Addition of intravenous iron to epoetin beta increases hemoglobin response and decreases epoetin dose requirement in anemic patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies: a randomized multicenter study

Intravenous Iron Therapy to Treat Anemia in Oncology: A Mapping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Anemia is a common problem when patients present with cancer, and it can worsen during treatment. Anemia can directly impact the cognitive and physical quality of life and may impair fitness for oncological therapy. The most common cause of anemia is iron deficiency. Newer intravenous (IV) iron formulations offer a safe and rapidly effective treatment option. We performed a systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating intravenous iron therapy in patients with cancer and anemia and their outcomes. A total of 23 RCTs were identified. The median number of patients enrolled was 104 (IQR: 60-134). A total of 5 were focused on surgical outcomes (4 preoperative, 1 postoperative), and 15 were in adjuvant therapies for a variety of tumor types (breast, colorectal, lung, gynecological, myeloid, and lymphomas), 10 of which were in combination with erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) therapy, 2 in radiotherapy, and 1 in palliative care. Overall, the studies reported that the use of IV iron increased hemoglobin concentration and decreased transfusion rates during different cancer treatment regimes. IV iron can be administered safely throughout the cancer treatment pathway from primary surgery to the palliative setting. More studies are needed to demonstrate net clinical outcomes.

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.

Randomized trial of sucrosomial iron supplementation in patients with chemotherapy-related anemia treated with ESA

BACKGROUND

Iron supplementation improves the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents' (ESAs) response in chemotherapy-related anemia. The primary aim of our study is to assess the efficacy of sucrosomial iron, a new oral iron formulation, in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia treated with ESAs. The secondary objectives included the efficacy into two subgroups of patients (iron replete and functional iron deficiency) between the two study arms, safety and the effect on transfusion need.

METHODS

In this randomized, multicentre, open-label, phase III clinical trial, 60 cancer patients were enrolled. Each patient was randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 12 weeks of oral sucrosomial iron at the dose of 30 mg daily in combination with ESAs or no supplementation to ESA treatment. The endpoint considered for efficacy was the proportion of patients achieving complete hematological response at 12 weeks (increase in Hb > 2 g/dL from baseline, without RBC transfusions in the previous 28 days or achieving Hb ≥ 12 g/dL).

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant association between oral sucrosomial iron supplementation in combination with ESAs and the achievement of a complete hematological response. This response was achieved within 12 weeks by 31% of patients in the control group and by 52% of patients supplemented with oral sucrosomial iron. A trend of greater response in sucrosomial iron arm was found in both subgroups. No difference was observed about safety and transfusion need.

CONCLUSIONS

Sucrosomial iron is well tolerated and its combination with ESAs improves the hematological response in cancer patients with chemotherapy-related anemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION

This study has been reviewed by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia, Italy (28/04/2015; prot. N. 20,150,002,059), and by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the other Italian oncological centers involved in this study.

The addition of oral iron improves chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

Although many studies have shown that supplementation with iron and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) is frequently used for managing chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA), optimal combination therapy using these agents together to ameliorate anemia is not well characterized. To assess the effects of ESA combined with oral or intravenous (IV) iron on relieving CIA, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for articles. Data collected in the articles were meta-analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software with a random-effects model. Our comprehensive search yielded 1666 potentially relevant trials. A total of 41 trials randomizing 4200 patients with CIA fulfilled inclusion criteria, including 34 Chinese articles and 7 English articles. Meta-analysis showed that treatment with both ESA and iron more effectively improved CIA relative to iron supplementation alone, with increased hemoglobin, hematocrit, red blood cell count and haematopoietic response rate. Subgroup analyses revealed iron administration, both oral and IV iron, improved anemia in ESA-treated cancer patients with CIA. Our analysis demonstrates that iron supplementation combined with ESA more effectively ameliorates CIA relative to iron supplementation alone, without regard to whether IV or oral iron was used. Together, our findings may contribute to the clinical treatment of CIA using iron therapy with or without ESA. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Intravenous iron is recommended by many clinical guidelines based largely on its effectiveness in reducing anemia. However, the association with important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron compared with oral iron or no iron.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1966 to January 31, 2021. Ongoing trials were sought from ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Search Registry Platform.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations, excluding healthy volunteers. Nonrandomized studies published since January 1, 2007, were also included. A total of 312 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two reviewers extracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize data from RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was risk of infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, and changes in hemoglobin and red blood cell transfusion requirements. Measures of association were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences.

RESULTS

A total of 154 RCTs (32 920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence). Intravenous iron also was associated with an increase in hemoglobin (mean difference, 0.57 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64 g/dL; I2 = 94%) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this large systematic review and meta-analysis, intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required to understand the balance between this risk and the potential benefits.

Ferrum phosphoricum D12 Treatment Affects J774A.1 Cell Proliferation, Transcription Levels of Iron Metabolism, Antioxidant Defense, and Inflammation-related Genes

BACKGROUND

 Ferrum phosphoricum (FP) is prescribed as a homeopathic remedy to treat the early stages of fever and inflammation in cases of colds or flu, muscle fatigue and anemia. We aimed to analyze the molecular mechanisms of action of FP D12 on cell proliferation and mRNA expression of iron metabolism, antioxidant defense and inflammation-related genes in mouse J774A.1 macrophages.

METHODS

 Cell proliferation was examined using the MTT test. RT-qPCR analyses were performed to estimate gene expression changes. Relative gene expression levels were calculated using the 2^-ΔΔCt method. The effect of treatment using FP D12 tablets was compared with that using placebo tablets (PT).

RESULTS

 FP D12 in low concentrations (0.0125 mg/mL to 0.025 mg/mL) significantly stimulated proliferation of J774A.1 cells by up to 11% (p < 0.01) versus control untreated cells and by up to 40% (p < 0.01) versus PT-treated cells in the respective concentration. FP D12 versus PT induced a significant increase in mRNA expression of ferritin light chain (Ftl1) (by 8-fold, p < 0.01), β-2-microglobulin (B2m) (by 2.5-fold, p < 0.05) and iron-responsive element binding protein 2 (Ireb2) (by 4-fold, p < 0.05), and induced a slight decrease in myosin IE (Myo1e) mRNA expression levels (by 0.4-fold, p < 0.01) in macrophages. A highly significant (r² = 0.99, p < 0.05) correlation was observed between Ireb2 and B2m transcription levels. Significant stimulation of antioxidant enzyme Gpx-1 (by 1.27-fold, p < 0.01) in cells by 0.025 mg/mL FP D12, but a slight decrease (by 0.12-fold, p < 0.05) in 0.0125 mg/mL-treated cells, was observed. A significant increase in the gene expression of IL-1β (by 3.5-fold, р < 0.05) in macrophages was also detected.

