Lauren S Prescott1, Jolyn S Taylor2, Maria A Lopez-Olivo3, Mark F Munsell4, Helena M VonVille5, David R Lairson5, Diane C Bodurka6. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: LSPrescott@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 3. Department of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 5. The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 6. Department of Clinical Education, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most non-oncologic clinical practice guidelines recommend restrictive allogeneic blood transfusion practices; however, there is a lack of consensus regarding the best transfusion practice in oncology. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in patients with cancer. METHODS: A literature search using MEDLINE, PUBMED and EMBASE identified all controlled studies comparing the use of restrictive with liberal transfusion in adult oncology participants up to August 10, 2015. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and appraised the quality of the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were blood utilization and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Out of 4241 citations, six studies (3 randomized and 3 non-randomized) involving a total of 983 patients were included in the final review. The clinical context of the studies varied with 3 chemotherapy and 3 surgical studies. The overall risk of bias in all studies was moderate to high. Restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a 36% reduced risk of receiving a perioperative transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.83). There was no difference in mortality between the strategies (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32-3.18). There were no differences in adverse events reported between the restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies. CONCLUSION: Restrictive strategy appears to decrease blood utilization without increasing morbidity or mortality in oncology. This review is limited by a paucity of high quality studies on this topic. Better designed studies are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Most non-oncologic clinical practice guidelines recommend restrictive allogeneic blood transfusion practices; however, there is a lack of consensus regarding the best transfusion practice in oncology. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in patients with cancer. METHODS: A literature search using MEDLINE, PUBMED and EMBASE identified all controlled studies comparing the use of restrictive with liberal transfusion in adult oncology participants up to August 10, 2015. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and appraised the quality of the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were blood utilization and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Out of 4241 citations, six studies (3 randomized and 3 non-randomized) involving a total of 983 patients were included in the final review. The clinical context of the studies varied with 3 chemotherapy and 3 surgical studies. The overall risk of bias in all studies was moderate to high. Restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a 36% reduced risk of receiving a perioperative transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.83). There was no difference in mortality between the strategies (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32-3.18). There were no differences in adverse events reported between the restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies. CONCLUSION: Restrictive strategy appears to decrease blood utilization without increasing morbidity or mortality in oncology. This review is limited by a paucity of high quality studies on this topic. Better designed studies are warranted.
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Brenda J Grossman; Steven Kleinman; Alan T Tinmouth; Marisa B Marques; Mark K Fung; John B Holcomb; Orieji Illoh; Lewis J Kaplan; Louis M Katz; Sunil V Rao; John D Roback; Aryeh Shander; Aaron A R Tobian; Robert Weinstein; Lisa Grace Swinton McLaughlin; Benjamin Djulbegovic Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jens Overgaard; Hanne Sand Hansen; Lena Specht; Marie Overgaard; Cai Grau; Elo Andersen; Jens Bentzen; Lars Bastholt; Olfred Hansen; Jørgen Johansen; Lisbeth Andersen; Jan F Evensen Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-09-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Heinz Ludwig; Simon Van Belle; Peter Barrett-Lee; Gunnar Birgegård; Carsten Bokemeyer; Pere Gascón; Paris Kosmidis; Maciej Krzakowski; Johan Nortier; Patrizia Olmi; Maurice Schneider; Dirk Schrijvers Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lise J Estcourt; Reem Malouf; Marialena Trivella; Dean A Fergusson; Sally Hopewell; Michael F Murphy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-01-27
Authors: Pablo Cure; Melania Bembea; Stella Chou; Allan Doctor; Anne Eder; Jeanne Hendrickson; Cassandra D Josephson; Alan E Mast; William Savage; Martha Sola-Visner; Philip Spinella; Simon Stanworth; Marie Steiner; Traci Mondoro; Shimian Zou; Catherine Levy; Myron Waclawiw; Nahed El Kassar; Simone Glynn; Naomi L C Luban Journal: Transfusion Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Lauren S Prescott; Jolyn S Taylor; Ahmed Enbaya; Claire A Marten; Keith N Myers; Larissa A Meyer; Pedro T Ramirez; Charles F Levenback; Diane C Bodurka; Kathleen M Schmeler Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: F J Sherida H Woei-A-Jin; Shu Zhen Zheng; Inci Kiliçsoy; Francisca Hudig; Saskia A C Luelmo; Judith R Kroep; Hildo J Lamb; Susanne Osanto Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-08-27
Authors: Kevin M Trentino; Shannon L Farmer; Michael F Leahy; Frank M Sanfilippo; James P Isbister; Rhonda Mayberry; Axel Hofmann; Aryeh Shander; Craig French; Kevin Murray Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: James Granfortuna; Kaye Shoffner; Stephen E DePasquale; Sejal Badre; Chet Bohac; Cisio De Oliveira Brandao Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 3.603