Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a preventable disease, thus, in a number of clinical situations primary thromboprophylaxis has been proposed. Although we now know that cancer is one of the most important risk factors for VTE, primary prophylactic anticoagulation is only widely established for high-risk hospitalized patients and peri- and postoperatively after major cancer surgery. Long-term primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients has been demonstrated to be effective. However, drawbacks are the additional burden of drug use, the lack of a reduced mortality benefit and costs. Only with reliable risk prediction the recommendation of primary thromboprophylaxis will convince oncologists and patients of its usefulness. This review deals with clinical and laboratory parameters and their combination in risk assessment models to define patients at high and low risk of VTE, in whom targeted thromboprophylaxis could best be applied. At present 90% of patients in the so-called intermediate- to high-risk group according to the Khorana score still do not develop VTE during the first 6 months, whereas there is a high absolute number of patients in the so-called low-risk groups that develop VTE. Improvements in risk assessment have been made by new risk prediction models. However, additional refinements to further improve risk prediction and their applicability in clinical practice are still needed.Coagulation biomarkers are being actively studied for their diagnostic and prognostic value in patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer, as well as in the study of pathogenic mechanisms between cancer and thrombosis. For the results of such studies to be accurate and reproducible, attention must be paid to minimize sources of error in all phases of testing. The pre-analytical phase of laboratory testing is known to be fraught with the majority of errors. Coagulation testing is particularly susceptible to conditions during collection, processing, transport and storage of specimens which can lead to clinically significant errors in results. In addition, changes in pre-analytical conditions can impact different biomarkers differently. Therefore, research studies investigating coagulation biomarkers must carefully standardize not just the analytical phase, but also the pre-analytical phase of testing to ensure accuracy and reliability. We briefly review the impact of pre-analytical conditions on coagulation testing in general, and on specific biomarkers in cancer and thrombosis. In addition, we provide recommendations to reduce pre-analytical errors by developing and sharing standard operating procedures that specifically target standardization of methodologies for collecting specimens and measuring current and emerging coagulation biomarkers in cancer studies.Childhood malignancy and especially acute lymphoblastic leukemia are increasingly associated with thromboembolism. The etiology of pediatric cancer associated thrombosis is multifactorial and may reflect a tumor mass effect, tumor thrombi, alterations of the hemostatic system, treatment-related hazards (e.g.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/epoxomicin-bu-4061t.html  procoagulant changes induced by chemotherapy), presence of central venous lines and comorbidities (e.g. inherited thrombophilia). With over 80% cure rates of childhood cancer, strategies for prevention as well as for early diagnosis and optimal treatment of thromboembolism in children with malignancies are of major importance. While the use of therapeutic low molecular weight heparin prevails, prospective studies regarding guidelines for treatment or prevention are currently lacking. This review will address the epidemiology, etiology and risk factors for thrombosis, describe the presently available evidence associated with current therapy, and offer a glimpse into future treatment options.Thrombosis is a common complication of cancer with a mean prevalence of 15%. Most commonly, this presents as venous thromboembolism; however, other manifestations such as arterial thrombosis or thrombotic microangiopathy may occur. Cancer itself is not only associated with risk factors for thrombotic complications, including intrinsic biological effect of malignant cells, accompanying operations, or the presence of indwellingvascular catheters, but there is also an additional risk caused by anticancer agents including chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In most cases the underlying pathogenetic factor that contributes to the thrombotic risk associated with chemotherapy is endothelial cell injury (or loss of protection of endothelial integrity, for example by vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition). In addition, individual anticancer agents may have specific prothrombotic effects. As in recent years more intense anticancer drugs are administered, such as in myeloablative conditioning regimens preceding stem cell transplantation, thrombosis and in particular thrombotic microangiopathy are a more frequent complication in anticancer treatment.Despite a breadth of data on the management of cancer-associated thrombosis, all the studies informing clinical guidelines excluded patients receiving palliative care. Patients with advanced cancer have a higher rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, making them one of the most challenging populations to treat. The dearth of population-specific research leaves clinicians with few options but to extrapolate data from clinical trials conducted on a healthier population. Recent observational studies have challenged the utility of doing this, suggesting the natural history of VTE in the advanced cancer patient may differ to our first beliefs and that a less aggressive approach to anticoagulation is warranted particularly near the end of life. This paper highlights what we know so far.Approximately one-fifth of all cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are related to cancer. VTE complications may have a substantial impact on prognosis, quality of life and care in patients with cancer. Patients with cancer-related VTE are at increased risk of developing recurrent VTE compared to patients without cancer, but also have a higher risk of major bleeding. In the last years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been evaluated in a head-to-head comparison with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in two randomized trials for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with advanced cancer. The results of these trials show that DOACs have a similar efficacy profile, but probably higher risk of bleeding, compared to LMWH dalteparin. Because DOACs offer a simple oral treatment regimen without the need for anticoagulation monitoring, they could be attractive alternatives to LMWHs in these setting. The American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, published in August 2019, recommend LMWH, edoxaban and rivaroxaban as first-choice therapies for long-term anticoagulation in cancer patients with VTE.