CONCLUSION

 Ferrum phosphoricum in D12 dilution potentially exhibits iron retention, antioxidant and immunomodulation activities, possibly by modulating transcription levels of related genes in non-stimulated mouse macrophages.

Anaemia in chronic kidney disease pregnancy

AIM

To review the incidence and management of anaemia and outcomes in pregnancies in a cohort of Australian women with chronic kidney disease.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of 63 pregnancies in 52 women with chronic kidney disease.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight percent of chronic kidney disease pregnancies were complicated by haemoglobin less than 100 g/L. Iron stores were measured in only 62% of all pregnancies. Serum ferritin was less than 100 ng/ml in 95% of those tested. Erythropoietin-stimulating agents were used in 24 pregnancies (38%). Intravenous iron was used in only nine non-dialysis pregnancies.

CONCLUSION

Greater awareness of the importance of regular measurement of iron stores and appropriate levels for repletion in chronic kidney disease pregnancies amongst health professionals involved in obstetric care may result in earlier detection and treatment of iron deficiency, and potentially improve maternal and fetal outcomes.

How I treat cancer-associated anemia

Despite increasing use of targeted therapies to treat cancer, anemia remains a common complication of cancer therapy. Physician concerns about the safety of intravenous (IV) iron products and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have resulted in many patients with cancer receiving no or suboptimal anemia therapy. In this article, we present 4 patient cases that illustrate both common and complex clinical scenarios. We first present a review of erythropoiesis and then describe our approach to cancer-associated anemia by identifying the contributing causes before selecting specific treatments. We summarize clinical trial data affirming the safety and efficacy of currently available IV iron products used to treat cancer-associated anemia and illustrate how we use commonly available laboratory tests to assess iron status during routine patient management. We compare adverse event rates associated with IV iron vs red cell transfusion and discuss using first-line IV iron monotherapy to treat anemic patients with cancer, which decreases the need for ESAs. A possible mechanism behind ESA-induced tumor progression is discussed. Finally, we review the potential of novel therapies such as ascorbic acid, prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors, activin traps, hepcidin, and bone morphogenetic protein antagonists in treating cancer-associated anemia.

Flipside of the Coin: Iron Deficiency and Colorectal Cancer

Iron deficiency, with or without anemia, is the most frequent hematological manifestation in individuals with cancer, and is especially common in patients with colorectal cancer. Iron is a vital micronutrient that plays an essential role in many biological functions, in the context of which it has been found to be intimately linked to cancer biology. To date, however, whereas a large number of studies have comprehensively investigated and reviewed the effects of excess iron on cancer initiation and progression, potential interrelations of iron deficiency with cancer have been largely neglected and are not well-defined. Emerging evidence indicates that reduced iron intake and low systemic iron levels are associated with the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer, suggesting that optimal iron intake must be carefully balanced to avoid both iron deficiency and iron excess. Since iron is vital in the maintenance of immunological functions, insufficient iron availability may enhance oncogenicity by impairing immunosurveillance for neoplastic changes and potentially altering the tumor immune microenvironment. Data from clinical studies support these concepts, showing that iron deficiency is associated with inferior outcomes and reduced response to therapy in patients with colorectal cancer. Here, we elucidate cancer-related effects of iron deficiency, examine preclinical and clinical evidence of its role in tumorigenesis, cancer progression and treatment response. and highlight the importance of adequate iron supplementation to limit these outcomes.

Revisiting the treatment of anemia in the setting of chronic kidney disease, hematologic malignancies, and cancer: perspectives with opinion and commentary

INTRODUCTION

Anemia has and will continue to be a central theme in medicine particularly as clinicians are treating a burgeoning population of complex multi-organ system processes. As a result of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and societal recommendations overly restrictive paradigms and under-administration of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) have likely been followed by clinicians among all specialties.

AREAS COVERED

A review of anemia in the context of chronic kidney disease, hematologic malignancies, and cancer is presented with focus on the establishment of ESAs as integral in the treatment of anemia. Multiple RCTs and meta-analyses studying the use of ESAs are presented with focus upon their application to clinical practice. A 'compendium' is proffered describing the evolution, establishment, and implications of ESA administration initially among those with CKD with rapid subsequent application to the Hematology-Oncology population of patients. Literature search methodologies have included MEDLINE (1985-2020), PubMed (1996-2020), Cochrane Central Trials (1985-2020), EMBASE (2000-2020), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2000-2020).

EXPERT OPINION

Upon evaluation of risks and benefits of ESAs focused opinion and commentary is made supporting more liberal use of these agents and strongly suggesting that the current underlying treatment 'pendulum' has perhaps shifted too far to the 'under-treatment' side in many cases.

Management of anemia in patients with cancer: 2019 Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines

This article summarizes the latest Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM) guidelines on the management of cancer-related and chemotherapy-related anemia with a particular attention to the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and iron supplementation.

