ArticleBlood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis2026
Intracranial hemorrhage in patients with primary brain cancer receiving anticoagulation.
Article in Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Personalized Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are easier to administer than low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with cancer, but their safety profile in patients with primary brain cancer remains uncertain. Our aim was to assess the incidence and clinical predictors of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with primary brain cancer receiving therapeutic doses of either DOACs or LMWH. The Anticoagulation in Brain Cancer Study was an international retrospective cohort study (2014-2022) conducted in 12 hospitals on adults with primary brain cancer receiving therapeutic doses of either DOACs or LMWH for any indication or duration. The primary outcome was the occurrence of spontaneous ICH. We calculated the 12-month cumulative incidence of spontaneous ICH and determined hazard ratios (HR) to compare the risk between DOACs and LMWH, accounting for death as a competing risk. The cohort included 240 patients, 61 receiving DOAC and 179 on LMWH. The 12-month cumulative incidence of spontaneous ICH was 6.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-15.3) with DOAC compared with 13.0% (95% CI, 8.5-18.6) in the LMWH group; HR of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.24-1.49). Death within 30 days of ICH occurred in 4 (6.5%) and 7 (3.9%) patients with DOAC and LMWH, respectively. No specific predictors of ICH were identified. Patients receiving DOACs generally had a lower bleeding risk profile (eg, less likely to have newly initiated anticoagulation after diagnosis of primary brain cancer). These data support the use of DOACs in patients with primary brain cancer who require therapeutic anticoagulation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.