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 METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using accepted methods for literature searches, article selection, data extraction and quality assessment.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.
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 METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using accepted methods for literature searches, article selection, data extraction and quality assessment.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.
Authors: Anders Osterborg; Y Brandberg; V Molostova; G Iosava; K Abdulkadyrov; M Hedenus; D Messinger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Douglas Rizzo; Mark R Somerfield; Karen L Hagerty; Jerome Seidenfeld; Julia Bohlius; Charles L Bennett; David F Cella; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Matthew J Goode; Ann A Jakubowski; Mark U Rarick; David H Regan; Alan E Lichtin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Johan Vansteenkiste; Robert Pirker; Bartomeu Massuti; Fernando Barata; Albert Font; Michael Fiegl; Salvatore Siena; Jenni Gateley; Dianne Tomita; Alan B Colowick; Jaromir Musil Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jean-Luc Canon; Johan Vansteenkiste; Michael Hedenus; Pere Gascon; Carsten Bokemeyer; Heinz Ludwig; Jan Vermorken; Jason Legg; Beatriz Pujol; Ken Bridges Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2011-11-13 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Ke Liang; Francisco J Esteva; Constance Albarracin; Katherine Stemke-Hale; Yang Lu; Giampaolo Bianchini; Ching-Yi Yang; Yong Li; Xinqun Li; Chun-Te Chen; Gordon B Mills; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; John Mendelsohn; Mien-Chie Hung; Zhen Fan Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Joanna Van Erps; Matti Aapro; Karen MacDonald; Pierre Soubeyran; Matthew Turner; Hans Warrinnier; Tara Albrecht; Ivo Abraham Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J Glaspy; J Crawford; J Vansteenkiste; D Henry; S Rao; P Bowers; J A Berlin; D Tomita; K Bridges; H Ludwig Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 7.640