Epoetin alfa in platinum-treated ovarian cancer patients: results of a multinational, multicentre, randomised trial

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

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.

Impact of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) and Epoetin (EPO) on Hematologic Toxicities and Quality of Life in Patients During Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer: Results From the Multi-Center Randomized ADEBAR Trial

BACKGROUND

Hematologic toxicities are one of the greatest challenges in adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. This analysis of the ADEBAR trial aims to evaluate application and effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and epoetin alfa (EPO) on hematologic parameters and fatigue in patients with breast cancer during chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the ADEBAR trial, 1493 patients with node-positive primary breast cancer were randomized to either 6 × 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC120) or 4 × epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by 4 × docetaxel (EC-DOC). Co-medication with G-CSF or EPO was applied to treat chemotherapy-induced leukopenia or anemia. Fatigue was assessed at baseline and after one-half of the chemotherapy.

RESULTS

In total, 899 patients could be included in the analysis. There was no evidence for an association between leucocyte or hemoglobin levels and application of G-CSF and EPO in the preceding cycle, respectively. Hemoglobin levels (B = -0.41; P < .001) were affected by treatment regimen. Fatigue during chemotherapy was mostly affected by the level of fatigue before the start of chemotherapy (B = 0.41; P < .001). Patients with G-CSF application in the preceding cycle showed an increased fatigue score (B = 5.43; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

We showed that fatigue during adjuvant chemotherapy was mostly affected by the level of fatigue present before the start of chemotherapy. This result suggests that the level of fatigue before the start of treatment should be included as an important factor when deciding on type and toxicity of chemotherapy in early breast cancer.

Pharmacologic interventions for fatigue in cancer and transplantation: a meta-analysis

Background

Our objective was to determine whether, compared with control interventions, pharmacologic interventions reduce the severity of fatigue in patients with cancer or recipients of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (hsct).

Methods

For a systematic review, we searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, cinahl, and Psychinfo for randomized trials of systemic pharmacologic interventions for the management of fatigue in patients with cancer or recipients of hsct. Two authors independently identified studies and abstracted data. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome was fatigue severity measured using various fatigue scales. Data were synthesized using random-effects models.

Results

In the 117 included trials (19,819 patients), the pharmacologic agents used were erythropoietins (n = 31), stimulants (n = 19), l-carnitine (n = 6), corticosteroids (n = 5), antidepressants (n = 5), appetite stimulants (n = 3), and other agents (n = 48). Fatigue was significantly reduced with erythropoietin [standardized mean difference (smd): -0.52; 95% confidence interval (ci): -0.89 to -0.14] and with methylphenidate (smd: -0.36; 95% ci: -0.56 to -0.15); modafinil (or armodafinil) and corticosteroids were not effective.

Conclusions

Erythropoietin and methylphenidate significantly reduced fatigue severity in patients with cancer and in recipients of hsct. Concerns about the safety of those agents might limit their usefulness. Future research should identify effective interventions for fatigue that have minimal adverse effects.

Indications for and complications of transfusion and the management of gynecologic malignancies

Anemia, which is highly prevalent in oncology patients, is one of the most established negative prognostic factors for several gynecologic malignancies. Multiple factors can cause or contribute to the development of anemia in patients with gynecologic cancers; these factors include blood loss (during surgery or directly from the tumor), renal impairment (caused by platinum-based chemotherapy), and marrow dysfunction (from metastases, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy). Several peri- and intra-operative strategies can be used to optimize patient management and minimize blood loss related to surgery. Blood transfusions are routinely employed as corrective measures against anemia; however, blood transfusions are one of the most overused healthcare interventions. There are safe and effective evidence-based blood transfusion strategies used in other patient populations that warrant further investigation in the surgical oncology setting. Blood is a valuable healthcare resource, and clinicians can learn to use it more judiciously through knowledge of the potential risks and complications of blood interventions, as well as the ability to properly identify the patients most likely to benefit from such interventions.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetin and darbepoetin) for treating cancer treatment-induced anaemia (including review of technology appraisal no. 142): a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is a common side effect of cancer treatments and can lead to a reduction in quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are licensed for use in conjunction with red blood cell transfusions to improve cancer treatment-induced anaemia (CIA).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ESAs in anaemia associated with cancer treatment (specifically chemotherapy).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched from 2004 to 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, British Nursing Index, Health Management Information Consortium, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites were also searched. Bibliographies of included papers were scrutinised for further potentially includable studies.

