Dalteparin Thromboprophylaxis in Cancer Patients at High Risk for Venous Thromboembolism: A Randomized Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Ambulatory cancer patients at high-risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) can be identified using a validated risk score. We evaluated the benefit of outpatient thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin in such high-risk patients in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods: Cancer patients at high risk for VTE (Khorana score ≥3) and initiating a new systemic chemotherapy regimen were screened for VTE and, if negative, randomized to either dalteparin 5000 units daily subcutaneously or no prophylactic anticoagulation for 12 weeks. Subjects in both arms were screened with lower extremity ultrasounds every 4 weeks on study. Primary efficacy endpoint was any VTE over 12 weeks and primary safety endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding events over 13 weeks. The study was terminated due to poor accrual. Results: Of 117 enrolled patients, 19 were not randomized due to the presence of VTE on initial screening (N=10, 8.5%) or for other reasons (N=9). The mean age was 59 years with 46% female and 54% male, similar in both arms. The most common primary sites of cancer were pancreas, gastro-esophageal junction, lung and lymphoma. Over three-fourths of patients in each arm had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.Of 98 patients randomized, VTE occurred in 12% (N=6/50) of patients on the dalteparin arm and 21% (N=10/48) on the control arm (hazard ratio, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.23-1.89) (absolute risk reduction 9%, relative risk reduction 42%, number needed to treat = 12). Major bleeding was similar (N=1) in each arm but clinically relevant bleeding was higher in the dalteparin arm (N=7 versus 1 in the control arm) (HR = 7.0, 95% CI 1.2-131.6). There was no difference in overall survival. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis is associated with a non-significant reduced risk of VTE with no effect on major bleeding or survival but increased risk of clinically relevant bleeding in this underpowered study population. The Khorana score successfully identifies patients with high incidence of VTE both at baseline and during study. The high incidence of baseline VTE suggests that consideration should be given to screening high-risk patients in clinical practice prior to starting systemic therapy. Future studies should continue to focus on risk-adapted approaches to reduce the burden of VTE in cancer. (Funded by NIH/NHLBI R01HL095109; clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00876915). Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in the PHACS trial Dalteparin Observation Total Enrolled (n) Baseline VTE, n (%) DVT PE Other reasons for not randomizing Randomized (n) Age, mean (SD), y --- --- --- --- --- 50 60 (10) --- --- --- --- --- 48 58 (12) 117 10 (9%) 6* (5%) 4 (3%) 9 98 59 (11) Gender, n (%) Female 21 (42%) 24 (50%) 45 (46%) Male 29 (58%) 24 (50%) 53 (54%) Primary Tumor Site, No. (%) Gynecologic 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 8 (8%) Colorectal 1 (2%) 3 (6%) 4 (4%) GE junction 8 (16%) 4 (8%) 12 (25%) Lung 6 (12%) 7(15%) 13 (27%) Genitourinary 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 2 (2%) Lymphoma 5 (10%) 2 (4%) 7 (15%) Breast 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 2 (2%) Pancreatic 19 (38%) 17 (35%) 36 (37%) Gastric 4 (8%) 6 (13%) 10 (10%) Other 0 (0%) 4 (8%) 4 (4%) Previous history of VTE, n (%) 4 (8%) 2 (4%) 6 (6%) *NOTE: 1 subject had both DVT and PE at baseline screening Abbreviations: DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PE pulmonary embolism; VTE, venous thromboembolism; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Figure 1. Cumulative Incidence Curves for the Primary Efficacy Outcome in the Intention-to-Treat Population, According to Study Arm. Figure 1. Cumulative Incidence Curves for the Primary Efficacy Outcome in the Intention-to-Treat Population, According to Study Arm. Disclosures Khorana: Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: Randomized trial of dalteparin as prophylaxis. The drug is approved for treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis but not for prophylaxis.. Francis:Eisai: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria; NHLBI: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy. Kuderer:Hospira: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Carrier:Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy. Ortel:Instrumentation Laboratory: Consultancy; Instrumentation Laboratory: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Wun:Janssen: Consultancy. Iyer:Ipsen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentec: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Lyman:Amgen: Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».