Effect of Radiation Therapy on Composition of Lymphocyte Populations in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Radiation therapy (RT) is an important step in the treatment of primary breast cancer as it is one of the leading contributors to cancer incidence among women. Most patients with this disease acquire radiation-induced lymphopenia in the early post-radiation period; however, little is known about the effect of RT on the composition of lymphocyte populations in such patients. This study was aimed at investigating the effect of adjuvant remote RT-performed in the classical mode for patients with primary breast cancer-on the main components of cell-mediated immunity (major lymphocyte populations), including those in patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

Between 2020 and 2022, 96 patients with stage I-III breast cancer were included in this study. All patients in the final stage of complex treatment received RT via a 3D conformal technique (3DCRT). The clinical target volume of this RT included the breast or chest wall and locoregional lymphatics. Flow cytometry was used to assess the levels and phenotypes of circulating lymphocytes before and after RT (no more than 7 days before and after RT). The evaluation of the impact of polychemotherapy (PCT) was conducted to determine whether it was a risk factor for the onset of radio-induced lymphopenia (RIL) in the context of RT.

RESULTS

When assessing the immune status in the general group of patients (n = 96), before the start of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), the average number of lymphocytes was 1.68 ± 0.064 × 109/L; after the course of adjuvant EBRT, it decreased to 1.01 ± 0.044 × 109/L (p < 0.001). When assessing the absolute indicators of cellular immunity in the general group of patients with BC after a course of adjuvant EBRT, significant dynamics were revealed by the changes in all cell populations of lymphocytes (paired t-test, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The adaptive immune system in breast cancer patients changed in the early post-radiation period. The absolute levels of B-, T- and natural killer cells significantly reduced after RT regardless of whether the patients previously underwent chemotherapy courses. RT for patients with primary breast cancer should be considered in clinical management because it significantly alters lymphocyte levels and should be considered when assessing antitumor immunity, as significant changes in T-cell immunity have been observed. In addition, the identified changes are critical if specific targeted therapy or immunotherapy is needed.

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.

Efficacy and Cardiovascular Adverse Effects of Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents in the Treatment of Cancer-Related Anemia: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

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.

Chemotherapy is a risk factor of lymphopenia before adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Lymphopenia can decrease immune function of the host and is a known risk factor for poor prognosis in malignant tumors. Radiation induced lymphopenia was common in patients with breast cancer and was also reported to have a negative effect on long-term outcome.

AIMS

Lymphopenia may be associated with baseline immune status before radiotherapy (RT). This study aimed to explore the rate and risk factors of lymphopenia before start of the adjuvant RT in patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients with invasive breast cancer treated from March 2015 to February 2020 and with peripheral lymphocyte counts (PLC) available within 7 days from the beginning of RT were eligible for this study. Data were presented as mean and 95% confidence interval unless otherwise specified. The risk factors of low PLC before RT were identified using univariate and multivariable linear regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 1012 consecutive patients met the study criteria. The mean PLC before RT commencement was 1.58*10⁹ /L (95%CI: 1.55-1.62*10⁹ /L) with 15.2% (95%CI: 13.1%-17.6%) CTCAE defined lymphopenia, rendering 12.3%, 2.6%, 0.3%, and 0% for grade 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Univariate and multivariable linear regression showed prior chemotherapy was the most significant risk factor (p < .001) for low PLC, while age, menopausal status and lymph node stage were not (all ps > .05). A total of 912 (90.1%, 95%CI: 88.1%-91.9%) patients had chemotherapy before adjuvant RT in this study. In patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer, 69.0% (95%CI: 63.0%-74.5%) N0 and 98.1% (95%CI: 95.1%-99.5%) N1 had also received chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with breast cancer might have lymphopenia from prior chemotherapy at the start of adjuvant RT which could have negative effect on long-term outcome. It is also noted that most of the patients with HR+/HER2-, early-stage breast cancer were treated with aggressive chemotherapy without knowing the risk of chemotherapy induced lymphopenia. Future study on predictive or prognostic multigene assays is warranted to avoid unnecessary chemotherapy and subsequent lymphopenia in patients with low risk breast cancer.

Lymphopenia during chemoradiation-foe or friend

Background

Severe lymphopenia during treatment is considered to be a poor prognostic factor. The current literature lacks information regarding its impact on various outcomes in locally advanced head-and-neck cancer patients in a prospective setting.

Methods

We recently published a randomised study comparing cisplatin–radiation with nimotuzumab cisplatin–radiation. The database of this study was used for the present analysis. The impact of severe lymphopenia (grade 4 lymphopenia) on progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) was studied using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analysis. The binary logistic regression analysis was used to see the effect of various factors on the development of severe lymphopenia.

