Oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several basic research and clinical studies have led to the hypothesis that oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to their antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including 1. a February 2013 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE; 2. a handsearch of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (starting with its first volume, 1982) and of the American Society of Hematology (starting with the 2003 issue); 3. checking of references of included studies; 4. use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and 5. searching clinical trials.gov for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin K antagonist or other oral anticoagulants with no intervention or placebo in patients with cancer without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form, we extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all-cause mortality, venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and minor bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Of 9559 identified citations, seven RCTs (eight reports) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The use of warfarin had no effect on mortality at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.22), one year (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04), two years (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18), or five years (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). One study assessed the effect of warfarin on venous thromboembolism and did not show or exclude a beneficial or detrimental of effect (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR 4.24; 95% CI 1.86 to 9.65) and minor bleeding (RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.83 to 5.55). We judged the quality of evidence as moderate for all outcomes.The study assessing the effect of apixaban did not show or exclude a beneficial effect or detrimental of apixaban on mortality at six months (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.66); major bleeding (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 6.63); and minor bleeding (RR 2.87; 95% CI 0.16 to 51.82). We judged the quality of evidence as low for all outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence does not suggest a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer while the risk for bleeding is increased.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".