Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) carries significant morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) remains the standard of care, with recent systematic studies suggesting the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in the treatment of CAT. Uncertainty, however, remains regarding rivaroxaban efficacy and safety in real-world settings. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing rivaroxaban to LMWH. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. The primary outcome was the net clinical benefit (NCB), while rates of major bleeding (MB), venous thromboembolism (VTE), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality events were secondary outcomes. Seventeen studies were included in the final analysis. Rivaroxaban had a better NCB (relative risk [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.75-0.89, Q = 10.51, I 2 = 0%), less VTE events (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.65-0.82, Q = 6.76, I 2 = 0%), and lower all-cause mortality (RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57-0.91, Q = 32.8, I 2 = 79%) compared to LMWH. Additionally, comparable MB events (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.85-1.33, Q = 16.9, I 2 = 11%). However, CRNMB events were higher in the rivaroxaban group (RR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.46-2.80, Q = 9.9, I 2 = 19%). Additional analyses demonstrated consistency of results. Our review encompassing data from randomized and real-world data suggested rivaroxaban superiority compared to LMWH in terms of a better NCB, fewer VTE events, lower all-cause mortality, and comparable MB risk while carrying a higher risk of CRNMB. These findings support the use of rivaroxaban in the treatment of CAT. Additionally, it warrants a sizable randomized controlled study testing the superiority of rivaroxaban versus LMWH formulation and ascertaining bleeding outcomes according to cancer type and site.

Background: There has been a significant improvement in both our understanding and therapeutic choices available to clinicians for the management of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). Even with the recent publication of a systematic review and landmark trials demonstrating the non-inferiority of DOACS-based anticoagulation strategy compared to the standard of care in patients with CAT, there is unresolved uncertainty regarding the exact hierarchy of risks and effectiveness of various DOAC analogues in these cohorts of patients. Method: We will carry out a network meta-analyses, utilizing a novel generalized pairwise methodology to generate direct and indirect comparisons between the various DOAC analogues. We will search the following databases for studies that satisfies pre-specified inclusions criteria; these include PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Clinicaltrials.gov, conference abstracts among other sources. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes are recurrent VTE and major hemorrhagic events, respectively. Two reviewers will Search the databases independently with the view to identify studies that meet eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of the included studies will be determined using a recently validated risk of bias assessment tool. Results: We expect that the result of this review will ascertain the hierarchy of risks and effectiveness of various DOAC analogues in patients with CAT. Conclusion: Results of this review will assist in informed decisions making regarding therapeutic guidelines of DOAC in CAT.