Efficacy of intravenous iron treatment for chemotherapy-induced anemia: A prospective Phase II pilot clinical trial in South Korea

BACKGROUND

Anemia is the most common and serious cancer-related complication. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of administration of ferric carboxymaltose without erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for treating anemia in cancer patients. Moreover, we identified the biomarkers of hemoglobin response to predict the need for iron therapy.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We enrolled patients with solid cancers who were treated at a single institute (Samsung Medical Center, South Korea), from April 2015 to July 2017, in this prospective single-arm Phase II clinical trial. Patients received intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1,000 mg) infusion on the first day (visit 1) of treatment. The primary end point was the number of hemoglobin responders, defined as patients with an increase in hemoglobin level ≥ 1.0 g/dL from the baseline, a hemoglobin level ≥ 11.0 g/dL, or both, within an 8-week observation period (week 3, 6, or 8). Secondary end points included changes in transferrin saturation and levels of soluble transferrin receptors, hepcidin, erythropoietin, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein (CRP) at each visit. Of the 103 recruited patients, 92 were eligible for analysis. The mean patient age was 57.3 ± 12.5 years, and 54.3% of the patients were women. The most common diagnoses were breast cancer (n = 23, 25.1%), lung cancer (n = 21, 22.9%), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 20, 20.9%), and lymphoma (n = 16, 17.7%). A hemoglobin response was observed in 36 (39.1%), 53 (57.6%), and 61 (66.3%) patients in the third, fifth, and eighth weeks, respectively. The mean increase in hemoglobin levels from the baseline to the end of treatment was 1.77 ± 1.30 g/dL. Baseline values of hepcidin (p = 0.008), total iron binding capacity (p = 0.014), ferritin (p = 0.048), and CRP (p = 0.044) were significantly different between the responder and nonresponder groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis for baseline anemia-related biochemical variable significantly associated with the hemoglobin response showed that only baseline hepcidin level was a significant factor for hemoglobin response (odds ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.0, p = 0.045). Hemoglobin responders had significantly lower hepcidin levels than nonresponders (mean [±standard deviation], 13.45 [±14.71] versus 35.22 [±40.470 ng/ml]; p = 0.007). However, our analysis had some limitations such as the different patient characteristics in the studies that were included, institutional differences in the measurement of hepcidin level, and missing data on long-term safety. Therefore, our findings need further validation.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1,000 mg) monotherapy increases hemoglobin levels without serious adverse events in patients with cancer. Hepcidin is a useful biomarker for predicting iron requirement in cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02599012.

Iron Sucrose: A Wealth of Experience in Treating Iron Deficiency

Iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in a wide range of conditions. In many patient populations, this can be treated effectively with oral iron supplementation; but in patients who are unable to take or who do not respond to oral iron therapy, intravenous iron administration is recommended. Furthermore, in certain conditions, such as end-stage kidney disease, chronic heart failure, and inflammatory bowel disease, intravenous iron administration has become first-line treatment. One of the first available intravenous iron preparations is iron sucrose (Venofer®), a nanomedicine that has been used clinically since 1949. Treatment with iron sucrose is particularly beneficial owing to its ability to rapidly increase hemoglobin, ferritin, and transferrin saturation levels, with an acceptable safety profile. Recently, important new data relating to the use of iron sucrose, including the findings from the landmark PIVOTAL trial in patients with end-stage kidney disease, have been reported. Several years ago, a number of iron sucrose similars became available, although there have been concerns about the clinical appropriateness of substituting the original iron sucrose with an iron sucrose similar because of differences in efficacy and safety. This is a result of the complex and unique physicochemical properties of nanomedicines such as iron sucrose, which make copying the molecule difficult and problematic. In this review, we summarize the evidence accumulated during 70 years of clinical experience with iron sucrose in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.

Iron Support in Erythropoietin Treatment in Myelodysplastic Syndrome Patients Affected by Low-Risk Refractory Anaemia: Real-Life Evidence from an Italian Setting

Refractory anaemia (RA) among myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is associated with a partial functional iron deficit and may require transfusions. In low-risk lymphoma and solid tumour patients, iron support improves erythropoietin (EPO) cost-effectiveness in treating anaemia. The aim of this study is to see if oral sucrosomial iron support improves the cost-effectiveness of EPO treatment in MDS patients affected by low-risk RA. We treated patients with EPO only or with EPO plus oral sucrosomial iron or intravenous (i.v.) iron. The need for transfusions was lowest in the group taking oral iron (p = 0.016) or not receiving supplementation at all (p = 0.022). We compared costs of EPO with i.v. ferric gluconate or oral sucrosomial iron supplementation or no iron supplementation. The oral iron group had fewer side effects, fewer patient medical visits in the out-patient setting, and fewer transfusions; this led to higher savings on direct hospital costs and indirect patient costs (lost days at work) and translated into a 50% abatement of overall expenditures. EPO treatment-related expenditures in MDS-RA patients were lowest with oral sucrosomial iron supplementation (Sideral®), with a longer interval between EPO administration in maintenance treatment, quicker hemoglobin recovery, lower ferritin increase and fewer blood transfusions.

Iron Deficiency and Anemia in Cancer Patients: The Role of Iron Treatment in Anemic Cancer Patients

Anemia is a prevalent complication in patients with cancer, both at diagnosis and during treatment, with notable negative effects on quality of life and overall prognosis. Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia in the patients and can affect almost half of patients with solid and hematologic malignancies. The pathogenesis is complex and multifactorial, including bleeding, malnutrition, medications, and inflammation resulted from cancer and cancer treatment. In fact, either absolute or functional iron deficiency can occur. Most iron deficient cancer patients present with functional iron deficiency, a condition with adequate iron storage but insufficient iron supply for erythroblasts and other iron dependent tissues. Functional iron deficiency is the result of the cancer related cytokine release, but in absolute iron deficiency iron reserves are depleted leading to similar but often more severe symptoms of inadequate iron store. Current therapeutic options in cancer anemia consist of iron administration, erythropoietic stimulating agents, and blood transfusion. The latter should be administered to a minimum, because of problems regarding risks. Here, we present a review on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical outcomes, and therapeutic options of iron deficiency as well as the effect of iron therapy on tumor progression in anemic cancer patients.

A Review of Growth Factor Support in Bloodless Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant

Bloodless autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation is associated with risks of severe bleeding and profound anemia. RBC or platelet transfusions are often used to prevent these hematologic complications. However, in patients such as Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse major blood components, the lack of transfusion support is not an absolute contraindication to an autologous hematopoietic cell transplant. Pennsylvania Hospital performed the world's first bloodless hematopoietic cell transplant more than 15 years ago and has gradually improved its technique with a sizable patient population. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents were successfully employed as part of their pretransplant regimen to prevent severe anemia. Thrombopoietin agonists' potential role in bloodless transplant is also currently being explored. Although there is limited literature, available reports in combination with physiologic reasoning may support the use of these growth factors to promote transplant success. These agents offer potential benefit and may be of utility in minimizing complications of a bloodless transplant. In this review, we summarize the available literature and offer insight into how we may incorporate growth factors to allow bloodless autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation to be an available option to patients who may otherwise be denied.