REVIEW METHODS

The clinical effectiveness review followed principles published by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or systematic reviews of RCTs, of ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) for treating people with CIA were eligible for inclusion in the review. Comparators were best supportive care, placebo or other ESAs. Anaemia- and malignancy-related outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. When appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis. An empirical health economic model was developed comparing ESA treatment with no ESA treatment. The model comprised two components: one evaluating short-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (while patients are anaemic) and one evaluating long-term QALYs. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 1457 titles and abstracts screened, 23 studies assessing ESAs within their licensed indication (based on start dose administered) were included in the review. None of the RCTs were completely aligned with current European Union licenses. The results suggest a clinical benefit from ESAs for anaemia-related outcomes and an improvement in HRQoL scores. The impact of ESAs on AEs and survival remains highly uncertain, although point estimates are lower, confidence intervals are wide and not statistically significant. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for ESA treatment compared with no ESA treatment ranged from £ 19,429 to £ 35,018 per QALY gained, but sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrate considerable uncertainty in these ICERs, including the possibility of overall health disbenefit. All ICERs were sensitive to survival and cost.

LIMITATIONS

The relative effectiveness of ESAs was not addressed; all ESAs were assumed to have equivalent efficacy. No studies were completely aligned with their European labelling beyond the starting dose evaluated. There is questionable generalisability given that the included trials were published >20 years ago and there have been many changes to chemotherapy as well as to the quality of supportive treatment. Trial quality was moderate or poor and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity for a number of outcomes, particularly survival, and evidence of publication bias. Adjustments were not made to account for multiple testing.

CONCLUSIONS

ESAs could be cost-effective when used closer to licence, but there is considerable uncertainty, mainly because of unknown impacts on overall survival.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005812.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Impact of Hematopoietic Growth Factors on Blood Transfusion Needs, Incidence of Neutropenia, and Overall Survival Among Elderly Advanced Ovarian Cancer Patients Treated With Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (CSF) in reducing blood transfusion needs and neutropenia incidence in community-dwelling elderly ovarian cancer patients.

METHODS

The SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database was used to identify 5572 women with stage III/IV ovarian cancer who received chemotherapy. To assess clinical effectiveness, we categorized patients based on the number of administrations of ESA (ie, epoetin-alfa and darbepoetin-alfa) and CSF (ie, filgrastim and pegfilgrastim). To evaluate effect on survival, patients were categorized as receiving ESA only, CSF only, ESA + CSF, and no ESA/CSF.

RESULTS

Two thirds of patients received growth factor support (24% ESA only, 13% CSF only, 30% ESA + CSF). Depending on the number of epoetin-alfa administrations, ESA was associated with 48% to 56% lower need for blood transfusion compared with no ESA (hazard ratio for 1-3 claims, 0.47; 4-6 claims, 0.52; 7-10 claims, 0.48; ≥11 claims, 0.44). Patients who received at least 3 prophylactic filgrastim administrations had 71% to 98% lower risk of developing neutropenia (hazard ratio for 3-4 claims, 0.29; ≥5 claims, 0.02) compared with those without CSF. Effectiveness was comparable for darbepoetin-alfa and pegfilgrastim use. Overall survival was longer in those who received CSF only; however, the risk of mortality after 24 months was higher in those who received ESA (P = 0.0005). All models were adjusted for relevant covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Erythropoietin-stimulating agents were effective in reducing blood transfusion need. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were effective in lowering neutropenia incidence and also were associated with improved survival in elderly ovarian cancer patients. Findings are consistent with clinical trials and clinical guidelines.

Use of Hematopoietic Growth Factors and Risk of Thromboembolic and Pulmonary Toxicities in Elderly Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of thromboembolic and pulmonary toxicities associated with hematopoietic growth factor (HGF) use (i.e., erythropoietin-stimulating agent [ESA] and/or colony-stimulating factor [CSF]) in a community-dwelling cohort of elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We studied 8,188 women, 65 years and older from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database, diagnosed from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009. Patients were categorized into five groups: no chemotherapy and no ESA/CSF (n = 2,616), chemotherapy but no ESA/CSF (n = 1,854), ESA only (n = 1,313), CSF only (n = 743), and ESA + CSF (n = 1,662). We reported the cumulative incidence of toxicities for 2, 6, and greater than 6 months, and the incidence density for the overall follow-up. Cox-proportional hazards regression was performed to determine risk of toxicities.

RESULTS

Of the 5,572 patients receiving chemotherapy, 66.7% (n = 3,718) received HGF supportive treatment, 29.8% received ESA + CSF, 23.6% received ESA only, and 13.3% received CSF only. Patients who received chemotherapy and also ESA + CSF had a 14.1% cumulative incidence of thromboembolic event (TEE) at 6 months of follow-up compared with 8.0% in those who received chemotherapy without growth factor and 3.2% in those with neither chemotherapy nor growth factor. Those with chemotherapy who received ESA + CSF had a significantly higher risk of TEE (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.47) as compared with patients with chemotherapy and no ESA/CSF, although patients aged 85 years and older may experience up to a five-fold increased risk. The risk of pulmonary toxicities did not significantly differ by HGF use.

