-
1.
Intravenous Iron Therapy to Treat Anemia in Oncology: A Mapping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Lim, J., Auerbach, M., MacLean, B., Al-Sharea, A., Richards, T.
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.). 2023;30(9):7836-7851
Abstract
Anemia is a common problem when patients present with cancer, and it can worsen during treatment. Anemia can directly impact the cognitive and physical quality of life and may impair fitness for oncological therapy. The most common cause of anemia is iron deficiency. Newer intravenous (IV) iron formulations offer a safe and rapidly effective treatment option. We performed a systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating intravenous iron therapy in patients with cancer and anemia and their outcomes. A total of 23 RCTs were identified. The median number of patients enrolled was 104 (IQR: 60-134). A total of 5 were focused on surgical outcomes (4 preoperative, 1 postoperative), and 15 were in adjuvant therapies for a variety of tumor types (breast, colorectal, lung, gynecological, myeloid, and lymphomas), 10 of which were in combination with erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) therapy, 2 in radiotherapy, and 1 in palliative care. Overall, the studies reported that the use of IV iron increased hemoglobin concentration and decreased transfusion rates during different cancer treatment regimes. IV iron can be administered safely throughout the cancer treatment pathway from primary surgery to the palliative setting. More studies are needed to demonstrate net clinical outcomes.
-
2.
Intravenous iron versus oral iron versus no iron with or without erythropoiesis- stimulating agents (ESA) for cancer patients with anaemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Adams, A., Scheckel, B., Habsaoui, A., Haque, M., Kuhr, K., Monsef, I., Bohlius, J., Skoetz, N.
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2022;6(6):Cd012633
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug. OBJECTIVES To systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS We identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS Ninety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text. On-study mortality We estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality. Haematological response We estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty). Red blood cell transfusions We estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions. Overall mortality We estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty). Thromboembolic events We estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. Thrombocytopenia or haemorrhage We estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons. Hypertension We estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS When considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.
-
3.
The addition of oral iron improves chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents
Tan J, Du S, Zang X, Ding K, Ginzburg Y, Chen H
International journal of cancer. 2022
Abstract
Although many studies have shown that supplementation with iron and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) is frequently used for managing chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA), optimal combination therapy using these agents together to ameliorate anemia is not well characterized. To assess the effects of ESA combined with oral or intravenous (IV) iron on relieving CIA, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for articles. Data collected in the articles were meta-analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software with a random-effects model. Our comprehensive search yielded 1666 potentially relevant trials. A total of 41 trials randomizing 4200 patients with CIA fulfilled inclusion criteria, including 34 Chinese articles and 7 English articles. Meta-analysis showed that treatment with both ESA and iron more effectively improved CIA relative to iron supplementation alone, with increased hemoglobin, hematocrit, red blood cell count and haematopoietic response rate. Subgroup analyses revealed iron administration, both oral and IV iron, improved anemia in ESA-treated cancer patients with CIA. Our analysis demonstrates that iron supplementation combined with ESA more effectively ameliorates CIA relative to iron supplementation alone, without regard to whether IV or oral iron was used. Together, our findings may contribute to the clinical treatment of CIA using iron therapy with or without ESA. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
-
4.
Effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis
Wu T, Tong Z, Ren T, Xie D, Sun X
Clinical and experimental medicine. 2022
Abstract
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been reported to increase the risk of death in cancer patients. In this study, we selected breast cancer, which is currently the most prevalent cancer worldwide, for a meta-analysis to re-examine the advantages and disadvantages of using ESAs. All relevant studies were searched by PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library. Endpoints including mortality, incidence of thrombo-vascular events, hemoglobin, and transfusion requirements were meta-analyzed based on random-effects model or fixed-effect model. 10 studies were finally included, with a total sample size of 6785 patients. The risk of mortality was higher in patients using ESA than in controls (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.13, P = 0.03); subgroup analysis found that the mortality rate was higher in patients treating with ESA for > 6 months (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.55, P = 0.01) and epoetin α (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03). The incidence of thrombo-vascular adverse events was higher in patients using ESA than in controls (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.27-1.86, P < 0.0001). The ESA group was more effective in improving anemia in cancer patients (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.77-1.63, P < 0.00001). The blood transfusion needs of patients in the ESA group were significantly lower (RR 0.52, 95%CI 0.44-0.60, P < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in disease progression-related conditions (HR 1.03, 95%CI 0.95-1.12, P = 0.52). ESAs increase the risk of mortality and the incidence of thrombo-vascular adverse events in breast cancer patients, while reducing their anemia symptoms and transfusion requirements. Registration PROSPERO CRD42022330450.
-
5.
Efficacy and Cardiovascular Adverse Effects of Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents in the Treatment of Cancer-Related Anemia: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Gergal Gopalkrishna Rao, S. R., Bugazia, S., Dhandapani, T. P. M., Tara, A., Garg, I., Patel, J. N., Yeon, J., Memon, M. S., Muralidharan, A., Khan, S.
