Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

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.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer.

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.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to the perceived antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search included (1) an electronic search (February 2013) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2013; accessed via OVID) and EMBASE(1980 to February 2013; 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. 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 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 methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), arterial thrombosis (e.g. stroke, myocardial infarction), major bleeding, minor bleeding and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: Of 9559 identified citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 7622 participants for whom follow-up data were available. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin may have a small effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.01 and RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00, respectively). Heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically important reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74) and a clinically important increase in the risk of minor bleeding (RR 1.32; 95% 1.02 to 1.71). Results failed to show or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on major bleeding (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85) or quality of life. Our confidence in the effect estimates (i.e. quality of evidence) was high for symptomatic venous thromboembolism, moderate for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding, and low for quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Heparin may have a small effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It is associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism and a likely increase in 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 for survival benefit should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.

Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters.

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.

Oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

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.

Oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

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.

Anticoagulation for patients with cancer and central venous catheters.

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.

Oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

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.

Anticoagulation for patients with cancer and central venous catheters.

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.

Parenteral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to the perceived antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search included (1) an electronic search (February 2010) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 1, 2010, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science; (2) handsearch of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; and (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in patients with cancer but no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized form we extracted in duplicate data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all-cause mortality, symptomatic thromboembolism, major bleeding, minor bleeding and quality of life (QoL). MAIN RESULTS: Of 8187 identified citations, nine RCTs enrolling 2857 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, the effect of heparin therapy on mortality was not statistically significant at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.93; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02) but it was statistically significant at 24 months (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically important reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82). There were no statistically significant effects on major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.88), minor bleeding (RR 1.05; 95% 0.75 to 1.46) or QoL. The quality of evidence was high for symptomatic venous thromboembolism, moderate for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding, and low for QoL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Heparin was associated with a significant reduction of death at 24 months but not 12 months. It was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism but based on the RCTs in this review it had no significant effect on major bleeding, minor bleeding or QoL. 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 for survival benefit should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences.

Parenteral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to the perceived antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search included (1) an electronic search (February 2010) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 1, 2010, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science; (2) handsearch of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; and (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in patients with cancer but no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized form we extracted in duplicate data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all-cause mortality, symptomatic thromboembolism, major bleeding, minor bleeding and quality of life (QoL). MAIN RESULTS: Of 8187 identified citations, nine RCTs enrolling 2857 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, the effect of heparin therapy on mortality was not statistically significant at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.93; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02) but it was statistically significant at 24 months (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically important reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82). There were no statistically significant effects on major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.88), minor bleeding (RR 1.05; 95% 0.75 to 1.46) or QoL. The quality of evidence was high for symptomatic venous thromboembolism, moderate for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding, and low for QoL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Heparin was associated with a significant reduction of death at 24 months but not 12 months. It was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism but based on the RCTs in this review it had no significant effect on major bleeding, minor bleeding or QoL. 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 for survival benefit should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences.

Oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

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.