Randomized phase 2 study of subcutaneous amifostine versus epoetin-alpha given 3 times weekly during concurrent chemotherapy and hyperfractionated radiotherapy for limited-disease small cell lung cancer

The effect of erythropoiesis‑stimulating agents on lung cancer patients: a meta‑analysis

Previous studies have demonstrated that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can reduce anemia and improve quality of life in cancer patients, but ESAs may increase mortality. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the effect and risk of ESAs about the prevention or treatment of anemia in cancer patients. Four databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane Library were searched for published RCTS on ESAs in the treatment of anemia in lung cancer patients from 2000 to 2023. Endpoints including mortality, incidence of thrombotic vascular events, blood transfusion requirement, and incidence of adverse events. Our meta-analysis included 8 studies, with a sample size of 4240 patients, including 2548 patients in the ESAs group and 1692 patients in the control group. The risk of mortality was lower in patients using ESAs than control group (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99, P = 0.02). But there was no significant difference in the risk of mortality between the patients using ESAs and controls (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.06, P = 0.69) after removing Pere 2020. Subgroup analysis found that patients diagnosed with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.08, P = 0.16) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87-1.17, P = 0.13) were no significant difference in mortality rate. The thrombotic vascular events increase in patients using ESAs than control group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.72, P = 0.002). The blood transfusion requirement of ESAs group was lower than control group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.72, P < 0.00001). And the subgroups of Darbepoetin alfa (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41-0.79, P = 0.003) and Epoetin alfa (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.99, P = 0.01) had lower transfusion requirements than the control group. In the SCLC subgroup (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40-0.65, P = 0.34), blood transfusion requirements were lower in the ESAs group, but there was no significant difference between the subgroup of patients with NSCLC (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36-1.04, P = 0.009). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of adverse reactions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.10). In conclusion, ESAs does not increase the mortality of lung cancer patients or may reduce the risk of death, and can reduce the need for blood transfusion, although ESA can increase the incidence of thrombotic vascular adverse events.Registration PROSPERO CRD42023463582.

Use of Amifostine for Cytoprotection during Radiation Therapy: A Review

BACKGROUND

Radiation therapy is a cornerstone of the therapeutic modalities used in modern oncology. However, it is sometimes limited in its ability to achieve optimal tumor control by radiation-induced normal tissue toxicity. In delivering radiation therapy, a balance must be achieved between maximizing the dose to the tumor and minimizing any injury to the normal tissues. Amifostine was the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved clinical radiation protector intended to reduce the impact of radiation on normal tissue, lessening its toxicity and potentially allowing for increased tumor dose/control. Despite being FDA-approved almost 20 years ago, Amifostine has yet to achieve widespread clinical use.

SUMMARY

A thorough review of Amifostine's development, mechanism of action, and current clinical status were conducted. A brief history of Amifostine is given, from its development at Walter Reid Institute of Research to its approval for clinical use. The mechanism of action of Amifostine is explored. The results of a complete literature review of all prospective randomized trials to date involving the use of Amifostine in radiation therapy are presented. The results are arranged by treatment site and salient findings discussed. Side effects and complications to consider in using Amifostine are reviewed. Key Messages: Amifostine has been explored as a radiation protectant in most radiation treatment sites. Studies have demonstrated efficacy of Amifostine in all treatment sites reviewed, but results are heterogeneous. The heterogeneity of studies looking at Amifostine as a clinical radiation protectant has precluded a definitive answer on its efficacy. Complicating its clinical use is its toxicity and delivery requirements. Amifostine has largely fallen out of use with the advent of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, side effects with IMRT remain a challenge and concern. The use of Amifostine in the IMRT era has been poorly explored and is worthy of future study.

Amifostine- and chemoradiotherapy-related esophagitis in small cell lung cancer: a single institutional series and literature update

Objectives

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is considered a standard option for patients with stage 3 small cell lung carcinoma. A 25% risk of acute esophagitis is experienced by patients as a result of the volume of esophagus encompassed within a conformal radiotherapy technique. We reviewed our institutional experience administering the radioprotectant amifostine prior to daily radiotherapy to determine its effects on the onset of esophagitis.