CONCLUSIONS

An increased risk of TEEs was observed in elderly patients with ovarian cancer who received ESA + CSF. The risk-benefit ratio for administering HGF should be carefully evaluated, especially among those 85 years and older.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in gynecological malignancies: A study-level meta-analysis

This meta-analysis was planned to define the role of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in gynecological cancer patients, receiving myelosuppressive treatment. Pubmed, Medline and Scopus were searched to select English-language articles. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Endpoints were incidence of transfusions, thrombotic events (TE), deaths, and failures. Odd ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using fixed or random effects model. In seven RCTs ESAs studies of 892 patients under treatment, use of ESAs correlates with a significant reduction of transfusions rate (OR=0.35; 95% CI: 0.19-0.65; p=0.008). OR for overall mortality was 1.10 (95% CI 0.82-1.49; p=0.53). ESAs OR for disease failure in 5 studies was 1.71 (95% CI: 0.90-3.24; p=0.1). This meta-analysis, even if limited by few RCTs, suggests that ESAs reduce transfusions without increasing mortality or disease progression in gynecological cancer patients receiving treatment.

Final results from the prospective phase III WSG-ARA trial: impact of adjuvant darbepoetin alfa on event-free survival in early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

WSG-ARA plus trial evaluated the effect of adjuvant darbepoetin alfa (DA) on outcome in node positive primary breast cancer (BC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One thousand two hundred thirty-four patients were randomized to chemotherapy either with DA (DA+; n = 615) or without DA (DA-; n = 619). DA (500 µg q3w) was started at hemoglobin (Hb) levels <13.0 g/dl (<12 g/dl after DA label amendment) and stopped at Hb levels ≥14.0 g/dl (12 g/dl after label amendment). Primary efficacy end point was event-free survival (EFS); secondary end points were toxicity, quality of life (QoL) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Venous thrombosis (DA+: 3.0%, DA-: 1.0%; P = 0.013) was significantly higher for DA+, but not pulmonary embolism (0.3% in both arms). Median Hb levels were stable in DA+ (12.6 g/dl) and decreased in DA- (11.7 g/dl). Hb levels >15 g/dl were reported in 0.8% of cycles. QoL parameters did not significantly differ between arms. At 39 months, DA had no significant impact on EFS (DA+: 89.3%, DA-: 87.5%; Plog-rank = 0.55) or OS (DA+: 95.5%, DA-: 95.4%; Plog-rank = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

DA treatment did not impact EFS or OS in routine adjuvant BC treatment.

Effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms in cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analyses of published and unpublished data

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions; however, they increase the risk of thromboembolic events and mortality. The impact of ESAs on quality of life (QoL) is controversial and led to different recommendations of medical societies and authorities in the USA and Europe. We aimed to critically evaluate and quantify the effects of ESAs on QoL in cancer patients.

METHODS

We included data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of ESAs on QoL in cancer patients. Randomised controlled trials were identified by searching electronic data bases and other sources up to January 2011. To reduce publication and outcome reporting biases, we included unreported results from clinical study reports. We conducted meta-analyses on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) and FACT-Anaemia (FACT-An) subscales (primary outcomes) or other validated instruments.

RESULTS

We identified 58 eligible RCTs. Clinical study reports were available for 27% (4 out of 15) of the investigator-initiated trials and 95% (41 out of 43) of the industry-initiated trials. We excluded 21 RTCs as we could not use their QoL data for meta-analyses, either because of incomplete reporting (17 RCTs) or because of premature closure of the trial (4 RCTs). We included 37 RCTs with 10581 patients; 21 RCTs were placebo controlled. Chemotherapy was given in 27 of the 37 RCTs. The median baseline haemoglobin (Hb) level was 10.1 g dl(-1); in 8 studies ESAs were stopped at Hb levels below 13 g dl(-1) and in 27 above 13 g dl(-1). For FACT-F, the mean difference (MD) was 2.41 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.39-3.43; P<0.0001; 23 studies, n=6108) in all cancer patients and 2.81 (95% CI 1.73-3.90; P<0.0001; 19 RCTs, n=4697) in patients receiving chemotherapy, which was below the threshold (≥ 3) for a clinically important difference (CID). Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents had a positive effect on anaemia-related symptoms (MD 4.09; 95% CI 2.37-5.80; P=0.001; 14 studies, n=2765) in all cancer patients and 4.50 (95% CI 2.55-6.45; P<0.0001; 11 RCTs, n=2436) in patients receiving chemotherapy, which was above the threshold (≥ 4) for a CID. Of note, this effect persisted when we restricted the analysis to placebo-controlled RCTs in patients receiving chemotherapy. There was some evidence that the MDs for FACT-F were above the threshold for a CID in RCTs including cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with Hb levels below 12 g dl(-1) at baseline and in RCTs stopping ESAs at Hb levels above 13 g dl(-1). However, these findings for FACT-F were not confirmed when we restricted the analysis to placebo-controlled RCTs in patients receiving chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In cancer patients, particularly those receiving chemotherapy, we found that ESAs provide a small but clinically important improvement in anaemia-related symptoms (FACT-An). For fatigue-related symptoms (FACT-F), the overall effect did not reach the threshold for a CID.

