Addition of darbepoetin alfa to dose-dense chemotherapy: results from a randomized phase II trial in small-cell lung cancer patients receiving carboplatin plus etoposide

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

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

Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents in the Management of Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease or Cancer: A Historical Perspective

Anemia is common in patients with cancer or with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) has transformed the management of anemia, their use has been complicated by a number of factors including frequent guideline updates, safety concerns and, in the United States, a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, which aimed to ensure that the benefits of ESAs outweigh the risks. Many previous concerns around ESA use in cancer and CKD have been addressed by the reassuring results of post-approval studies, and biosimilar ESAs have been used in Europe for many years, with safety and efficacy profiles similar to originator products. This review describes the evolution of the use of ESAs from approval to the present day, discussing results from clinical studies of ESAs in cancer and CKD, and the influence of these findings on product labeling and guideline updates. We also discuss the impact of the introduction of ESA biosimilars in Europe, bringing cost savings and increased access to patients.

The Humanistic Burden of Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC): A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) Literature

Background: Little is known about the humanistic burden of small cell lung cancer (SCLC), specifically the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of this systematic literature review was to explore the impact of SCLC on HRQoL and the patient reported outcomes (PROs) used to capture this impact.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search of Medline®, Embase, and PsycINFO, oncology organization websites and conference proceedings within the past 10 years. Articles reporting HRQoL outcomes of SCLC patients were selected.

Results: Twenty-seven eligible publications were identified. Global or overall impact on HRQoL (n = 21) was reported most often, with considerably fewer reporting individual domains that comprise HRQoL. Results indicated that HRQoL was negatively impacted in SCLC patients in comparison to the normal population in most domains. Overall, the domains measuring physical functioning and activities of daily living were most impacted. However, results on cognitive and emotional functioning were inconclusive. The impact on HRQoL may be least in both limited disease and extensive disease (ED) SCLC patients who have responded to treatment, and greatest in ED patients who were treatment naïve. The most frequently used PROs were the EORTC QLQ-C30 core cancer instruments, the lung cancer specific module the EORTC QLQ-LC13, LCSS, and EQ-5D.

Conclusion: There exists a paucity of reporting on SCLC HRQoL outcomes. This extends to the reporting of domain level scores and by patient sub-group. Greater reporting at a granular level is recommended to allow for more robust conclusions to be made.

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.

Erythropoietin and cancer: the unintended consequences of anemia correction

Until 1990, erythropoietin (EPO) was considered to have a single biological purpose and action, the stimulation of red blood cell growth and differentiation. Slowly, scientific and medical opinion evolved, beginning with the discovery of an effect on endothelial cell growth in vitro and the identification of EPO receptors (EPORs) on neuronal cells. We now know that EPO is a pleiotropic growth factor that exhibits an anti-apoptotic action on numerous cells and tissues, including malignant ones. In this article, we present a short discussion of EPO, receptors involved in EPO signal transduction, and their action on non-hematopoietic cells. This is followed by a more detailed presentation of both pre-clinical and clinical data that demonstrate EPO’s action on cancer cells, as well as tumor angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. Clinical trials with reported adverse effects of chronic erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) treatment as well as clinical studies exploring the prognostic significance of EPO and EPOR expression in cancer patients are reviewed. Finally, we address the use of EPO and other ESAs in cancer patients.

A prospective cohort study on the impact of darbepoetin alfa on quality of life in daily practice following anemia treatment guideline revisions

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of darbepoetin alfa (DA) on hemoglobin (Hb) levels and quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients with anemia in current daily practice following several revisions of anemia treatment guidelines.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multi-center, observational study across Germany in non-myeloid cancer outpatients with chemotherapy-induced anemia treated with DA. Age, sex, cancer type, stage, and therapy, performance status, anemia status and treatment, and Hb concentrations were recorded for up to 18 weeks in a web-based registry. Optional QoL assessments were collected at baseline and at the end of DA treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 984 eligible patients, 978 had complete anemia data, 492 also had complete QoL data. In the 978 patients, mean age was 64 (standard deviation, SD 12) years, 62% of patients were women. Breast (26%) and gastrointestinal (22%) cancer were most prevalent. Therapy was palliative in 44% of patients and initiated with curative intent in 29%. Mean baseline Hb was 9.5 (SD 0.9) g/dL, which increased by an average of 1.2 g/dL. In 67% of patients Hb increased either to 10-12 g/dL or by ≥2 g/dL; no Hb response was seen in 219 patients (22%); increases of 0 to 1, >1 to 2, and >2 g/dl were seen in 216 (22%), 265 (27%), and 278 (28%) patients, respectively. Anemia treatment did not result in any significant differences of performance status. However, QoL improvements were significantly greater in Hb responders, although a linear relationship with Hb increments was lacking. None of 47 fatal cases was considered related to treatment with DA.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with DA in routine clinical practice had increases in Hb and reported improvement in QoL. Due to the uncontrolled design, no conclusions can be made regarding causality to treatment and the clinical relevance of the improvement.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent resistance and mortality in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients

Background

Responsiveness to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) varies widely among dialysis patients. ESA resistance has been associated with mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients, but in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients data is limited. Therefore we assessed the relation between ESA resistance in both HD and PD patients.

Methods

NECOSAD is a Dutch multi-center prospective cohort study of incident dialysis patients who started dialysis between January 1997 and January 2007. ESA resistance was defined as hemoglobin level < 11 g/dL with an above median ESA dose (i.e. 8,000 units/week in HD and 4,000 units/week in PD patients). Unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression analysis for all-cause 5-year mortality was performed for HD and PD patients separately.

Results

1013 HD and 461 PD patients were included in the analysis. ESA resistant HD patients had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.37 (95% CI 1.04-1.80) and ESA resistant PD patients had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.41 (1.27-4.57) as compared to patients with a good response.

Conclusions

ESA resistance, as defined by categories of ESA and Hb, is associated with increased mortality in both HD and PD patients. The effect of ESA resistance, ESA dose and hemoglobin are closely related and the exact mechanism remains unclear. Our results strengthen the need to investigate and treat causes of ESA resistance not only in HD, but also in PD patients.

Prognostic impact of the combination of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to cancer treatment: literature review

Cancer patients commonly develop anaemia. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are frequently used in cancer treatment. Numerous controlled studies indicate that ESAs can raise haemoglobin levels, reduce transfusion requirements and improve quality of life in anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. They were previously used to enhance response to radiation therapy, via increasing tumour cell oxygenation. Since the 2002 guideline, there has been increasing attention to the safety of ESA treatment in patients with cancer. Two placebo-controlled phase III randomised clinical trials published in 2003 showed evidence of harmful effects of ESAs on survival and/or tumour outcomes. Subsequently, recent trials and several large meta-analyses have confirmed negative impact on survival and/or disease progression. To comprehensively examine whether ESA use affects safety outcomes in cancer patients in different settings (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted therapies), we conducted a literature review of all clinical trials, small and large meta-analyses from 1990 to 2012.

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.

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.