The Role of Intravenous Iron in the Treatment of Anemia Associated with Cancer and Chemotherapy

Cancer-related anemia (CRA) is a commonly occurring problem for patients with cancer regardless of whether they are receiving treatment with chemotherapy or immunotherapy. It may result from one or more processes (decreased production, increased destruction, or increased loss of red blood cells, RBC). Perturbations in iron availability form the primary basis for anemia in many patients with cancer-related anemia. Functional iron deficiency (FID) anemia is a condition in which the patient has adequate or increased iron stores, but this iron pool is not available for erythropoiesis. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were the original treatment for FID; over time, however, if the supply of iron cannot keep pace with increased RBC synthesis driven by ESAs, FID may eventually lead to the lack or loss of ESA responsiveness. Subsequent clinical trials reported that intravenous (IV) iron could enhance the erythropoietic response to ESAs. This chapter reviews the pathogenesis of FID and summarizes the literature on the treatment of cancer- and chemotherapy-induced anemia. Clinical trials using IV iron with or without ESAs are reviewed in addition to the currently available IV iron products. The consensus conclusions from these trials, as well as guideline recommendations, support the use of IV iron in these patients to enhance ESA responsiveness, decrease ESA dosage, and reduce RBC transfusions. Little data have been published on the long-term safety of IV iron or its impact on tumor growth. This paper also briefly explores novel approaches for the treatment of FID anemia, which has relevance in treating not only cancer patients but also patients with benign inflammatory disorders.

Effects of micronised microencapsulated ferric pyrophosphate supplementation in patients with advanced cancer and iron deficiency: a single-centre cohort pilot study

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency in advanced cancer patients and causes anaemia. Iron deficiency anaemia treatment (i.e. intravenous or oral iron administration) has been demonstrated to be effective but is often associated with adverse reactions. Micronised microencapsulated ferric pyrophosphate (MMFP) is a recently developed formulation characterised by a higher intestinal bioavailability due to the small particle size distribution at nanometer level. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an oral administration of 30 mg of MMFP associated with 80 mg of ascorbic acid in advanced cancer patients with hyposideraemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an observational prospective cohort study (10 months) conducted on 42 adult patients with advanced cancer and serum iron levels lower than 60 μg/dL. All patients received one capsule/day for 30 days of a supplement containing 30 mg of MMFP and 80 mg of ascorbic acid. At enrolment (T0) and at 30 days (T1) patients were subjected to blood sampling for evaluation of serum iron, ferritinaemia and blood count. In addition, any undesirable effects reported by patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

MMFP treatment increased sideraemia from 36.1±8.37 μg/dL to 73.22±28.60 μg/dL, haemoglobin from 10.43±1.09 g/dL to 11.52±1.90 g/dL, and ferritinaemia from 42.10±16.90 ng/mL to 123.33±55.79 ng/mL. No adverse effects were noted from the use of MMFP supplementation.

DISCUSSION

The supplementation of 30 mg/d of MMFP in combination with 80 mg/d of ascorbic acid in advanced cancer patients with hyposideraemia led to a significant increase in sideraemia and ferritinaemia. Moreover, in some of the patients whose serum iron level did not increase, an increase in haemoglobin was observed.

Inflammatory functional iron deficiency common in myelofibrosis, contributes to anaemia and impairs quality of life. From the Nordic MPN study Group

OBJECTIVES

The study investigates the hypothesis that inflammation in myelofibrosis (MF) like in myeloma and lymphoma, may disturb iron distribution and contribute to anaemia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 80 MF and 23 ET patients was performed.

RESULTS

About 35% of anaemic MF patients had functional iron deficiency (FID) with transferrin saturation <20 and normal or elevated S-ferritin (<500 µg/L). In ET, FID was rare. In MF patients with FID, 70.6% were anaemic, vs 29.4% in patients without FID (P = 0.03). Hepcidin was significantly higher in MF patients with anaemia, including transfusion-dependent patients, 50.6 vs 24.4 µg/L (P = 0.01). There was a significant negative correlation between Hb and inflammatory markers in all MF patients: IL-2, IL-6 and TNF-α, (P < 0.01-0.03), LD (P = 0.004) and hepcidin (P = 0.03). These correlations were also seen in the subgroup of anaemic MF patients (Table ). Tsat correlated negatively with CRP (P < 0.001). Symptom burden was heavier in MF patients with FID, and MPN-SAF quality of life scores correlated with IL-6 and CRP.

CONCLUSIONS

The inflammatory state of MF disturbs iron turnover, FID is common and contributes to anaemia development and impairment of QoL. Anaemic MF patients should be screened for FID.

Anemia and Iron Deficiency in Cancer Patients: Role of Iron Replacement Therapy

Anemia in cancer patients is quite common, with remarkable negative impacts on quality of life and overall prognosis. The pathogenesis is complex and typically multifactorial, with iron deficiency (ID) often being a major and potentially treatable contributor. In turn, ID in cancer patients can be due to multiple concurring mechanisms, including bleeding (e.g., in gastrointestinal cancers or after surgery), malnutrition, medications, and hepcidin-driven iron sequestration into macrophages with subsequent iron-restricted erythropoiesis. Indeed, either absolute or functional iron deficiency (AID or FID) can occur. While for absolute ID there is a general consensus regarding the laboratory definition (that is ferritin levels <100 ng/mL ± transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20%), a shared definition of functional ID is still lacking. Current therapeutic options in cancer anemia include iron replacement, erythropoietic stimulating agents (ESAs), and blood transfusions. The latter should be kept to a minimum, because of concerns regarding risks, costs, and limited resources. Iron therapy has proved to be a valid approach to enhance efficacy of ESAs and to reduce transfusion need. Available guidelines focus mainly on patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia, and generally suggest intravenous (IV) iron when AID or FID is present. However, in the case of FID, the upper limit of ferritin in association with TSAT <20% at which iron should be prescribed is a matter of controversy, ranging up to 800 ng/mL. An increasingly recognized indication to IV iron in cancer patients is represented by preoperative anemia in elective oncologic surgery. In this setting, the primary goal of treatment is to decrease the need of blood transfusions in the perioperative period, rather than improving anemia-related symptoms as in chemotherapy-associated anemia. Protocols are mainly based on experiences of Patient Blood Management (PBM) in non-oncologic surgery, but no specific guidelines are available for oncologic surgery. Here we discuss some possible approaches to the management of ID in cancer patients in different clinical settings, based on current guidelines and recommendations, emphasizing the need for further research in the field.