Erythropoietin is a JAK2 and ERK1/2 effector that can promote renal tumor cell proliferation under hypoxic conditions

Background

Erythropoietin (EPO) provides an alternative to transfusion for increasing red blood cell mass and treating anemia in cancer patients. However, recent studies have reported increased adverse events and/or reduced survival in patients receiving both EPO and chemotherapy, potentially related to EPO-induced cancer progression. Additional preclinical studies that elucidate the possible mechanism underlying EPO cellular growth stimulation are needed.

Methods

Using commercial tissue microarray (TMA) of a variety of cancers and benign tissues, EPO and EPO receptor immunohistochemical staining was performed. Furthermore using a panel of human renal cells (Caki-1, 786-O, 769-P, RPTEC), in vitro and in vivo experiments were performed with the addition of EPO in normoxic and hypoxic states to note phenotypic and genotypic changes.

Results

EPO expression score was significantly elevated in lung cancer and lymphoma (compared to benign tissues), while EPOR expression score was significantly elevated in lymphoma, thyroid, uterine, lung and prostate cancers (compared to benign tissues). EPO and EPOR expression scores in RCC and benign renal tissue were not significantly different. Experimentally, we show that exposure of human renal cells to recombinant EPO (rhEPO) induces cellular proliferation, which we report for the first time, is further enhanced in a hypoxic state. Mechanistic investigations revealed that EPO stimulates the expression of cyclin D1 while inhibiting the expression of p21^cip1 and p27^kip1 through the phosphorylation of JAK2 and ERK1/2, leading to a more rapid progression through the cell cycle. We also demonstrate an increase in the growth of renal cell carcinoma xenograft tumors when systemic rhEPO is administered.

Conclusions

In summary, we elucidated a previously unidentified mechanism by which EPO administration regulates progression through the cell cycle, and show that EPO effects are significantly enhanced under hypoxic conditions.

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.

Cytokine use and survival in the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESA) may be used to support patients during chemotherapy. We assessed whether G-CSF or ESA were associated with progression or death in patients with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Patients with ovarian cancer following surgery, were on a protocol to evaluate bevacizumab with chemotherapy. Guidelines for administering G-CSF and ESA were specified in the protocol. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed with landmark procedures and multivariate, time-dependent hazard models.

RESULTS

Eighteen-hundred-seventy-three women were enrolled, with no differences in clinical and pathologic variables among treatment group. Performance status, hemoglobin, and white cell counts were associated with G-CSF and/or ESA usage during treatment. Nine patients received no protocol directed therapy, leaving 1864 patients for this review. One-thousand-one-hundred-twenty-five patients received neither ESA nor G-CSF; 311 received G-CSF but no ESA; 241 received ESA but no G-CSF; and 187 received both. Median survival following a five month landmark from the start of treatment was 34 versus 38 months for those who did versus did not receive ESA (multivariate hazard ratio: 0.989; 95% confidence interval: 0.849-1.15) and 40 versus 37 months for those who did versus did not receive G-CSF (multivariate hazard ratio: 0.932; 95% confidence interval: 0.800-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither ESA nor G-CSF had a negative impact on survival after adjustment of prognostic factors among patients with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy. ESA may appear to be associated with shorter survival in univariate analyses because factors prognostic for ESA use are also prognostic for progression-free survival.

State of the Science in Ovarian Cancer Quality of Life Research: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has become an increasingly important focus of outcomes in cancer care with the movement toward more patient-oriented research. Quality-of-life outcomes are important in ovarian cancer, which has not yet benefitted from improved survival outcomes as have other diseases. This study was designed to systematically assess and summarize HRQOL in ovarian cancer.