Materials and methods

From 2005 to 2016, 49 patients diagnosed with stage 3 small cell lung carcinoma received concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Chemotherapy (CT) consisted of cisplatin and etoposide with radiotherapy (RT) encompassing CT-identified gross tumor volume. In 32 patients (group 1), amifostine was delivered (500 mg subcutaneously divided in two injections) prior to the second daily RT fraction. The remaining 17 patients (group 2) did not receive amifostine due to choice or drug intolerance.

Results

Metrics of esophagitis included weight loss and opiate requirement during treatment. About 31% of group 1 required opiates at a median RT dose of 3300 cGy, and 41% of group 2 required opiates at a median dose of 2250 cGy. The dose of radiotherapy delivered to 50% of the esophageal volume for group 1 was significantly greater than that in group 2 (3000 cGy vs 576 cGy).

Conclusion

In this modern retrospective series of thoracic chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of stage 3 small cell lung cancer, amifostine that was delivered subcutaneously postponed the onset of esophagitis.

[Management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in lung cancer]

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of chemotherapy-induced anemia in lung cancer is estimated at about 80%.

STATE OF ART

There are currently no specific recommendations for the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in lung cancer. In this paper, we propose a synthesis of currently existing data in the literature on the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in general, supplemented with specific data about the efficacy and safety of erythropoietic therapy in lung cancer.

PERSPECTIVES

Better management of chemotherapy-induced anemia improves patient's quality of life and reduces red blood cell transfusion requirement. In the meantime, in respect to currently missing data, thoracic oncologists should develop specific recommendations for the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in lung cancer, with specific studies in this domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with lung cancer is high and has a significant impact on these patients quality of life, a specific prospective management should be implemented as early as possible.

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and red blood cell transfusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ESAs to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE and other databases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review, 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the first update and to November 2011 for the current update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients receiving or not receiving anti-cancer therapy that compared the use of ESAs (plus transfusion if needed).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. One review author assessed quality assessment and extracted data, a second review author checked for correctness.

MAIN RESULTS

This update of the systematic review includes a total of 91 trials with 20,102 participants. Use of ESAs significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.68, 70 trials, N = 16,093). On average, participants in the ESAs group received one unit of blood less than the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.98; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.78, 19 trials, N = 4,715). Haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving ESAs (RR 3.93; 95% CI 3.10 to 3.71, 31 trials, N = 6,413). There was suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve Quality of Life (QoL). There was strong evidence that ESAs increase mortality during active study period (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29, 70 trials, N = 15,935) and some evidence that ESAs decrease overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, 78 trials, N = 19,003). The risk ratio for thromboembolic complications was increased in patients receiving ESAs compared to controls (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 57 trials, N = 15,498). ESAs may also increase the risk for hypertension (fixed-effect model: RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.56; random-effects model: RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33, 31 trials, N = 7,228) and thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42; 21 trials, N = 4,507). There was insufficient evidence to support an effect of ESA on tumour response (fixed-effect RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06, 15 trials, N = 5,012).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESAs reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions but increase the risk for thromboembolic events and deaths. There is suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve QoL. Whether and how ESAs affects tumour control remains uncertain. The increased risk of death and thromboembolic events should be balanced against the potential benefits of ESA treatment taking into account each patient's clinical circumstances and preferences. More data are needed for the effect of these drugs on quality of life and tumour progression. Further research is needed to clarify cellular and molecular mechanisms and pathways of the effects of ESAs on thrombogenesis and their potential effects on tumour growth.

Systematic review of agents for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible.

RESULTS

A total of 251 clinical studies across 29 interventions were examined. Panel members were able to make one new evidence-based negative recommendation; two new evidence-based suggestions, and one evidence-based change from previous guidelines. Firstly, the panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. Secondly, the panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with malignancies of the pelvic region. Thirdly, the panel suggests the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Finally, new evidence has emerged which is in conflict with our previous guideline surrounding the use of systemic glutamine, meaning that the panel is unable to form a guideline. No guideline was possible for any other agent, due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review of the literature has allowed new recommendations and suggestions for clinical practice to be reached. This highlights the importance of regular updates.