Current misconceptions in diagnosis and management of iron deficiency

The prevention and treatment of iron deficiency is a major public health goal. Challenges in the treatment of iron deficiency include finding and addressing the underlying cause and the selection of an iron replacement product which meets the needs of the patient. However, there are a number of non-evidence-based misconceptions regarding the diagnosis and management of iron deficiency, with or without anaemia, as well as inconsistency of terminology and lack of clear guidance on clinical pathways. In particular, the pathogenesis of iron deficiency is still frequently not addressed and iron not replaced, with indiscriminate red cell transfusion used as a default therapy. In our experience, this imprudent practice continues to be endorsed by non-evidence-based misconceptions. The intent of the authors is to provide a consensus that effectively challenges these misconceptions, and to highlight evidence-based alternatives for appropriate management (referred to as key points). We believe that this approach to the management of iron deficiency may be beneficial for both patients and healthcare systems. We stress that this paper solely presents the Authors' independent opinions. No pharmaceutical company funded or influenced the conception, development or writing of the manuscript.

Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia and Oncologist Perception on Treatment: Results of a Web-Based Survey

Aims and background

Anemia prevalence and incidence in chemotherapy-treated patients is high. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are frequently employed in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia. However, other treatments such as red blood transfusion or iron supplementation are normally used. Recent international guidelines raised some concern about ESAs employment with a possible impact in chemotherapy-induced anemia management and changes in clinical practice behavior.

Methods

To evaluate opinions about chemotherapy-induced anemia clinical management preference, the Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM) Lombardy section coordinators sent via email a 12-item questionnaire about their knowledge on CIA and usual therapeutic strategies to manage this adverse event to AIOM Lombardy onco-hematologist members.

Results

From January 2011 to March 2011, 81 questionnaires were collected with an approximated share of 30%. The survey was completed mainly by oncologists (91%) aged 35–50 years (50%). Chemotherapy-induced anemia was considered to have clinical impact in changing cancer therapeutic strategy by nearly 60% of the respondents. ESAs were administered largely (80%) with concomitant iron supplementation in 52%; 38% jointly used blood transfusion as part of the therapy. Nearly 20% of those who replied correctly employed transferrin saturation levels as a marker to guide iron supplementation. Physician prescribers strictly followed the guidelines to start and stop ESAs even if 14% were negatively influenced by new ASCO recommendations. ESA biosimilars were considered future substitutes of originators in 45% of the cases.

Conclusions

Chemotherapy-induced anemia was perceived as an adverse event with a mild impact on clinical practice. ESAs were largely employed, however the number of transfusions and lack of employment of markers of iron depletion suggested that adherence to guidelines could be theoretically met but with some discordances regarding the most appropriate strategies in daily clinical practice.

Phase III randomized trial comparing intravenous to oral iron in patients with cancer-related iron deficiency anemia not on erythropoiesis stimulating agents

AIM

We aimed to find the optimal route of iron supplementation in patients with malignancy and iron deficiency (true or functional) anemia not receiving erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA).

METHODS

Adult patients with malignancy requiring chemotherapy, hemoglobin (Hb) <12 g/dL and serum ferritin <100 mcg/mL, transferrin saturation <20% or hypochromic red blood cells >10% were randomized to intravenous (IV) iron sucrose or oral ferrous sulfate. The primary endpoint was change in Hb from baseline to 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included blood transfusion, quality of life (QoL), toxicity, response and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients were enrolled over 5 years: 98 on IV arm and 94 on oral arm. Median age was 51 years; over 95% patients had solid tumors. The mean absolute increase in Hb at 6 weeks was 0.11 g/dL (standard deviation [SD]: 1.48) in IV arm and -0.16 g/dL (SD: 1.36) in oral arm, P = 0.23. Twenty-three percent patients on IV iron and 18% patients on oral iron had a rise in Hb of ≥1 g/dL at 6 weeks, P = 0.45. Thirteen patients (13.3%) on the IV iron arm and 14 patients (14.9%) on the oral arm required blood transfusion, P = 1.0. Gastrointestinal toxicity (any grade) developed in 41% patients on IV iron and 44% patients on oral iron, P = 1.0. 5 patients on IV iron and none on oral iron had hypersensitivity, P = 0.06. QoL was not significantly different between the two arms.

CONCLUSION

IV iron was not superior to oral iron in patients with malignancy on chemotherapy and iron deficiency anemia.

Use of iron sucrose and red blood cell transfusions in anaemic cancer patients in France (OncoFer study)

PURPOSE

This report describes the results of an observational, retrospective cohort study, evaluating the use of iron sucrose (IS) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in patients with cancer in routine clinical practice in France. A parallel investigated cohort treated with ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has been reported earlier.

METHODS

Data of patients with a solid tumour or haematological malignancy who have received IS or an RBC transfusion during 2010 from 3 months prior (M_-3) to 3 months post first treatment (M₊₃) were analysed.

RESULTS

Data from 46 patients who had received IS (400 mg median total iron dose) and 357 patients who had received RBC transfusions as first treatment (baseline) were included. Median haemoglobin levels improved from 9.9 g/dL (interquartile range 9.2; 11.0 g/dL) at baseline to 12.4 g/dL (11.4; 13.1 g/dL) at M₊₃ in IS-treated patients and from 8.2 g/dL (7.8; 8.8 g/dL) at baseline to 10.1 g/dL (8.8; 11.1 g/dL) in transfused patients. An erythropoiesis-stimulating agent was given to 54.3 and 28.9% of patients in the IS and the RBC transfusion groups, respectively, resulting in slightly better mean haemoglobin increase in both groups (2.4 vs 1.5 g/dL and 2.0 vs 1.6 g/dL, respectively). No severe nor serious adverse reaction and no hypersensitivity reactions were reported.