Methods

A systematic search strategy was initiated to identify published literature measuring HRQOL of women with a diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC). Data were synthesized to evaluate HRQOL and patient-reported outcome data at various time points: before, during, and after chemotherapy. Data were pooled and summary statistics compared across published studies. Comparisons of means were conducted using analysis of variance.

Results

There were 170 publications meeting all eligibility criteria, representing 139 unique studies of patients with ovarian cancer, where QOL data were collected. Within this literature, more than 90 different patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments were administered. The most common HRQOL instruments included the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy. Few studies alone demonstrated significant differences in QOL between the experimental and comparison arm or throughout the treatment period. Pooled data, however, show that baseline QOL may significantly improve, particularly after completion of chemotherapy treatment.

Discussion

Despite the increase in assessment and reporting of QOL in ovarian cancer research studies during the past 15 years, there remains little consistency in the types and format of data collected. There is a need to enhance the standardized collection and reporting of HRQOL data from research involving women with ovarian cancer so that research can build on the cumulative knowledge base to improve outcomes in this patient population.

Effects of erythropoietin receptors and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on disease progression in cancer

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) increase red blood cell (RBC) production in bone marrow by activating the erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) on erythrocytic-progenitor cells. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are approved in the United States and Europe for treating anaemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy based on randomised, placebo-controlled trials showing that ESAs reduce RBC transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent-safety issues include thromboembolic events and concerns regarding whether ESAs increase disease progression and/or mortality in cancer patients. Several trials have reported an association between ESA use and increased disease progression and/or mortality, whereas other trials in the same tumour types have not provided similar findings. This review thoroughly examines available evidence regarding whether ESAs affect disease progression. Both clinical-trial data on ESAs and disease progression, and preclinical data on how ESAs could affect tumour growth are summarised. Preclinical topics include (i) whether tumour cells express EpoR and could be directly stimulated to grow by ESA exposure and (ii) whether endothelial cells express EpoR and could be stimulated by ESA exposure to undergo angiogenesis and indirectly promote tumour growth. Although assessment and definition of disease progression vary across studies, the current clinical data suggest that ESAs may have little effect on disease progression in chemotherapy patients, and preclinical data indicate a direct or indirect effect of ESAs on tumour growth is not strongly supported.

The use of recombinant erythropoietin for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with ovarian cancer does not affect progression-free or overall survival

BACKGROUND

Studies have suggested that erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) may affect progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a variety of cancer types. Because this finding had not been explored previously in ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma, the authors of this report analyzed their ovarian cancer population to determine whether ESA treatment for chemotherapy-induced anemia affected PFS or OS.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of women who were treated for ovarian cancer at the corresponding author's institution over a 10-year period (from January 1994 to May 2004). Treatment groups were formed based on the use of an ESA. Two analyses of survival were conducted to determine the effect of ESA therapy on PFS and OS. Disease status was modeled as a function of treatment group using a logistic regression model. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare the groups, and a Cox proportional hazards model was fit to the data.

RESULTS

In total, 343 women were identified. The median age was 57 (interquartile range, 48-68 years). The majority of women were Caucasian (n = 255; 74%) and were diagnosed with stage III (n = 210; 61%), epithelial (n = 268; 78%) ovarian cancer. Although the disease stage at diagnosis and surgical staging significantly affected the rates of disease recurrence and OS, the receipt of an ESA had no effect on PFS (P = .9) or OS (P = .25).

CONCLUSIONS

The current results indicated that there was no difference in cancer-related PFS or OS with use of ESA in this cohort of women treated for ovarian cancer.

Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in issue 1 2008 (Minton 2008). Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is common, under-recognised and difficult to treat. There have been studies looking at drug interventions to improve CRF but results have been conflicting depending on the population studied and outcome measures used. No previous reviews of this topic have been exhaustive or have synthesised all available data.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of drugs for the management of CRF.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from Issue 2 2007) MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2007 to October 2009 and a selection of cancer journals. We searched references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included in the review if they 1) assessed drug therapy for the management of CRF compared to placebo, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention in 2) randomised controlled trials (RCT) of 3) adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed on different drug classes using continuous variable data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria. Six additional studies were identified since the original review. Only 31 of these studies involving 7104 participants were judged to have used a sufficiently robust measure of fatigue and thus were deemed suitable for detailed analysis. The drugs were still analysed by class (psychostimulants; haemopoietic growth factors; antidepressants and progestational steroids). Methylphenidate showed a small but significant improvement in fatigue over placebo (Z = 2.83; P = 0.005). Since the publication of the original review increased safety concerns have been raised regarding erythropoietin and this cannot now be recommended in practice.There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and the reasons for this are discussed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is increasing evidence that psychostimulant trials provide evidence for improvement in CRF at a clinically meaningful level. There is still a requirement for a large scale RCT of methylphenidate to confirm the preliminary results from this review. There is new safety data which indicates that the haemopoietic growth factors are associated with increased adverse outcomes. These drugs can no longer be recommended in the treatment of CRF. Readers of the first review should re-read the document in full.