Results

We had a total of 536 patients, of which 521 patients (97.7%) developed lymphopenia. Grade 1 lymphopenia was noted in 10 (1.9%) patients, grade 2 in 100 (18.8%), grade 3 in 338 (63.1%) and grade 4 in 73 (13.7%) patients. The median PFS was 20.53 and 60.33 months in severe and non-severe lymphopenia, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.797; p-value = 0.208). The median duration of LRC was 56.3 months in severe lymphopenia, whereas it was not reached in non-severe lymphopenia (hazard ratio, 0.81; p-value = 0.337). The median OS was 28.46 versus 47.13 months in severe and non-severe lymphopenia, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; p-value = 0.11). Of various risk factors, gender was significantly associated with severe lymphopenia.

Conclusion

The occurrence of severe lymphopenia was not significantly associated with the outcomes. Gender is the only risk factor significantly linked to severe lymphopenia.

Lymphopenia in Cancer Patients and its Effects on Response to Immunotherapy: an opportunity for combination with Cytokines?

Quantitative lymphocyte alterations are frequent in patients with cancer, and strongly impact prognosis and survival. The development of cancers in immunosuppressed patients has demonstrated the contribution of different T cell populations, including CD4⁺ cells, in the control of cancer occurrence.Whereas absolute numbers of neutrophils, platelets and red blood cells are routinely monitored in clinic following treatments, because of possible short-term complications, absolute lymphocyte counts (ALC), their subpopulations or diversity (phenotype, TCR) are rarely analyzed and never used to choose therapy or as prognostic criteria. The recent identification of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPi) as powerful therapeutic agents has revitalized immunotherapy of cancer in a broader group of diseases than anticipated. The status of the immune system is now recognized as an important biomarker for response to these novel treatments. Blood ALC values, along with tumor infiltration by CD8⁺T cells, and ICPi and ICPi-ligand expression, are likely to be a potential marker of sensitivity to anti-ICPi therapy.In this article, we review the current knowledge on the incidence and significance of lymphopenia in cancer patients, and discuss therapeutic strategies to restore lymphocyte numbers.

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.

Evidence-based treatment of patients with rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is a worldwide disease whose incidence has increased significantly. Evidence-based medicine is a category of medicine that optimizes decision making by using evidence from well-designed and conducted research. Evidence-based medicine can be used to formulate a reasonable treatment plan for newly diagnosed rectal cancer patients. The current review focuses on the application of evidence-based treatment on patients with rectal cancer. The relationship between perioperative blood transfusion and recurrence of rectal cancer after surgery, the selection between minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery and traditional laparotomy, choice of chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer prior to surgery, selection between stapled and hand-sewn methods for colorectal anastomosis during rectal cancer resection, and selection between temporary ileostomy and colostomy during the surgery were addressed. Laparoscopy is considered to have more advantages but is time-consuming and has high medical costs. In addition, laparoscopic rectal cancer radical resection is preferred to open surgery. In radical resection surgery, use of a stapling device for anastomosis can reduce postoperative anastomotic fistula, although patients should be informed of possible anastomotic stenosis.

Patterns of Radiation-Associated Lymphopenia in Children with Cancer

Adults with cancer commonly develop severe lymphopenia two months following chemoradiation therapy, which is an independent predictor of survival. In this retrospective study of 53 children with central nervous system tumors and sarcomas, the frequency, severity, and duration of radiation-associated lymphopenia was similar to that seen in adults. Pretreatment lymphocyte counts were 1,000 cells/mm(3) or greater in all patients, with 66% experiencing grade III-IV lymphopenia two months after chemoradiation. Lymphocyte counts remained significantly lower than baseline 12 months later. Further studies are needed to determine if this is also associated with poorer survival, as seen in adults.

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 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.

The role of erythropoietin and its receptor in growth, survival and therapeutic response of human tumor cells From clinic to bench - a critical review

Recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) has been used clinically to alleviate cancer- and chemotherapy-related anemia. However, recent clinical trials have reported that rhEPO also may adversely impact disease progression and survival. The expression of functional EPO receptors (EPOR) has been demonstrated in many human cancer cells where, at least in vitro, rhEPO can stimulate cell growth and survival and may induce resistance to selected therapies. Responses to rhEPO measured by alterations in tumor cell growth or survival, activation of signaling pathways or modulation of sensitivity to anticancer agents are variable. Both methodological and inherent biological issues underlie the differential cell responses, including reported difficulties in EPOR protein detection, potential involvement of EPOR isoforms or of cytoplasmic EPOR, possible differential structure and/or binding affinities of hematopoietic versus non-hematopoietic cell EPOR, possible aberrant regulation of EPOR activity, and a functional EPO/EPOR autocrine/paracrine loop. The modulation by rhEPO of tumor cell response to anticancer agents is coincident with modulation of multiple signaling pathways, BCL-2 family proteins, caspases and NFkB. The molecular interplay of pro-survival and pro-death signals, triggered by EPO and/or by anticancer agents, is multifactorial and tightly coordinated. Expression microarray analysis may prove critical for deciphering this potentially novel network and its broad spectrum of genes and proteins.

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.