MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966354200 · doi:10.1200/jco.19.01461

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

2019· review· en· W2966354200 on OpenAlexaff
Nigel S. Key, Alok A. Khorana, Nicole M. Kuderer, Kari Bohlke, Agnes Lee, Juan I. Arcelus, Sandra L. Wong, Edward P. Balaban, Christopher R. Flowers, Charles W. Francis, Leigh E. Gates, Ajay K. Kakkar, Mark N. Levine, Howard A. Liebman, Margaret A. Tempero, Gary H. Lyman, Anna Falanga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEdoxabanRivaroxabanApixabanCancerIntensive care medicineGuidelineRandomized controlled trialVenous thromboembolismCochrane LibraryLow molecular weight heparinAmbulatoryInternal medicineWarfarinHeparinThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed. RESULTS: The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE. RECOMMENDATIONS: Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,475
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207