CONCLUSION

Both IS and RBC transfusions effectively increased Hb levels in patients with cancer. IS was safe and well tolerated in this population. Considering prior reported results with FCM, using FCM may reduce ESA dose requirements and the required number of infusions.

Anemia management in cancer patients with chronic kidney disease

Anemia is a common complication of cancer and chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with decreased physical performance as well as poor prognosis for life expectancy. Renal and cancer-induced anemia share common features regarding pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies. It is typically treated with iron substitution, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) and in refractory cases with red blood cell transfusions. However, studies of the past few years unveiled numerous setbacks in the use of ESAs. These included a higher risk of cerebrovascular events and increased mortality without the improvement of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD. Moreover, particularly negative results were observed in patients with previous cancer history under ESA therapy. These unfavorable findings have forced the clinicians to reevaluate the management of renal anemia. This led to decrease of ESA usage, while iron substitution and alternative therapeutic options gained more significance. Iron supplementation is also accompanied with certain risks ranging from gastrointestinal complications to severe allergic reactions and increased rate of infections. Furthermore, the evaluation of the long-term safety of excessive iron therapy is still lacking, especially in CKD patients with cancer. In the absence of these clinical studies, this review aims to summarize the currently available therapeutic strategies in anemia management of CKD patients with concomitant cancer.

Iron deficiency in cancer patients

Anemia is a frequent complication in cancer patients, both at diagnosis and during treatment, with a multifactorial etiology in most cases. Iron deficiency is among the most common causes of anemia in this setting and can develop in nearly half of patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Surprisingly, this fact is usually neglected by the attending physician in a way that proper and prompt investigation of the iron status is either not performed or postponed. In cancer patients, functional iron deficiency is the predominant mechanism, in which iron availability is reduced due to disease or the therapy-related inflammatory process. Hence, serum ferritin is not reliable in detecting iron deficiency in this setting, whereas transferrin saturation seems more appropriate for this purpose. Besides, lack of bioavailable iron can be further worsened by the use of erythropoiesis stimulating agents that increase iron utilization in the bone marrow. Iron deficiency can cause anemia or worsen pre-existing anemia, leading to a decline in performance status and adherence to treatment, with possible implications in clinical outcome. Due to its frequency and importance, treatment of this condition is already recommended in many specialty guidelines and should be performed preferably with intravenous iron. The evidences regarding the efficacy of this treatment are solid, with response gain when combined with erythropoiesis stimulating agents and significant increments in hemoglobin as monotherapy. Among intravenous iron formulations, slow release preparations present more favorable pharmacological characteristics and efficacy in cancer patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of iron therapy in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease: updated and abridged Cochrane review

AIMS

Anaemia is increasingly recognized as having an independent impact upon patient outcomes in cardiac disease. The role of novel iron therapies to treat anaemia is increasing. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases and search engines were searched as per Cochrane methodology. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of iron vs. inactive control or placebo, as well as alternative formulations, doses, and routes in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease or in the peri-partum period were eligible. The primary outcome of interest was mortality at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were blood transfusion, haemoglobin levels, quality of life, serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay. A total of 64 RCTs (including five studies of heart failure patients) comprising 9004 participants were included. None of the studies was at a low risk of bias. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality between iron and inactive control. Both oral and parenteral iron significantly reduced the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion compared with inactive control [risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.90; and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97, respectively]. Haemoglobin was increased more by both oral and parenteral iron compared with inactive control [mean difference (MD) 0.91 g/dL, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.35; and MD 1.04, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57, respectively], and parenteral iron demonstrated a greater increase when compared with oral iron (MD 0.53 g/dL, 95% CI 0.31-0.75). In all comparisons, there were no differences in the results comparing patients with and without heart failure.

CONCLUSION

Both oral and parenteral iron are shown to decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion and increase haemoglobin levels, without any benefit on mortality. Further trials at a low risk of bias, powered to measure clinically significant endpoints, are still required.

A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside versus Oral Iron Sulfate in Patients with Nonmyeloid Malignancies and Anemia Receiving Chemotherapy: The PROFOUND Trial

Study Objective

A safe alternative to erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents to treat anemia is warranted in patients with cancer and anemia; thus the objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron isomaltoside with oral iron in patients with cancer and anemia by testing the noninferiority of IV versus oral iron.

Design

Phase III, prospective, open‐label, comparative, randomized, noninferiority, multicenter trial.

Setting

Forty‐seven hospitals or private cancer clinics in Asia, the United States, and Europe.

Patients

A total of 350 patients with cancer and anemia.

Intervention

Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either intravenous iron isomaltoside or oral iron sulfate. Patients in the iron isomaltoside group were then randomized into an infusion subgroup (single intravenous infusions of a maximum dose of 1000 mg over 15 min) or a bolus injection subgroup (bolus injections of 500 mg over 2 min).

Measurements and Main Results

The primary efficacy outcome was change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 4. Changes in other relevant hematology variables, effect on quality of life, and safety outcomes were also assessed. The primary efficacy outcome was tested for noninferiority, whereas the remaining outcomes were tested for superiority. Iron isomaltoside was noninferior to oral iron in change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 4 (difference estimate 0.016, 95% confidence interval –0.26 to 0.29, p<0.001). A faster onset of the hemoglobin response was observed with infusion of iron isomaltoside (superiority test: p=0.03 at week 1), and a sustained effect on hemoglobin level was shown in both the iron isomaltoside and oral iron treatment groups until week 24. A significant mean decrease in fatigue score was observed from baseline to week 12 in the iron isomaltoside group (p<0.001) but not in the oral iron group (p=0.057). A higher proportion of patients treated with oral iron experienced adverse drug reactions (18.8% vs 6.6%, p<0.001) and discontinued the trial due to intolerance (8.0% vs 0.9%, p=0.001). Transient hypophosphatemia (phosphate level less than 2 mg/dl) was reported at similar low frequencies among the groups: 7.1% in the iron isomaltoside infusion subgroup versus 8.5% in the iron isomaltoside bolus injection subgroup versus 5.4% in the oral iron group.

