Viscoelastic Testing for Assessment of Hypercoagulability and Thrombotic Risk in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review
- 1Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-210 Gdańsk, Poland
- 2Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, 70-204 Szczecin, Poland
Abstract
Background: Viscoelastic assays characterize haemostatic abnormalities in cancer, but their clinical prognostic value remains uncertain. We reviewed thromboelastography (TEG), rapid TEG and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) for laboratory phenotyping and thrombotic risk assessment. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched through 15 October 2026. During revision, a second reviewer independently verified full-text decisions and extracted data and available quality assessments. Findings were synthesized by temporality, thrombotic endpoint, clinical setting and viscoelastic domain. The protocol was not prospectively registered. Results: The review included 64 reports published between 1997 and 2026: 38 grouped with clinical thrombotic endpoints and 26 primarily addressing laboratory findings. Forty-five reports used TEG and 19 used ROTEM. Laboratory abnormalities frequently involved faster clot propagation and increased clot strength, but normal or inconsistent profiles were also reported. Associations with existing thrombosis were distinguished from testing before incident events. High discrimination estimates sometimes belonged to multivariable models, while other studies found little independent prognostic information from TEG/ROTEM. Evidence for fibrinolysis-based prediction was limited and assay-dependent. Conclusions: Evidence supports laboratory haemostatic characterization more strongly than individual thrombosis prediction. Current findings do not establish that viscoelastic-guided thromboprophylaxis improves patient outcomes.
Related
- HYPERCOAGULABILITY IN HEART FAILURE AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THROMBOTIC EVENTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
- CO064 | THROMBOTIC AND BLEEDING EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH VASCULAR INVASION BY ADVANCED HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
- CO036 | NEUROCOGNITIVE ASSESSMENT OF IMMUNE-MEDIATED THROMBOTIC THROMBOCYTOPENIC PURPURA PATIENTS USING A COMPREHENSIVE TEST BATTERY IN A CROSS-SECTIONAL MRI-INTEGRATED STUDY
- Viscoelastic Testing for Hemostatic Assessment in Liver Transplantation
- COVID-19 and thrombotic risk in patients with active cancer: a matched cohort study
BibTeX
@article{szymczyk2026viscoelastic,
title = {{Viscoelastic Testing for Assessment of Hypercoagulability and Thrombotic Risk in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review}},
author = {Aleksandra Szymczyk and Franciszek Bałaj and Mariusz Siemiński},
journal = {Cancers},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/cancers18213529},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/21/3529},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Viscoelastic Testing for Assessment of Hypercoagulability and Thrombotic Risk in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review
AU - Aleksandra Szymczyk
AU - Franciszek Bałaj
AU - Mariusz Siemiński
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - Cancers
DO - 10.3390/cancers18213529
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/21/3529
AB - Background: Viscoelastic assays characterize haemostatic abnormalities in cancer, but their clinical prognostic value remains uncertain. We reviewed thromboelastography (TEG), rapid TEG and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) for laboratory phenotyping and thrombotic risk assessment. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched through 15 October 2026. During revision, a second reviewer independently verified full-text decisions and extracted data and available quality assessments. Findings were synthesized by temporality, thrombotic endpoint, clinical setting and viscoelastic domain. The protocol was not prospectively registered. Results: The review included 64 reports published between 1997 and 2026: 38 grouped with clinical thrombotic endpoints and 26 primarily addressing laboratory findings. Forty-five reports used TEG and 19 used ROTEM. Laboratory abnormalities frequently involved faster clot propagation and increased clot strength, but normal or inconsistent profiles were also reported. Associations with existing thrombosis were distinguished from testing before incident events. High discrimination estimates sometimes belonged to multivariable models, while other studies found little independent prognostic information from TEG/ROTEM. Evidence for fibrinolysis-based prediction was limited and assay-dependent. Conclusions: Evidence supports laboratory haemostatic characterization more strongly than individual thrombosis prediction. Current findings do not establish that viscoelastic-guided thromboprophylaxis improves patient outcomes.
SN - 2072-6694
ER -