-
1.
Efficacy and safety of thrombopoietin receptor agonists in solid tumors with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia: a meta-analysis
Chen, W., Liu, Y., Li, L., Zeng, X.
BMC pharmacology & toxicology. 2023;24(1):71
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) in solid tumors with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT). METHODS We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, FMRS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy and safety of TPO-RAs in solid tumors with CIT. The search was limited to articles published before April 30, 2022. Primary outcomes included chemotherapy dose reduction or delays, platelet transfusion, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia, and bleeding events. Secondary outcomes encompassed the incidence of platelet count > 400 × 10(9)/L, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, thrombosis, and mortality. RESULTS Our analysis encompassed six studies: five rigorous RCTs and one unique study comparing romiplostim to an observation group, involving a total of 489 patients. For primary outcomes, TPO-RAs significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.52-0.91). After applying the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, the significance of the reduction in grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia incidence persisted (P = 0.008). TPO-RAs showed no significant impact on chemotherapy dose reduction or delays (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.65-1.01), platelet transfusion (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.48-2.27), or bleeding events (RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.23-1.10). In terms of safety, there were no significant difference in the incidence of any AEs (RR = 0.98, 95% CI:0.92-1.04), serious AEs (RR = 0.79, 95% CI:0.45-1.40), thrombotic events (RR = 1.20, 95% CI:0.51-2.84) and mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI:0.55-2.41). CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis suggests that TPO-RAs are generally well-tolerated. However, their efficacy in solid tumors with CIT appears limited, as they only demonstrate a reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia.
-
2.
The efficacy and safety of Trilaciclib in preventing chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Qiu, J., Sheng, D., Lin, F., Jiang, P., Shi, N.
Frontiers in pharmacology. 2023;14:1157251
Abstract
Background: This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of Trilaciclib in preventing chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in adult patients through meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials, EU Clinical Trials Register, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched up to 25 October 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of Trilaciclib and Trilaciclib plus chemotherapy for treating malignant cancers in adult patients were included. The primary outcome included the incidence of SN, FN, the DSN, and administration of ESAs, G-CSFs, and RBC or platelet transfusions, while the secondary outcomes included the risk of adverse events (AEs) and severe adverse events (SAEs). Results: In total, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 345 patients with SCLC or breast cancer were included in this meta-analysis. Results showed that administration of Trilaciclib significantly reduced the occurrence of SN (19.3% vs. 42.2%, OR = 0.31), FN (3.22% vs. 6.72%, OR = 0.47), anemia (20.5% vs. 38.2%, OR = 0.38) and shortened the DSN during treatment. The proportion of patients receiving therapeutic use of ESAs (4.03% vs. 11.8%, OR = 0.31), G-CSF (37.0% vs. 53.5%, OR = 0.52), RBC transfusions (19.8% vs. 29.9%, OR = 0.56) was also statistically lower in the experimental group than in the control group. Meanwhile, the ORR, overall survival, and progress-free survival of the two groups were identical, and no negative impact of Trilaciclib on the clinical outcomes of chemotherapy treatments was found. Other chemotherapy-induced adverse events (AEs) and severe adverse events (SAEs) like diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting were identical regardless of Trilaciclib usage. Conclusion: Trilaciclib demonstrated its efficacy in reducing the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression and utilization of supportive care interventions without undermining the clinical benefits of chemotherapy regimens during treatment with an acceptable safety profile.
-
3.
Prostate Artery Embolization in the Treatment of Massive Intractable Bleeding from Prostatic Neoplasms: A Case Report and Systematic Review
Moramarco, L., Grande, A. M., Vertemati, M., Aseni, P.