Effects of CERA (continuous erythropoietin receptor activator) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy: results of a phase II study

BACKGROUND

Continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA; methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta) is a new erythropoiesis-stimulating agent with a prolonged half-life. The objective of this study was to select a starting dose of CERA for the treatment of anemia in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was an open-label randomized phase II trial containing four treatment groups of patients with anemia and stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. The fourth treatment group was a reference group of patients treated with darbepoetin alfa administered at either 6.75 μg/kg s.c. every 3 weeks or 2.25 μg/kg weekly. Due to observed imbalances in death across treatment arms, this study was prematurely terminated.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy parameter of the mean hemoglobin (Hb) change from baseline during weeks 5-13 was +0.03 g/dl, +0.50 g/dl, and -0.02 g/dl in the CERA 6.3, 9, and 12 μg/kg dose groups, respectively, and +0.26 g/dl in the darbepoetin alfa dose group (P value not significant for all three study arms). Eight (21%), 12 (32%), 9 (24%), and 4 (10%) patients in the CERA 6.3, 9, and 12 μg/kg and darbepoetin groups, respectively, died.

CONCLUSION

In this phase II study in patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC receiving chemotherapy, none of the four treatment arms showed an adequate increase in mean Hb level.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in oncology: a study-level meta-analysis of survival and other safety outcomes

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often develop the potentially debilitating condition of anaemia. Numerous controlled studies indicate that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can raise haemoglobin levels and reduce transfusion requirements in anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. To evaluate recent safety concerns regarding ESAs, we carried out a meta-analysis of controlled ESA oncology trials to examine whether ESA use affects survival, disease progression and risk of venous-thromboembolic events.

METHODS: This meta-analysis included studies from the 2006 Cochrane meta-analysis, studies published/updated since the 2006 Cochrane report, and unpublished trial data from Amgen and Centocor Ortho Biotech. The 60 studies analysed (15 323 patients) were conducted in the settings of chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy, radiotherapy only treatment or anaemia of cancer. Data were summarised using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS: Results indicated that ESA use did not significantly affect mortality (60 studies: OR=1.06; 95% CI: 0.97–1.15) or disease progression (26 studies: OR=1.01; 95% CI: 0.90–1.14), but increased the risk for venous-thromoboembolic events (44 studies: OR=1.48; 95% CI: 1.28–1.72).

CONCLUSION: Though this meta-analysis showed no significant effect of ESAs on survival or disease progression, prospectively designed, future randomised clinical trials will further examine the safety and efficacy of ESAs when used according to the revised labelling information.

Erythropoietin or Darbepoetin for patients with cancer--meta-analysis based on individual patient data

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce anemia in cancer patients and may improve quality of life, but there are concerns that ESAs might increase mortality.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to examine the effect of ESAs and identify factors that modify the effects of ESAs on overall survival, progression free survival, thromboembolic and cardiovascular events as well as need for transfusions and other important safety and efficacy outcomes in cancer patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and conference proceedings for eligible trials. Manufacturers of ESAs were contacted to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin or darbepoetin plus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) versus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) alone, to prevent or treat anemia in adult or pediatric cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin alpha, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alpha plus red blood cell transfusions versus transfusion alone, for prophylaxis or therapy of anemia while or after receiving anti-cancer treatment. Patient-level data were obtained and analyzed by independent statisticians at two academic departments, using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were according to the intention-to-treat principle. Primary endpoints were on study mortality and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, regardless of anticancer treatment, and in patients receiving chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of ESAs on mortality across pre-specified subgroups. The present review reports only the results for the primary endpoint.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 13933 cancer patients from 53 trials were analyzed, 1530 patients died on-study and 4993 overall. ESAs increased on study mortality (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (cHR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33, respectively). Thirty-eight trials enrolled 10441 patients receiving chemotherapy. The cHR for on study mortality was 1.10 (95% CI 0.98-1.24) and 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients receiving different cancer treatments (P for interaction=0.42).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESA treatment in cancer patients increased on study mortality and worsened overall survival. For patients undergoing chemotherapy the increase was less pronounced, but an adverse effect could not be excluded.