Cureus. 2021;13(9):e17835
Abstract
Anemia is a common complication of cancer. Treatment of anemia in cancer is crucial as anemia adversely affects the quality of life, therapeutic outcomes, and overall survival. Erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) are valuable drugs for treating cancer-related anemia. Cardiovascular adverse effects are a significant concern with ESA therapy, and there is wide variability in therapeutic goals and characteristics of patients who undergo treatment with ESAs. As a result, a careful analysis of the currently available data on the efficacy and safety of these drugs is necessary. This data analysis will aid in the rational use of ESAs for the treatment of anemia in cancer. The objective of this systematic review is to elucidate the pathogenesis of anemia in cancer, assess the effectiveness of ESAs in treating anemia in cancer, and the overall risk of cardiovascular adverse effects associated with the use of ESAs and their impact on prognosis. We searched literature from online databases - PubMed, PubMed Central, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and clinical trials register (clinicaltrials.gov) to identify prospective phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We chose RCTs that directly compared patients with cancer who were treated with ESAs to those who were not treated with ESAs. January 2008 was taken as the lower date limit and May 2021 as the upper date limit. Only English language literature and human studies were included. The quality appraisal was completed using the Cochrane risk bias assessment tool, and data from a total of 10,738 patients with cancer in 17 RCTs were identified and included for systematic review. Our review concludes that ESAs effectively reduce the necessity for blood transfusions and increase mean hemoglobin levels in anemic cancer patients. ESA therapy is associated with cardiovascular adverse effects, including venous thromboembolism, thrombophlebitis, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cardiac failure, arrhythmia, arterial thromboembolism, and cardiac arrest. Aggressive ESA dosing to achieve higher hemoglobin levels and preexisting uncontrolled hypertension increases these cardiovascular side effects. Venous thromboembolism is the most significant adverse effect attributed to ESA therapy. However, there is no major change in overall survival with ESA therapy, and administration of ESAs can be carried out in anemic cancer patients with careful assessment of thromboembolism risk factors, risk-benefit ratio, and monitoring of hemoglobin levels.
-
6.
Treatment of Fanconi Anemia-Associated Head and Neck Cancer: Opportunities to Improve Outcomes
Lee RH, Kang H, Yom SS, Smogorzewska A, Johnson DE, Grandis JR
Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2021
Abstract
Fanconi anemia, the most frequent genetic cause of bone marrow failure, is characterized by an extreme predilection towards multiple malignancies, including a greater than 500-fold incidence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) relative to the general population. Fanconi anemia-associated HNSCC and esophageal SCC (FA-HNSCC) often present at advanced stages with poor survival. Surgical resection remains the primary treatment for FA-HNSCC, and there is often great reluctance to administer systemic agents and/or radiation therapy (RT) to these patients given their susceptibility to DNA damage. The paucity of FA-HNSCC case reports limits evidence-based management, and such cases have not been analyzed collectively in detail. We present a systematic review of FA-HNSCC treatments reported from 1966 to 2020, defining a cohort of 119 FA-HNSCC patients including 16 esophageal SCCs (131 total primary tumors), who were treated with surgery, RT, systemic therapy (including cytotoxic agents, EGFR inhibitors, or immune checkpoint inhibitors), or a combination of modalities. We summarize the clinical responses and regimen-associated toxicities by treatment modality. The collective evidence suggests that when possible, surgical resection with curative intent should remain the primary treatment modality for FA-HNSCC. Radiation can be administered with acceptable toxicity in the majority of cases, including patients who have undergone stem cell transplantation (SCT). While there is little justification for cytotoxic chemotherapy, EGFR inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may be both safe and effective. Immunotherapy may also be considered. Most oncologists have little personal experience with FA-HNSCC. This review is intended as a comprehensive resource for clinicians.
-
7.
Impact and Outcomes of Postoperative Anaemia in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review
Moncur A, Chowdhary M, Chu Y, Francis N
Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2020
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Preoperative anaemia is common in colorectal cancer patients. Little attention has been given to the prevalence and consequences of postoperative anaemia. The aim of this study was to systematically review the published literature and determine the knowledge of prevalence and impact of postoperative anaemia in colorectal cancer patients. METHODS Databases, CINAHL and Medline, via EBSCO Host, were systematically searched to identify suitable articles published between 2004-2020. After an initial search, articles were screened and all eligible articles reported on prevalence of postoperative anaemia, clinical and long-term outcomes data in colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery were included. The Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for the assessment of Randomised Controlled Trials and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised studies 1.0 tool were used for the assessment of bias in the studies selected in our review. RESULTS Six studies, one randomised control trial and five cohort studies were included with a total population size of 1714. The prevalence of anaemia at discharge of 76.6% was reported as the primary endpoint in only one study. The rate of Red Blood Cell Transfusion and length of hospital stay were found to be significantly increased in anaemic patients, while postoperative infection rate results were variable. Quality of life scores and overall survival at 5 years were significantly affected among anaemic patients as reported in two papers. CONCLUSION The available limited evidence on postoperative anaemia indicates its high prevalence with negative impact on clinical and long-term outcomes. Further research is required to standardise the measurement and address the true impact of correcting postoperative anaemia on functional and oncological outcomes.
PICO Summary
Population
Colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery (6 studies, n= 1,714).
