A survey of physician perception and practices regarding pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during chemotherapy for bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced bladder cancer receiving chemotherapy have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, we hypothesized these patients were not routinely offered thromboprophylaxis. The objective of this study was to characterize practice patterns and perceptions of Canadian urologic and medical oncologists, and to identify research needs regarding thromboprophylaxis for patients with bladder cancer. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to Canadian urologic and medical oncologists who manage advanced bladder cancer. The survey explored physician opinions regarding VTE rates, risk stratification scores, thromboprophylaxis use in different treatment settings, and interest in clinical trials. RESULTS: Seventy physicians were invited and 36 (51%) completed the survey, including 20 (56%) urologic oncologists and 16 (44%) medical oncologists. Most respondents (35; 97%) believed that exposure to platinum chemotherapy increases VTE risk. For patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 34 (94%) respondents estimated the risk of VTE to be 10% or higher, yet 25 (69%) indicated they do not routinely recommend thromboprophylaxis. Physicians frequently (10; 40%) defer the decision to another physician, while eight (32%) believe there is not enough evidence to guide best management. Similar responses were obtained for metastatic patients. Almost all (94%) respondents were interested in participating in a thromboprophylaxis trial for patients with bladder cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bladder cancer receiving chemotherapy in Canada are not routinely offered thromboprophylaxis. We found strong interest among Canadian oncologists to participate in clinical trials examining this topic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".