Evaluation of cabozantinib (cabo) in combination with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
291 Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Despite cabo improving RCC outcomes, VTE management in these patients remains a challenge, partly due to poor understanding of cabo safety profile and drug interactions with anticoagulants. Recent anti-Xa DOAC studies demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety with LMWH for VTE treatment in patients with cancer. Thus far, cabo clinical trials have largely allowed concurrent LMWH use but not DOACs. Herein, we investigated the hemostasis safety profile of cabo with different anticoagulants in patients with RCC. Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter study (7 sites) of patients with advanced RCC receiving treatment with cabo. Patients were allocated into three groups: cabo with concomitant use (at least 1 week) of 1) DOACs (anti-Xa inhibitors), 2) LMWH, or 3) no anticoagulant. Primary endpoint was to evaluate the rate of major bleeding events (defined per the International Society of Hemostasis and Thrombosis criteria) in the above groups. Secondary endpoint was rate of new/recurrent VTE while on anticoagulation. Overall comparison between groups was analyzed by Fisher exact test. If a difference was found, then pairwise comparison was done. Results: Between 2016-2020, 172 patients with RCC received cabo (DOAC 50, LMWH 18, and no anticoagulant 104). At initiation, cabo median dose was 60 mg but 45% had dose reduction. Median age was 63 [IQR 57-69]. Most were males (77%), had clear cell histology (81.5%), underwent nephrectomy (76.7%), and had intermediate IMDC risk disease (59%). Cabo was first, second, and subsequent line of therapy in 19.8%, 34.9%, and 45.3% of patients, respectively. The table below shows major bleeding and VTE events between groups. An overall difference of major bleeding was found between the three groups comparison ( p=0.009). There was no difference in major bleeding events between patients who received DOAC vs LMWH ( p=0.28) and DOAC vs no anticoagulant ( p=0.1) but there was a difference between LMWH vs no anticoagulant ( p=0.02). Two patients died from bleeding (one in LMWH and one in DOAC group). Conclusions: This study highlights the first reported real world experience of cabo with different anticoagulants in patients with advanced RCC. Cabo use with a DOAC had a similar bleeding risk in comparison to patients not receiving any anticoagulation. In carefully selected patients, DOACs can be considered as concurrent medications in those receiving cabo. Given the low number of patients receiving LMWH, it is difficult to draw conclusions from this group. Data are currently being updated to expand subjects receiving DOAC and LMWH in our cohort. [Table: see text]
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».