Bleeding events in bevacizumab-treated cancer patients who received full-dose anticoagulation and remained on study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab provides clinical benefit in multiple solid tumours, but is associated with some increase in bleeding risk. Thrombotic events necessitating therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) are common in cancer. This report describes the safety of concurrent bevacizumab and TA in three large placebo-controlled clinical studies. METHODS: Study 1 (metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)), study 2 (mCRC), and study 3 (advanced non-small cell lung cancer) were blinded phase III studies. Eligibility criteria excluded patients on TA. Patients on protocol treatment who developed thrombotic events requiring TA were permitted to continue bevacizumab or placebo under specified conditions. Adverse events in patients who received bevacizumab and TA concurrently were assessed using the NCI-CTCAE scale. RESULTS: While experience is limited, venous thrombotic events were the most common reason for TA initiation in the three studies. Severe bleeding event rates for patients receiving TA in the bevacizumab-treated groups were similar in frequency to the placebo groups, ranging from 0 to 8% or 0 to 67 events per 100 patient-years. No severe pulmonary bleeding was reported in any of the TA-treated populations. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that bevacizumab did not increase the risk of severe bleeding in cancer patients who received TA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".