Conclusion

This trial demonstrated comparable sustained increases in hemoglobin concentration over time with both iron isomaltoside and oral iron. Iron isomaltoside was better tolerated than oral iron, and fatigue was significantly decreased with iron isomaltoside. Low rates of clinically insignificant hypophosphatemia were reported in patients receiving both treatments.

The role of iron in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in cancer patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). However, about half of patients do not benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms related to the use of iron as a supplement to ESA and iron alone compared with ESA alone in the management of CIA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 1 January 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2016), and www.clinicaltrials.gov without using any language limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 'iron plus ESA' or 'iron alone' versus 'ESA alone' in people with CIA were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs (12 comparisons) comparing ESA plus iron versus ESA alone enrolling 2087 participants. We did not find any trial comparing iron alone versus ESAs alone in people with CIA. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. There was a beneficial effect of iron supplementation to ESAs compared with ESAs alone on hematopoietic response (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.26; P < 0.0001; 1712 participants; 11 comparisons; high-quality evidence). Assuming a baseline risk of 35% to 80% for hematopoietic response without iron supplementation, between seven and 16 patients should be treated to achieve hematopoietic response in one patient. In subgroup analyses, RCTs that used intravenous (IV) iron favored ESAs and iron (RR 1.20 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.31); P < 0.00001; 1321 participants; eight comparisons), whereas we found no evidence for a difference in hematopoietic response in RCTs using oral iron (RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24); P = 0.68; 391 participants; three comparisons). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of IV and oral iron (P = 0.16). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of types of iron (P = 0.31) and types of ESAs (P = 0.16) for hematopoietic response.The iron supplementation to ESAs might be beneficial as fewer participants treated with iron supplementation required red blood cell (RBC) transfusions compared to the number of participants treated with ESAs alone (RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.92); P = 0.007; 1719 participants; 11 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence). Assuming a baseline risk of 7% to 40% for RBC transfusion without iron supplementation, between 10 and 57 patients should be treated to avoid RBC transfusion in one patient.We found no evidence for a difference in the median time to hematopoietic response with addition of iron to ESAs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.28); P = 0.65; 1042 participants; seven comparisons; low-quality evidence). In subgroup analyses, RCTs in which dextran (HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.52); P = 0.92; 340 participants; three comparisons), sucrose iron (HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.21); P = 0.67; 102 participants; one comparison) and sulfate iron (HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.56); P = 0.06; 55 participants; one comparison) were used showed no evidence for difference between iron supplementation versus ESAs alone compared with RCTs in which gluconate (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.94); P = 0.01; 464 participants; two comparisons) was used for median time to hematopoietic response (P = 0.02). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of route of iron administration (P = 0.13) and types of ESAs (P = 0.46) for median time to hematopoietic response.Our results indicated that there could be improvement in the hemoglobin (Hb) levels with addition of iron to ESAs (mean difference (MD) 0.48 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.86); P = 0.01; 827 participants; seven comparisons; low-quality evidence). In RCTs in which IV iron was used there was evidence for a difference (MD 0.84 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.46); P = 0.009; 436 participants; four comparisons) compared with oral iron (MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.34); P = 0.59; 391 participants; three comparisons) for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.03). RCTs in which dextran (MD 1.55 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.47); P = 0.001; 102 participants; two comparisons) was used showed evidence for a difference with iron supplementation versus ESAs alone compared with RCTs in which gluconate (MD 0.54 (95% CI -0.15 to 1.22); P = 0.12; 334 participants; two comparisons) and sulfate iron (MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.34); P = 0.59; 391 participants; three comparisons) were used for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.007). RCTs in which epoetin was used showed evidence for a difference with iron supplementation versus ESAs alone (MD 0.77 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.29); P = 0.004; 337 participants; five comparisons) compared with darbepoetin use (MD 0.10 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.33); P = 0.38; 490 participants; two comparisons) for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.02).We found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with addition of iron to ESAs (standardized mean difference 0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.12); P = 0.88; 1124 participants; three RCTs; high-quality evidence).We found no evidence for a difference in risk of grade III-IV thromboembolic events (RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.65); P = 0.85; 783 participants; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). The incidence of treatment-related mortality (TRM) was 0% (997 participants; four comparisons; high-quality evidence).Other common adverse events included vomiting, asthenia, and leukopenia, and were similar in both arms.Overall the risk of bias across outcomes was high to low. Since the included RCTs had shorter follow-up duration (up to 20 weeks), the long-term effects of iron supplementation are unknown. Our main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review shows that addition of iron to ESAs offers superior hematopoietic response, reduces the risk of RBC transfusions, and improves Hb levels, and appears to be well tolerated. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. We found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with iron supplementation.

Iron metabolism and iron supplementation in cancer patients

Iron deficiency and iron deficiency-associated anemia are common complications in cancer patients. Most iron deficient cancer patients present with functional iron deficiency (FID), a status with adequate storage iron, but insufficient iron supply for erythroblasts and other iron dependent tissues. FID is the consequence of the cancer-associated cytokine release, while in absolute iron deficiency iron stores are depleted resulting in similar but often more severe symptoms of insufficient iron supply. Here we present a short review on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, clinical symptoms, and treatment of iron deficiency in cancer patients. Special emphasis is given to intravenous iron supplementation and on the benefits and limitations of different formulations. Based on these considerations and recommendations from current international guidelines we developed recommendations for clinical practice and classified the level of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the principles of evidence-based medicine.

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.

Intravenous Iron Therapy in Patients with Iron Deficiency Anemia: Dosing Considerations

Objective. To provide clinicians with evidence-based guidance for iron therapy dosing in patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA), we conducted a study examining the benefits of a higher cumulative dose of intravenous (IV) iron than what is typically administered. Methods. We first individually analyzed 5 clinical studies, averaging the total iron deficit across all patients utilizing a modified Ganzoni formula; we then similarly analyzed 2 larger clinical studies. For the second of the larger studies (Study 7), we also compared the efficacy and retreatment requirements of a cumulative dose of 1500 mg ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) to 1000 mg iron sucrose (IS). Results. The average iron deficit was calculated to be 1531 mg for patients in Studies 1-5 and 1392 mg for patients in Studies 6-7. The percentage of patients who were retreated with IV iron between Days 56 and 90 was significantly (p < 0.001) lower (5.6%) in the 1500 mg group, compared to the 1000 mg group (11.1%). Conclusions. Our data suggests that a total cumulative dose of 1000 mg of IV iron may be insufficient for iron repletion in a majority of patients with IDA and a dose of 1500 mg is closer to the actual iron deficit in these patients.

