MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2981166661 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.4633.4633

Treatment of Cancer Associated Venous Thrombosis; The Cleveland Clinic Experience

2017· article· en· W2981166661 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shafia Rahman, Dana E. Angelini, Paul Elson, Mailey L Wilks, Vicki Pinkava, Meghan O’Brien, Barb Tripp, Jung Min Song, Keith R. McCrae, Alok A. Khorana

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRivaroxabanVitamin K antagonistLow molecular weight heparinFondaparinuxCancerThrombosisExact testInternal medicineWarfarinVenous thromboembolism

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Current guidelines recommend anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is gaining more popularity amongst patients and prescribers given the ease of administration and lower cost compared to LMWH. However, there is limited published data comparing LMWH vs DOACs for the treatment of CAT. Here we report patient outcomes from our clinical experience in treating CAT. Methods: We evaluated a prospective cohort of patients referred to our centralized CAT clinic at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. This clinic provides urgent outpatient consultation for adult cancer patients with clinical concern for VTE. In effort to standardize initial treatment, reduce variation in care, and minimize the need for hospitalization, a care path was created to recommend LMWH as the preferred anticoagulant for treatment of VTE with rivaroxaban as an alternative based on patient preference or cost. We evaluated clinical characteristics, anticoagulation prescription, VTE recurrence rate, and subsequent hospitalization for patients diagnosed with VTE. Continuous variables were analyzed with t-test, chi-square (or Fisher's exact) for unordered categorical data, and Cochran-Armitage test for ordered categorical data. Kruskal Wallis test for age was used when comparing all treatments and Wilcoxon rank sum test for age was used when comparing enoxaparin vs rivaroxaban. Results: Data from 608 patients seen between 8/2014 and 11/2016 were considered for analysis. Sixteen patients were excluded (15 due to missing data and one because he/she was the only patient treated with apixaban), leaving 592 patients. Males comprised 52% (308/592) of the study population, median age was 63 (range 20-95). Hematologic malignancies comprised 21% (123/586) of patients and most patients with solid tumors had metastatic disease (72%, 265/368). Within the study population, 15% (88/584) had history of prior VTE and 54% (289/537) were considered high risk based on the modified Ottawa score. (Table 1) VTE was diagnosed in 34% of patients referred to the clinic: Of these, 29% (174/529) were diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 2 % (12/529) with pulmonary embolism (PE), 3% (17/592) with both DVT and PE and one patient had visceral vein thrombosis. Of patients diagnosed with VTE, 25% of patients were subsequently hospitalized. Gastrointestinal, brain, and lymphoma's had a higher rate of VTE than other tumor types (45-49% vs 29-35%). Breast cancer had a lower rate of VTE than other cancer types (17%, p=0.001) Enoxaparin was the most commonly prescribed drug given to 76% (149/195) of patients. Rivaroxaban was given to 12% (23/195), 8% (16/195) were treated with Coumadin and 7 patients (4%) were not given anticoagulant therapy due to a contraindication. High Ottawa score patients received rivaroxaban less frequently than other treatments (p=0.02). Patients treated with rivaroxaban had less hospitalizations compared to patients treated with other anticoagulants (p=0.04). Of patients diagnosed with VTE, 16 (8%) had a recurrent event. There were no significant associations with sex, age, type of cancer, stage, or type of anticoagulant. Specifically, there was no difference in risk of VTE recurrence in patients treated with LMWH (11 events) vs rivaroxaban (0 events); p=0.36). The Ottawa score did not statistically correlate with recurrent VTE (0%, 6%, and 10%) for low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively (p=0.2). An increased risk of recurrent VTE was seen in patients who had personal history of VTE and in those who were hospitalized after the VTE (p=0.02 and p=0.005, respectively). Table 2 Conclusion: The Cleveland Clinic provides centralized care to cancer patients diagnosed with VTE. Among patients referred to our CAT clinic, we found risk of VTE correlates with cancer type and personal history of VTE. Most of our patients received our recommended therapy, enoxaparin, but rivaroxaban was prescribed to some due to patient preference. Patients treated with rivaroxaban had fewer adverse outcomes compared to those treated with other anticoagulants. Limitations include the small sample size and greater use of rivaroxaban in lower risk patients. We found the risk of VTE recurrence was higher in those with history of VTE and in those hospitalized for their VTE event. Download : Download high-res image (332KB) Download : Download full-size image Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,374
Écart entre enseignants0,310 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→