortality significantly compared with UFH in patients with cancer (RR of 0.71; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.52-0.98 [moderate-quality evidence]) but not in patients without cancer (RR of 0.97; 95% CI, 0.65-1.46 [low-quality evidence]). However, the difference in the RR for the 2 subgroups did not reach statistical significance (P = .113). The difference between LMWH and UFH in the effect on recurrent VTE was not statistically significant in the subgroup with cancer (RR of 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08 [low-quality evidence]), in the subgroup without cancer (RR of 0.94; 95% CI, 0.60-1.46 [low-quality evidence]), or between the 2 subgroups (P = .367). No data were available for bleeding outcomes, thrombocytopenia, or postphlebitic syndrome., Conclusions: The current results indicated that LMWH most likely is superior to UFH in reducing mortality in the initial treatment of VTE for patients with cancer. There is a need for more and better designed trials to confirm these findings.

Background: Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis and subsequent death in patients with cancer. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in reducing mortality and thromboembolic events in cancer patients with a CVC., Methods: The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI the Web of Science databases. They included randomized controlled trials in patients with cancer comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists, fondaparinux, or ximelagatran with no intervention, placebo, or each other. The standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration were used for the analyses., Results: Of 3986 identified citations we included 9 randomized clinical trials, none of which evaluated fondaparinux or ximelagatran. Heparin therapy (UFH or LMWH) was associated with a trend toward a reduction in symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (relative risk (RR), 0.43; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.18-1.06), but there was no statistically significant effect on mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40-1.36), infection (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36-2.28), major bleeding (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.10-4.78), or thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.46). The effect of warfarin on symptomatic DVT also was not statistically significant (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.27)., Conclusions: The balance of benefits and downsides of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with CVC are uncertain. Clinicians together with their patients must weigh these factors carefully when making decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis., ((c) 2008 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events and the risk of recurrent thromboembolic events while on anticoagulation., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and ximelagatran) for the long term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer., Search Strategy: A comprehensive search was undertaken including a January 2007 search of electronic databases; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1). MEDLINE (1966 onwards; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (1980 onwards; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science. Hand search of the proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and of the American Society of Hematology. Checking of references of included studies, relevant papers and related systematic reviews. Use of "related article" feature in PubMed; and (5) search of ISI the Web of Science for papers citing landmark studies., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (VKA or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and postphlebitic syndrome., Main Results: Of 3986 identified citations, eight RCTs were eligible and reported data for patients with cancer. Their overall methodological quality was moderate. Meta-analysis of six RCTs showed that LMWH, compared to VKA provided no statistically significant survival benefit (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR = 0.47; 95% (Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.32 to 0.71). There was no statistically significant difference between LMWH and VKA in bleeding outcomes (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.31) or thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.74). One RCT compared tinzaparin and dalteparin and showed no differences in the outcomes of interest. One RCT compared a six months extension of anticoagulation with 18 months Ximelagatran 24mg twice daily versus placebo. It showed a reduction in VTE (HR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30) with no apparent effect on survival or bleeding., Authors' Conclusions: For the long term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared to VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not death. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.

Background: Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in reducing venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in cancer patients with CVC., Search Strategy: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients up to January 2006 was conducted in the following databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), fondaparinux or ximelagatran to no intervention or placebo in cancer patients with a CVC or comparing two different anticoagulants., Data Collection and Analysis: Data was extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions and outcomes including all cause mortality (primary outcome), premature CVC removal, catheter-related infections, CVC site and non CVC site deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major and minor bleeding and thrombocytopenia., Main Results: Of 3986 identified citations nine RCTs were included in the meta-analysis including one published as an abstract and one focusing on paediatric patients not included in the meta-analysis. None of these RCTs tested fondaparinux or ximelagatran. The use of heparin in cancer patients with CVC was associated with a trend towards a reduction in symptomatic DVT (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.43; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.18 to 1.06), but the data did not show any statistically significant effect on mortality (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.36), infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.36 to 2.28), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78) or thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46). The effect warfarin on symptomatic DVT was not statistically significant (RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.27). When studies assessing different types of anticoagulants were pooled, symptomatic DVT rates were significantly reduced (RR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.92)., Authors' Conclusions: Cancer patients with CVC considering anticoagulation, should consider the possible benefit of reduced incidence of thromboembolic complications with the burden and harms of anticoagulation. Future studies should be adequately powered and evaluate the effects of newer anticoagulants such as fondaparinux and ximelagatran in cancer patients with CVC.

Background: A number of basic research and clinical studies have led to the hypothesis that oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of patients with cancer through an antitumour effect in addition to their antithrombotic effect., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation (including vitamin K antagonists and ximelagatran) as an intervention to improve survival of patients with cancer., Search Strategy: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including (1) a January 2007 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI the Web of Science; (2) hand search of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (starting with its first volume, 1982) and of the American Society of Hematology (starting with its 2003 issue); (3) checking of references of included studies; and (4) use of "related article" feature in PubMed., Selection Criteria: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin K antagonist or ximelagatran to no intervention or placebo in cancer patients without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism., Data Collection and Analysis: Using a standardized data form we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcome of interest that included all cause mortality, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, major bleeding and minor bleeding., Main Results: Of 3986 identified citations five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Warfarin was the oral anticoagulant in all of these RCTs and it was compared to either placebo or no intervention. The overall methodological quality of these RCTs was acceptable. The effect of warfarin on reduction in mortality was not statistically significant at six months (Relative risk (RR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16), at one year (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05) at 2 years (RR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08) or at five years (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). In the subgroup of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), warfarin reduced mortality at six months (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96) but not at one year (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01). This six month mortality benefit was statistically significant in the subgroup of extensive SCLC (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.93) but not in the subgroup of limited SCLC (RR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.28). One study assessed the effect of warfarin on venous thromboembolism and showed a RR reduction of 85% (p = 0.031). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR = 4.24; 95% CI 1.85 to 9.68) and minor bleeding (RR = 3.34; 95% CI 1.66 to 6.74). Warfarin increased the risk of major bleeding (RR 5.46; 95% CI 3.04 to 9.81) and minor bleeding (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.30 to 12.42) also in patients with SCLC. There was no evidence for a significant reduction in mortality in any other cancer subtype., Authors' Conclusions: Existing evidence does not suggest a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer. In patients with SCLC, the evidence suggests a survival benefit at six months from warfarin particularly when the disease is extensive. The decision for a patient with extensive SCLC to start warfarin for survival benefit should balance that benefit with the downsides of increased bleeding risk in light of patient values for these outcomes.