MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk factors for thromboembolic events in testicular cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

2009· article· en· W2594826311 on OpenAlexaff
Katharine Shim, Kylea Potvin, K L G Mills, Frances Whiston, Larry Stitt, Eric Winquist

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapyGerm cell tumorsIncidence (geometry)CancerTesticular cancerInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyCisplatinSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16109 Background: Cancer patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events (TTEs), and those receiving chemotherapy are at even greater risk. Clinical experience and the literature have suggested that men receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy for metastatic germ cell tumors are at particularly high risk. As TTEs can be fatal and treatment is curative, the stakes are high. Despite this, prophylactic anticoagulation (PA) is not routinely used. Methods: All men treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for metastatic germ cell cancer at the London Regional Cancer Program from January 1978 to December 2007 were identified from electronic databases. Data including type and timing of TTEs were extracted by retrospective chart review. Multivariable analyses were used to identify predictors of TTEs. Results: 196 eligible patients were identified with median age 31 years (range, 15–75). No patients received PA. Thirty-two TTEs were identified in 29 patients for an overall incidence of 14.8% (95% CI, 9.8–19.8%). The majority of events were deep venous thromboses, and five patients died due to TTE or its complications. Sixteen of the patients with TTE (55.2%) were diagnosed while on treatment (defined as TTE within 6 months of chemotherapy initiation); 8 (27.6%) had their TTE prior to, and 5 (17.2%) after this time period. Age greater than 30 years (OR = 3.02; 95% CI, 1.10–8.33; p = 0.033) and elevated LDH (OR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.07–3.48; p = 0.029) were independently associated with an increased risk of TTE. If both adverse risk factors were present, the risk of TTE on treatment was 21.7% (95% CI, 9.8–33.7%). If neither were present, the negative predictive value was 97% (95% CI, 92–100%). Conclusions: The overall TTE incidence rate of 14.8% is consistent with prior reports (8.4–19%). The risk of TTE appears greatest during chemotherapy and shortly thereafter, and nearly one in 10 patients in this group had a TTE. These data support the concept of PA for selected patients starting chemotherapy for metastatic germ cell cancer. However, the efficacy of PA and risk of hemorrhage in this group is unknown. In this cohort, patients under 30 with normal LDH were at very low risk for TTE. Confirmation of these findings to help guide the study and optimal use of PA should be pursued. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207