Intervention
Systematic review to determine the prevalence and consequences of postoperative anaemia.
Comparison
Outcome
The prevalence of anaemia at discharge of 76.6% was reported as the primary endpoint in only one study. The rate of red blood cell transfusion and length of hospital stay were found to be significantly increased in anaemic patients, while postoperative infection rate results were variable. Quality of life scores and overall survival at 5 years were significantly affected among anaemic patients as reported in two papers.
-
8.
Effect of Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents on Clinical Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials
Sabir S, Khan YH, Khatoon M, Noreen R, Mallhi TH, Jabeen N
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020;30(3):292-298
Abstract
The impact of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) on clinical outcomes among breast cancer patients is debatable. Current review is aimed to ascertain the efficacy of ESAs among breast cancer patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were electronically searched. Primary outcomes were mortality, blood transfusion requirements and thromboembolic events (TEEs); whereas, secondary outcomes were safety, tumor progression, anemia treatment, hemoglobin levels and quality of life (QOL). Out of 11 RCTs including 6,849 participants, 9 RCTs reported 2,312 deaths with overall mortality of 33.7%. Mortality reported for epoetin alfa (EA), epoetin beta (EB) and darbepoetin alfa (DA) was 41.24%, 73.1% and 8.99% respectively. TEEs reported for EA, EB and DA were 5.88%, 9.28% and 2.85%, respectively. Serious adverse events were 39.04%, 36.29%, 1.53% for EA, EB and DA, respectively. Tumor progression for EA and EB was 37.53% and 95.46%, respectively. No tumor progression was reported with DA. Erythropoietin reported no mortality, TEEs, serious ADRs and tumor progression. About 9% patients required transfusions during ESA therapy. Current evidence suggests that use of ESA reduces transfusion need but increases mortality and risks of TEEs.
-
9.
Intravenous iron versus oral iron or observation for gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review
Tang GH, Dhir V, Scheer AS, Tricco AC, Sholzberg M, Brezden-Masley C
European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology. 2019
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anemia is a common condition in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Current evidence for the use of intravenous compared with oral iron in this clinical setting is inconclusive. A systematic review was performed to assess evidence on the efficacy of intravenous iron versus oral/observation in gastrointestinal cancer patients in the preoperative and postoperative setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched Medline and Embase from inception until December 2017 with no language restrictions. Outcomes included hemoglobin response, red blood cell transfusion, and adverse events. Screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal were performed by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tools for randomized and nonrandomized studies. RESULTS A total of 10 studies (three randomized-controlled trials and seven nonrandomized studies) were included. Of the six preoperative studies, five reported that hemoglobin was significantly higher in the intravenous group compared with oral iron/observation. Among the four postoperative studies, three studies suggested that hemoglobin was significantly higher in the intravenous group compared with oral iron/observation. The overall risk of bias for all randomized-controlled trials was low. Quality assessments for nonrandomized studies found the risk of bias to be moderate for four studies and critical for three studies. CONCLUSION Despite the limitations of the current body of evidence, there is a likely benefit to the use of intravenous iron in this patient population. Further confirmatory research is needed to draw empirical conclusions.
-
10.
Management of cancer-associated anemia with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: ASCO/ASH clinical practice guideline update
Bohlius J, Bohlke K, Castelli R, Djulbegovic B, Lustberg MB, Martino M, Mountzios G, Peswani N, Porter L, Tanaka TN, et al
Blood advances. 2019;3(8):1197-1210
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
PURPOSE To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/American Society of Hematology (ASH) recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer. METHODS PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs in patients with cancer published from January 31, 2010, through May 14, 2018. For biosimilar ESAs, the literature search was expanded to include meta-analyses and RCTs in patients with cancer or chronic kidney disease and cohort studies in patients with cancer due to limited RCT evidence in the cancer setting. ASCO and ASH convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed. RESULTS The primary literature review included 15 meta-analyses of RCTs and two RCTs. A growing body of evidence suggests that adding iron to treatment with an ESA may improve hematopoietic response and reduce the likelihood of RBC transfusion. The biosimilar literature review suggested that biosimilars of epoetin alfa have similar efficacy and safety to reference products, although evidence in cancer remains limited. RECOMMENDATIONS ESAs (including biosimilars) may be offered to patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia whose cancer treatment is not curative in intent and whose hemoglobin has declined to < 10 g/dL. RBC transfusion is also an option. With the exception of selected patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, ESAs should not be offered to most patients with nonchemotherapy-associated anemia. During ESA treatment, hemoglobin may be increased to the lowest concentration needed to avoid transfusions. Iron replacement may be used to improve hemoglobin response and reduce RBC transfusions for patients receiving ESA with or without iron deficiency. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.hematology.org/guidelines.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with cancer or chronic kidney disease (17 studies).
Intervention
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) including biosimilars.
Comparison
Addition of iron to an ESA, placebo or best standard therapy.
Outcome
A growing body of evidence suggested that adding iron to treatment with an ESA may improve hematopoietic response and reduce the likelihood of red blood cell transfusion. The biosimilar literature review suggested that biosimilars of epoetin alfa have similar efficacy and safety to reference products, although evidence in cancer remained limited.