Our study has identified that what patients value most is an anticoagulant that interferes as little as possible with their cancer treatment. It also clearly demonstrates that they rate efficacy and then safety over convenience, whether it be the route of delivery, administration frequency or the need for monitoring.

this class of drugs possess the attributes most valued by patients within the context of their cancer journey.

atients also favor efficacy and safety over convenience of route of administration.

oes not interfere with their cancer treatment, suggesting the primacy of the cancer disease over venous thromboembolism in these patients.

Tablets could provide a welcome choice for patients if there is equivalent risk–benefit to injected anticoagulants.

Patients trust their clinicians to tailor their treatment.

Treatment related decision-making of patients with CAT, assuming equal effectiveness and safety of treatments, is predominantly driven by "route of administration", indicating a strong preference for oral intake.

To estimate this peak concentration (C max), the recommended sampling time is four hours after the dose. This time will often misrepresent the true C max due to inter-individual variation in pharmacokinetic parameters. In some patients the peak concentration can be reached in one hour, however a reasonable representation can be gained between three and five hours after the dose. Sampling outside this time window will affect the ability to interpret the results.

24 hours if the dose is therapeutic

Gastrointestinal malignancy was also found to be a risk factor of increased gastrointestinal bleeding when using a direct oral anticoagulant vs. LMWH.3 Therefore, direct oral anticoagulants should be used with caution in patients with cancer who have a history of gastrointestinal malignancy or bleeding.

The thrombogenic effect of antiangiogenic agents is amplified by the co-administration of chemotherapy and steroids

Patients with a creatinine clearance of ≤30 ml/min who are treated with standard therapeutic doses of enoxaparin have elevated levels of anti-Xa and an increased risk for major bleeding.

In patients with severe renal failure (creatinine clearance <25–30 ml), UFH i.v. or LMWH with anti-Xa activity monitoring is recommended [

he improvement in efficacy of DOACs over LMWHs might be explained in part by better treatment adherence with an orally administered drug than with subcutaneous injections,

On the contrary, DOACs seem to be associated with an increased risk of bleeding

major bleeding and major GI bleeding in patients treated with DOACs, with a significantly elevated risk of major bleeding in the subgroup of patients with a GI cancer.