[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

Intravenous iron therapy for anemic cancer patients: a review of recently published clinical studies

Based on available literature and on the present review, IV iron administration to anemic cancer patients can increase significantly the level of Hb, probably independently from the precise mechanism of anemia itself. However, in future studies, the benefit should be evaluated taking into account whether the anemia is due to absolute or functional iron deficiency; therapeutic modalities might be different for these two conditions. Along the same lines, it appears important to further evaluate the respective roles of PO and IV iron therapies and the modalities of their use in clinical practice. Until the results of such studies are available, it appears reasonable to propose IV iron therapy to anemic cancer patients as the resulting rise of Hb level may increase their quality of life and performance status and reduce the need for erythropoietin-stimulating agents and/or blood transfusions.

Is there any role of intravenous iron for the treatment of anemia in cancer?

BACKGROUND

Anemia is a major cause of morbidity in patients with cancer resulting in poor physical performance, prognosis and therapy outcome. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of intravenous (iv) iron administration for the correction of anemia, for the prevention of exacerbation of anemia, for decreasing blood transfusion rates, and for the survival of cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients with different solid tumor diagnosis who received iv iron during their cancer treatment were evaluated retrospectively. Sixty-three patients with hemoglobin (Hgb) levels between ≥ 9 g/dL, and ≤ 10 g/dL, and no urgent need for red blood cell transfusion were included in this retrospective analysis. The aim of cancer treatment was palliative for metastatic patients (36 out of 63), or adjuvant or curative for patients with localized disease (27 out of 63). All the patients received 100 mg of iron sucrose which was delivered intravenously in 100 mL of saline solution, infused within 30 min, 5 infusions every other day. Complete blood count, serum iron, and ferritin levels before and at every 1 to 3 months subsequently after iv iron administration were followed regularly.

RESULTS

Initial mean serum Hgb, serum ferritin and serum iron levels were 9.33 g/dL, 156 ng/mL, and 35.9 μg/dL respectively. Mean Hgb, ferritin, and iron levels 1 to 3 months, and 6 to 12 months after iv iron administration were 10.4 g/dL, 11.2 g/dL, 298.6 ng/mL, 296.7 ng/mL, and 71.6 μg/dL, 67.7 μg/dL respectively with a statistically significant increase in the levels (p < 0.001). Nineteen patients (30 %) however had further decrease in Hgb levels despite iv iron administration, and blood transfusion was necessary in 18 of these 19 patients (28.5 %). The 1-year overall survival rates differed in metastatic cancer patients depending on their response to iv iron; 61.1 % in responders versus 35.3 % in non-responders, (p = 0.005), furthermore response to iv iron correlated with tumor response to cancer treatment, and this relation was statistically significant, (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Iv iron administration in cancer patients undergoing active oncologic treatment is an effective and safe measure for correction of anemia, and prevention of worsening of anemia. Amelioration of anemia and increase in Hgb levels with iv iron administration in patients with disseminated cancer is associated with increased tumor response to oncologic treatment and overall survival. Response to iv iron may be both a prognostic and a predictive factor for response to cancer treatment and survival.

Management of anemia and iron deficiency in a cancer center in France

PURPOSE

Anemia affects most patients treated for cancer by chemotherapy. It is a known major contributor to fatigue and loss of quality of life and is likely to have a negative effect on prognosis and mortality from cancer. The main purpose of this study was to characterize the management of anemia and iron deficiency in a French oncology day-care center.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted between May and November 2012 in the oncology day unit of the Jean Godinot Cancer Center (France). The 133 patients included were all over the age of 18 and being treated by chemotherapy and had mild, moderate, or severe anemia.

RESULTS

Over half (58%) the patients were shown to be receiving no specific treatment for anemia. Iron balance was assessed in 71 patients and iron deficiency diagnosed in 37. Stepwise logistic regression showed that patients with severe to moderate anemia were nearly four times more likely to have an iron balance assessment than those with mild anemia (OR, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.84-7.76; P = 0.0003). Classical logistic regression shows that older patients (≥70) are three times less likely to have an iron balance assessment than patients <70 years (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.86; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

An ideal medical setting for the management of anemia and iron deficiency, and the associated quality-of-life concerns, has yet to be defined for patients with cancer. Screening and treatment of mild to moderate anemia are inadequate, despite the advent of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Large scale, multicenter studies are required to define a clear medical framework for the management of anemia and iron deficiency.

A European patient record study on diagnosis and treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia

Purpose

Patients with cancer frequently experience chemotherapy-induced anaemia (CIA) and iron deficiency. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), iron supplementation and blood transfusions are available therapies. This study evaluated routine practice in CIA management.

Methods

Medical oncologists and/or haematologists from nine European countries (n = 375) were surveyed on their last five cancer patients treated for CIA (n = 1,730). Information was collected on tests performed at diagnosis of anaemia, levels of haemoglobin (Hb), serum ferritin and transferrin saturation (TSAT), as well as applied anaemia therapies.

Results

Diagnostic tests and therapies for CIA varied across Europe. Anaemia and iron status were mainly assessed by Hb (94 %) and ferritin (48 %) measurements. TSAT was only tested in 14 %. At anaemia diagnosis, 74 % of patients had Hb ≤10 g/dL, including 15 % with severe anaemia (Hb <8 g/dL). Low-iron levels (ferritin ≤100 ng/mL) were detected in 42 % of evaluated patients. ESA was used in 63 % of patients, blood transfusions in 52 % and iron supplementation in 31 % (74 % oral, 26 % intravenous iron). Only 30 % of ESA-treated patients received a combination of ESA and iron supplementation. Blood transfusions formed part of a regular anaemia treatment regimen in 76 % of transfused patients. Management practices were similar in 2009 and 2011.

Conclusion

Management of anaemia and iron status in patients treated for CIA varies substantially across Europe. Iron status is only assessed in half of the patients. In contrast to clinical evidence, iron treatment is underutilised and mainly based on oral iron supplementation. Implementation of guidelines needs to be increased to minimize the use of blood transfusions.

Cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective study in a single comprehensive European cancer institution

BACKGROUND

The use of cetuximab in combination with platinum (P) plus 5-fluorouracil (F) has previously been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of metastatic squamous cell cancer of head and neck (SCCHN). We investigated the efficacy and outcome of this protocol as a first-line treatment for patients with recurrent or metastatic disease. We evaluated overall-survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and the treatment toxicity profile in a retrospective cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study enrolled 121 patients with untreated recurrent or metastatic SCCHN. The patients received PF+ cetuximab every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients with stable disease who received PF+ cetuximab continued to receive cetuximab until disease progressed or unacceptable toxic effects were experienced, whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 53 (37-78) years. The patient cohort was 86.8% male. The addition of cetuximab to PF in the recurrent or metastatic setting provided an OS of 11 months (Confidential Interval, CI, 95%, 8.684-13.316) and PFS of 8 months (CI 95%, 6.051-9.949). The disease control rate was 48.9%, and the ORR was 23.91%. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the PF+ cetuximab regimen were febrile neutropenia (5.7%), skin rash (3.8%) and mucosistis (3.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that cetuximab plus platinum-fluorouracil chemotherapy is a good option for systemic treatment in advanced SSCHN patients. This regimen has a well-tolerated toxicity profile.