MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417013956 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-1350

VTE management in primary central nervous system neoplasms : A retrospective cohort study in a Canadian tertiary center between 2013 and 2023

2025· article· en· W4417013956 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Tran, Maria Camila Quinones, Sarah Higgins, Andréanne Durivage, I. Boulais, Geneviève Le Templier, Dominique Toupin, Samuel Lemaire-Paquette, Mandy Malick, B Gouin

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyThrombosisDeep veinPulmonary embolismCancerVenous thrombosisInferior vena cavaLow molecular weight heparinCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background : Patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) but also face a higher risk of intracranial bleeding due to the tumor itself and the associated treatments. Therefore, the safest anticoagulation treatment for these patients remains unclear. Objective : To describe the therapeutic management of VTE (pulmonary embolism (PE) and lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT)) in patients aged 18 years or older with a malignant primary central nervous system neoplasm in a Canadian tertiary center. Methods : We conducted a unicentric retrospective cohort study between Jan 1st, 2013 and December 31, 2023. Data was collected from local clinical database. Adults with primary CNS neoplasm and radiologically proven diagnosis of VTE during active cancer were included. Results : 73 patients with primary CNS tumors and VTE were included in this study. The most common cancer was high grade glioblastoma (61.6%; 45/73). Most patients were treated with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (67.1%; 49/73), 23.3% (17/73) were treated with direct oral anticoagulants, 9.6% (7/73) were not treated with a full dose of anticoagulation due to contraindications, and 9 patients had an inferior vena cava filter inserted. During follow up (IQR 5.75 [2.4 - 19.2] months), treatment of VTE was complicated with bleeding in 19.2% (14/73, 5 intra-cranial), with a non-significant increased risk of bleeding in the LMWH group compared to DOACs [24.5% vs 5.9%, HR 4,48 (IC95% 0.58-34.8), p =0.265]. VTE recurrence occurred in 15.1% of patients (11/73; 7 PE, 4 DVT), with a non-significant increased risk for DOACs compared with LMWH [29.5% vs 12.2%, HR 2,38 (IC95% 0,59-9,61), p=0.172]. These complications led to modification of anticoagulation treatment in 78.6% of patients who experienced bleeding, and 100% who had VTE recurrence. Conclusion : In conclusion, preferred treatment for the patients with both a primary CNS neoplasm and a VTE in this cohort was LMWH. Our results, though not statistically significant, suggest a slightly higher rate of bleeding with LMWH, while DOACs seems to be associated with a modest increase in incidence of VTE recurrence. These exploratory results highlight the need for further prospective studies to guide treatment decisions in this high-risk population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→