Management of anticoagulation for cancer‐associated thrombosis in patients with thrombocytopenia: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essentials•The management of anticoagulation in patients with thrombocytopenia is controversial.•Some studies suggest to administer reduced‐dose low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH).•While other studies suggest full‐dose anticoagulation using LMWH and transfusion support.•The results from our systematic review do not support one management strategy over another.BackgroundThe management of anticoagulation for cancer‐associated thrombosis (CAT) in patients with thrombocytopenia is controversial. Whereas some studies suggest that administration of reduced‐dose low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) or temporary discontinuation for moderate and severe thrombocytopenia may be a safe and effective, others suggest full‐dose anticoagulation with transfusion support. We sought to address this important knowledge gap and summarize the literature comparing these two common management strategies.MethodsA systematic review of the literature (PROSPERO CRD42017077127) using MEDLINE (inception to September 2017) was conducted. We included studies that reported recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding complications among patients treated with both of the two most common management strategies: therapeutic anticoagulation with platelet transfusion support and dose‐modified anticoagulation for periods when the platelet count is <50 × 109/L.ResultsA total of 134 article records were identified on the initial search and 10 articles underwent full text review. Two observational studies met the inclusions criteria. A total of 121 patients with CAT and thrombocytopenia were included. Forty‐two of these patients had pulmonary embolism and 87 had deep vein thrombosis (DVT) including 38 upper extremity DVT. Overall, 27% of patients, regardless of their treatment strategy, experienced recurrent VTE. Thirteen percent of anticoagulated patients (15% of all patients) experienced a major bleeding episode. Meta‐analysis could not be conducted.ConclusionsOur findings do not support one management strategy over another to treat CAT patients with thrombocytopenia. However, the data highlights the heightened risk of recurrent VTE in this patient population despite the thrombocytopenia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".