Clinical genitourinary cancer · 2026
International Survey of Thromboprophylaxis Practices During Neoadjuvant Therapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Halme Alex L E, Posa Matias, Ruotsalainen Jani, Hallamies Sanna, Carus Andreas, Gudjonsson Sigurdur, Junkkari Heikki, Järvinen Riikka, Nordlund Niko K, Tornberg Sara, Ullén Anders, Gross Peter L, Kaukonen Kirsi-Maija, Catto James W F, Hussain Syed A, Tikkinen Kari A O
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) have increased risk for venous thromboembolism and bleeding. Leading guidelines acknowledge these risks but provide only weak recommendations on pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis during NAC, potentially contributing to practice variation. We surveyed clinicians to characterize thromboprophylaxis use in this setting.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of oncologists and urologists who frequently administer NAC for MIBC in the United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland. The survey, distributed by email, asked about clinician characteristics, use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis during NAC in MIBC patients, preferred agents, and reasons for withholding therapy.
RESULTS: We received 46 responses from 67 invited clinicians (69%), including 44 oncologists and 2 urologists. Respondents had a median of 12 years in specialist practice and treated a median of 15 MIBC patients with NAC annually. More than half (57%) prescribed thromboprophylaxis to none, 15% to 1% to 9% of patients, 22% to 10% to 49%, and 7% to more than 50%. The main reasons for withholding therapy were insufficient evidence of benefit (57%) and concerns about bleeding (28%).
CONCLUSION: Our sample of practicing clinicians reported limited and heterogeneous use of thromboprophylaxis during NAC in MIBC patients, largely driven by lack of evidence and perceived risk of bleeding. More trustworthy evidence and practice guidelines are much needed.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of oncologists and urologists who frequently administer NAC for MIBC in the United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland. The survey, distributed by email, asked about clinician characteristics, use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis during NAC in MIBC patients, preferred agents, and reasons for withholding therapy.
RESULTS: We received 46 responses from 67 invited clinicians (69%), including 44 oncologists and 2 urologists. Respondents had a median of 12 years in specialist practice and treated a median of 15 MIBC patients with NAC annually. More than half (57%) prescribed thromboprophylaxis to none, 15% to 1% to 9% of patients, 22% to 10% to 49%, and 7% to more than 50%. The main reasons for withholding therapy were insufficient evidence of benefit (57%) and concerns about bleeding (28%).
CONCLUSION: Our sample of practicing clinicians reported limited and heterogeneous use of thromboprophylaxis during NAC in MIBC patients, largely driven by lack of evidence and perceived risk of bleeding. More trustworthy evidence and practice guidelines are much needed.