Benefits and harms of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia related to cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are used to treat anemia in patients with cancer. However, their safety and effectiveness is controversial. We did a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and harms of these agents in adults with anemia related to cancer or chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using accepted methods for literature searches, article selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We included RCTs involving anemic adults with cancer. We compared the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with nonuse and assessed clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and hypertension, health-related quality of life, blood transfusions and tumour response) and harms (serious adverse events) between groups.

RESULTS

We identified 52 trials (n = 12 006) that met our selection criteria. The pooled all-cause mortality during treatment was significantly higher in the group receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating therapy than in the control group (relative risk [RR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 1.29). Compared with no treatment, use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents led to clinically detectable improvements in disease-specific measures of quality of life. It also reduced the use of blood transfusions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.73). However, it led to an increased risk of thrombotic events (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.24) and serious adverse events (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.25).

INTERPRETATION

Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer-related anemia improved some disease-specific measures of quality of life and decreased the use of blood transfusions. However, it increased the risk of death and serious adverse events. Our findings suggest that such therapy not be used routinely as an alternative to blood transfusion in patients with anemia related to cancer.

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups.

FINDINGS

Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42).

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits.

FUNDING

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

Biological functions and therapeutic use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: perplexities and perspectives

Randomized clinical studies, carried out in patients with haematological malignancies and with solid tumours, have consistently demonstrated that treatment with recombinant human erythropoietin (Epo) increases haemoglobin levels, reduces blood transfusion requirements, and improves the quality of life. In addition, identification of erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) expression on many types of non-erythroid and cancer cells has spurred an interest in the extra-haematological activities of Epo itself and other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Epo and its derivatives have emerged as major tissue-protective cytokines in ischaemic and degenerative damage of cardiovascular, neurological and renal diseases, while their angiogenetic and immunomodulatory properties indicate that their therapeutic potential may extend well beyond erythropoiesis alone. Both preclinical and clinical data, however, have suggested that they may contribute to tumour progression and prejudice survival when administered to anaemic cancer patients, though the results are equivocal and the assumed mechanisms by which tumour growth could be promoted are not fully understood. While these findings offer new perspectives, they nonetheless demand caution in the employment of ESAs. Further, well-designed experimental and clinical studies are warranted.

Safety and Efficacy of Darbepoetin Alfa in Previously Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Platinum Plus Etoposide

Purpose

A placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, phase III study was conducted in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer receiving first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy to determine if increasing or maintaining hemoglobin concentration with darbepoetin alfa could increase patient survival.

Patients and Methods

Darbepoetin alfa (300 μg) or placebo was administered once per week for 4 weeks then every 3 weeks for up to six cycles of chemotherapy (carboplatin plus etoposide or cisplatin plus etoposide) plus 3 weeks after the last dose of chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression were observed until death or until all patients completed their end-of-study visit and 496 deaths had occurred. The two coprimary end points were change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to the end of the chemotherapy period and overall survival; statistical testing of survival was done if change in hemoglobin was significant at P < .05.

Results

The study enrolled 600 patients. Patients' hemoglobin levels dropped due to the myelosuppressive chemotherapy; however, treatment with darbepoetin alfa maintained hemoglobin levels significantly higher than placebo (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11; P = .431). As expected, darbepoetin alfa was associated with a higher incidence of thromboembolic events (darbepoetin alfa, 9%; placebo, 5%). The transfusion risk was lower in the darbepoetin versus placebo group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.55).

Conclusion

The results of this study did not demonstrate improved survival after treatment with darbepoetin alfa; however, they reinforce the benefit of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in reducing transfusions and their neutral impact on survival in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia.

Drug therapy for the management of cancer related fatigue

BACKGROUND

Cancer related fatigue (CRF) is common, under-recognised and difficult to treat. There have been trials looking at drug interventions to improve CRF but results have been conflicting depending on the population studied and outcome measures used. No previous reviews of this topic have been exhaustive or have synthesised all available data.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of drugs for the management of CRF.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1st Quarter 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2007) and a selection of cancer journals. We searched references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were included in the review if they 1) assessed drug therapy for the management of CRF compared to placebo, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention in 2) randomised controlled trials (RCT) of 3) adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed on different drug classes using continuous variable data.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five trials met the inclusion criteria. Only 27 of these trials involving 6746 participants were judged to have used a sufficiently robust measure of fatigue and thus were deemed suitable for detailed analysis. The drugs were analysed by class (psychostimulants; haemopoetic growth factors; antidepressants and progestational steroids). Methylphenidate showed a small but significant improvement in fatigue over placebo (Z = 2.40; P = 0.02). Erythropoietin showed a small but significant improvement in fatigue (for anaemic patients receiving chemotherapy) compared to placebo (Z = 2.67; P = 0.008). Darbopoietin also demonstrated a smaller but significant improvement in fatigue over placebo (Z = 1.96; P = 0.05). Paroxetine and progestational steroids demonstrated no superiority over placebo in treating CRF. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and the reasons for this are discussed. It was not possible to determine optimum doses as a result of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Erythropoietin and darbopoetin (for anaemic patients on chemotherapy) and psychostimulant trials provide evidence for improvement in CRF at a clinically meaningful level. There are no data to support the use of paroxetine or progestational steroids for the treatment of CRF. The obvious candidate drug for use in a large scale RCT is methylphenidate to confirm the preliminary results from this review.

