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.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. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

Background: Cancer and its therapies increase the risk of venous thromboembolism. Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer anticoagulated for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent thrombotic events and major bleeding. Addressing all important outcomes including harm is of great importance to make evidence based health care decisions. The objective of this study was to compare low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and ximelagatran) for the long term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

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. Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer (Review)