Journal of clinical medicine. 2023;13(1)
Abstract
Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and hematuria are common symptoms in men with neoplasms, mainly affecting the elderly population. Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a minimally invasive procedure that has shown promising results in managing LUTS and massive intractable prostatic hematuria in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PCa). A few studies, however, have provided valuable insights into the durability and efficacy of PAE focusing on the long-term effectiveness, quality of life, and cancer-specific control of hemostasis and urinary symptoms. As a result of concomitant cardiovascular conditions, these patients often take anticoagulants or antithrombotics, which can worsen their hematuria and clinical status. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is considered a very high-risk procedure, even without massive bleeding, and requires discontinuation of vitamin K antagonists and antiplatelet therapies. Such patients usually have their surgery postponed, and PAE should be considered a safe alternative treatment. We aimed to report a narrative review from 1976 to June 2023 of the current state of PAE for massive and intractable hematuria, highlighting recent developments in this technique, including prospective cohort studies, and focusing on long-term outcome, safety, and complication management of patients with prostatic neoplasms who develop significant hemorrhagic symptoms. Additionally, we present a case report and a simple algorithm for treating intractable bleeding in a 92-year-old man with PCa and massive hematuria.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
Efficacy and safety of gastroscopic hemostasis in the treatment of acute gastric hemorrhage: A meta-analysis
Pan, H. Y., Wang, X. W., He, Q. X., Lu, Y. D., Zhang, W. Y., Jin, J. W., Lin, B.
World journal of gastrointestinal oncology. 2023;15(11):1988-1997
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gastric cancer (GC) is a malignant tumor with a high incidence and mortality rate worldwide for which acute bleeding is a common clinical complication. Gastroscopic hemostasis is an important method for treating acute bleeding in GC; however, its efficacy and safety remain controversial. AIM: To systematically analyze the efficacy and safety of gastroscopic hemostasis for the treatment of acute gastric hemorrhage. METHODS The PUBMED, Web of Science, Wiley Library, EMBASE, Wanfang, CNKI, and VIP databases were searched for studies related to gastroscopic hemostatic treatment for acute GC published through February 20, 2023. The literature was screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted, and literature quality was evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3), while Begg's test for publication bias was performed using Stata 13.0 software. RESULTS Six randomized controlled trials and two retrospective analyses were retrieved. Five studies had a low, two had an uncertain, and one had a high risk of bias. Compared with the control group, the hemostatic rate of gastroscopic hemostasis was increased [relative risk (RR) = 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08 to 1.43; P = 0.003]; the rate of rebleeding (RR = 0.27; 95%CI: 0.09 to 0.80; P = 0.02), rate of surgery transfer (RR = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.43; P = 0.0003), serum C-reactive protein level [mean difference (MD) = -5.16; 95%CI: -6.11 to 4.21; P < 0.00001], interleukin-6 level (MD = -6.37; 95%CI: -10.33 to -2.42; P = 0.002), and tumor necrosis factor-α level (MD = -2.29; 95%CI: -4.06 to -0.52; P = 0.01) were decreased; and the quality of life improvement rate was increased (RR = 1.95; 95%C I= 1.41-2.71; P < 0.0001). Begg's test revealed no significant publication bias. CONCLUSION The efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis were higher than those of the control group, suggesting that it is an effective treatment for acute GC hemorrhage.
-
6.
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.
-
7.
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.
-
8.
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.
-
9.
Prophylactic clipping to prevent delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies
Bishay K, Meng, ZW, Frehlich L., James MT, Kaplan GG, Bourke MJ, Hilsden RJ, Heitman SJ, Forbes N
Surgical endoscopy. 2021
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a commonly described adverse event following polypectomy. Prophylactic clipping may prevent DPPB in some patient subgroups. We performed a meta-analysis to assess both the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of prophylactic clipping. METHODS We performed a database search through March 2020 for clinical trials or observational studies assessing prophylactic clipping and DPPB. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to elucidate clinical or methodological factors associated with effects on outcomes. RESULTS A total of 2771 citations were screened, with 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies included, representing 24,670 colonoscopies. DPPB occurred in 2.0% of patients overall. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.47 (95% CI 0.29-0.77) from RCTs enrolling only patients with polyps ≥ 20 mm. Remaining pooled RCT data did not demonstrate a benefit for clipping. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.96 (95% CI 0.61-1.51) from observational studies including all polyp sizes. For patients with proximal polyps of any size, the RR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.33-1.62) from RCTs. Meta-regression confirmed that polyp size ≥ 20 mm significantly influenced the effect of clipping on DPPB. CONCLUSION Pooled evidence demonstrates a benefit when clipping polyps measuring ≥ 20 mm, especially in the proximal colon. In lower-risk subgroups, prophylactic clipping likely results in little to no difference in DPPB.
-
10.
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.