Anaemia management with epoetin alfa in lung cancer patients in The Netherlands

Anaemia seriously threatens the quality of life (QOL) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. In this article results are presented on the lung cancer population from a Dutch observational study. This study addressed the real-life situation of recombinant human erythropoietin (r-Hu-EPO or epoetin alfa) treatment in anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, with a focus on efficacy. In total 781 patients were enrolled in the observational study, including 382 patients with lung cancer. At enrolment patients were receiving epoetin alfa treatment and/or patients had a haemoglobin (Hb) level </=11.3g/dl. Analysis was focused on lung cancer patients who were treated with epoetin alfa (n=343). Type of cancer, chemotherapy agents, type of anaemia management and Hb levels were documented. Hb development was analysed and the effect of epoetin alfa treatment was investigated. In total 343 lung cancer patients were treated with epoetin alfa: 210 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 133 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The majority of patients (99.4%) received 40,000 IU epoetin alfa once weekly. Before epoetin alfa treatment was started during chemotherapy, Hb levels decreased with a rate of 1.3g/dl per 4 weeks, both for NSCLC as well as for SCLC. Epoetin alfa treatment was started on average at an Hb level of 10.6g/dl for NSCLC and 10.4g/dl for SCLC, respectively. Hb increases of 0.5-0.6g/dl per 4 weeks and 0.2g/dl per 4 weeks were reached for NSCLC and SCLC, respectively. Although significant increases of Hb levels were reached, the epoetin alfa treatment could not fully correct the Hb decrease which had taken place during chemotherapy before the start of epoetin alfa, resulting in suboptimal Hb levels. In contrast, early intervention with epoetin alfa (start in first week of chemotherapy at Hb>11.3g/dl) was especially effective for NSCLC patients where it resulted in a stabilization of Hb at baseline level. For SCLC patients this strategy was less effective. Furthermore, early intervention seemed to diminish the need for a blood transfusion, i.e., the higher the Hb at epoetin initiation the more patients did not receive any blood transfusion. Results from this observational study demonstrate that epoetin alfa treatment corrects chemotherapy-related anaemia in both NSCLC as well as SCLC patients. Early epoetin alfa intervention seems advantageous for lung cancer patients both in terms of maintaining adequate Hb levels during chemotherapy as well as reducing transfusions.

Phase II study of two dose schedules of C.E.R.A. (Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator) in anemic patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

C.E.R.A. (Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator) is an innovative agent with unique erythropoietin receptor activity and prolonged half-life. This study evaluated C.E.R.A. once weekly (QW) or once every 3 weeks (Q3W) in patients with anemia and advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this Phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter, dose-finding study, patients (n = 218) with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and hemoglobin (Hb) or= 2 g/dL or achievement of Hb >or= 12 g/dL with no blood transfusion in the previous 28 days determined in two consecutive measurements within a 10-day interval) was also measured.

RESULTS

Dose-dependent Hb increases were observed, although the magnitude of increase was moderate. Hematopoietic response rate was also dose dependent, achieved by 51% and 62% of patients in the 4.2 and 6.3 microg/kg Q3W groups, and 63% of the 2.1 mug/kg QW group. In the Q3W group, the proportion of early responders (defined as >or= 1 g/dL increase in Hb from baseline during the first 22 days) increased with increasing C.E.R.A. dose, reaching 41% with the highest dose. In the 6.3 microg/kg Q3W group, 15% of patients received blood transfusion. There was an inclination for higher mean Hb increases and lower transfusion use in the Q3W groups than in the QW groups. C.E.R.A. was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

C.E.R.A. administered QW or Q3W showed clinical activity and safety in patients with NSCLC. There were dose-dependent increases in Hb responses. C.E.R.A. appeared to be more effective when the same dose over time was given Q3W than QW, with a suggestion that C.E.R.A. 6.3 microg/kg Q3W provided best efficacy in this study. However, further dose-finding studies using higher doses are required to determine the optimal C.E.R.A. dose regimen in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.