PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Cancers· 2026Q1· Review

Viscoelastic Testing for Assessment of Hypercoagulability and Thrombotic Risk in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Aleksandra Szymczyk, Franciszek Bałaj, Mariusz Siemiński

Short summary

Viscoelastic tests like TEG and ROTEM frequently reveal lab abnormalities in cancer patients, such as faster clot formation and increased clot strength, but their ability to predict individual thrombotic risk is inconsistent and not well-established.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Viscoelastic tests (TEG, ROTEM) frequently detect haemostatic abnormalities in cancer patients.
  • Common abnormalities include faster clot propagation and increased clot strength.
  • The ability of these tests to predict individual thrombotic risk is inconsistent across studies.
  • Evidence for predicting fibrinolysis-based events is limited and depends on the specific assay used.
  • Current evidence does not support improved patient outcomes from viscoelastic-guided thromboprophylaxis.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

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.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Cancers, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Internal Medicine

Internal MedicineMedicine