[Management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in lung cancer]

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of chemotherapy-induced anemia in lung cancer is estimated at about 80%.

STATE OF ART

There are currently no specific recommendations for the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in lung cancer. In this paper, we propose a synthesis of currently existing data in the literature on the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in general, supplemented with specific data about the efficacy and safety of erythropoietic therapy in lung cancer.

PERSPECTIVES

Better management of chemotherapy-induced anemia improves patient's quality of life and reduces red blood cell transfusion requirement. In the meantime, in respect to currently missing data, thoracic oncologists should develop specific recommendations for the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in lung cancer, with specific studies in this domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with lung cancer is high and has a significant impact on these patients quality of life, a specific prospective management should be implemented as early as possible.

Switching patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease from oral iron to intravenous ferric carboxymaltose: effects on erythropoiesis-stimulating agent requirements, costs, hemoglobin and iron status

Background

Patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (ND-CKD) often receive an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) and oral iron treatment. This study evaluated whether a switch from oral iron to intravenous ferric carboxymaltose can reduce ESA requirements and improve iron status and hemoglobin in patients with ND-CKD.

Methods

This prospective, single arm and single-center study included adult patients with ND-CKD (creatinine clearance ≤40 mL/min), hemoglobin 11–12 g/dL and iron deficiency (ferritin <100 μg/L or transferrin saturation <20%), who were regularly treated with oral iron and ESA during 6 months prior to inclusion. Study patients received an intravenous ferric carboxymaltose dose of 1,000 mg iron, followed by a 6-months ESA/ ferric carboxymaltose maintenance regimen (target: hemoglobin 12 g/dL, transferrin saturation >20%). Outcome measures were ESA dose requirements during the observation period after initial ferric carboxymaltose treatment (primary endpoint); number of hospitalizations and transfusions, renal function before and after ferric carboxymaltose administration, number of adverse reactions (secondary endpoints). Hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume, ferritin and transferrin saturation were measured monthly from baseline until end of study. Creatinine clearance, proteinuria, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase and alkaline phosphatase bimonthly from baseline until end of study.

Results

Thirty patients were enrolled (age 70.1±11.4 years; mean±SD). Mean ESA consumption was significantly reduced by 83.2±10.9% (from 41,839±3,668 IU/patient to 6,879±4,271 IU/patient; p<0.01). Hemoglobin increased by 0.7±0.3 g/dL, ferritin by 196.0±38.7 μg/L and transferrin saturation by 5.3±2.9% (month 6 vs. baseline; all p<0.01). No ferric carboxymaltose-related adverse events were reported and no patient withdrew or required transfusions during the study.

Conclusion

Among patients with ND-CKD and stable normal or borderline hemoglobin, switching from oral iron to intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was associated with significant improvements in hematological and iron parameters and a significant reduction in ESA dose requirements in this single-center pilot study.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02232906

Biosimilar epoetin α is as effective as originator epoetin-α plus liposomal iron (Sideral®), vitamin B12 and folates in patients with refractory anemia: A retrospective real-life approach

Several biosimilar versions of recombinant human erythropoietin are currently approved for use in Europe, including a biosimilar epoetin-α. The aim of this the study was to verify that biosimilar epoetin-α is similar in terms of efficacy, safety and cost to originator epoetin-α for the treatment of refractory anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. A total of 92 patients with myelodysplasia and refractory anemia were investigated. The patients received either originator (group A) or biosimilar (group B) epoetin-α. In addition, they received liposomal iron (Sideral®), calcium levofolinate and vitamin B12. Moreover, the median monthly overall costs were calculated for each group. The results demonstrated that hemoglobin (Hb) levels increased by 1 g/dl after a median time of 5 weeks in group A and 4 weeks in group B. In group A, a Hb level of >12 g/dl was achieved after 12 weeks, while in group B after 10.5 weeks. The median cost of therapy was 1,536 euros/month in group A and 1,354 euros/month in group B. A total of 5 patients required transfusion support in group A and 7 in group B. In conclusion, biosimilar epoetin-α appears to be comparable to originator epoetin-α in terms of efficacy and safety for the treatment of refractory anemia.

Hypersensitivity from intravenous iron products

In the last several years, intravenous therapy with iron products has been more widely used. Although it has been a standard procedure in dialysis-associated anemia since the early 1990s, its use is expanding to a host of conditions associated with iron deficiency, especially young women with heavy uterine bleeding and pregnancy. Free iron is associated with unacceptable high toxicity inducing severe, hemodynamically significant symptoms. Subsequently, formulations that contain the iron as an iron carbohydrate nanoparticle have been designed. With newer formulations, including low-molecular-weight iron dextran, iron sucrose, ferric gluconate, ferumoxytol, iron isomaltoside, and ferric carboxymaltose, serious adverse events are rare.

Pre-operative anaemia

Pre-operative anaemia is a relatively common finding, affecting a third of patients undergoing elective surgery. Traditionally associated with chronic disease, management has historically focused on the use of blood transfusion as a solution for anaemia in the peri-operative period. Data from large series now suggest that anaemia is an independent risk associated with poor outcome in both cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. Furthermore, blood transfusion does not appear to ameliorate this risk, and in fact may increase the risk of postoperative complications and hospital length of stay. Consequently, there is a need to identify, diagnose and manage pre-operative anaemia to reduce surgical risk. Discoveries in the pathways of iron metabolism have found that chronic disease can cause a state of functional iron deficiency leading to anaemia. The key iron regulatory protein hepcidin, activated in response to inflammation, inhibits absorption of iron from the gastrointestinal tract and further reduces bioavailability of iron stores for red cell production. Consequently, although iron stores (predominantly ferritin) may be normal, the transport of iron either from the gastrointestinal tract or iron stores to the bone marrow is inhibited, leading to a state of 'functional' iron deficiency and subsequent anaemia. Since absorption from the gastrointestinal tract is blocked, increasing oral iron intake is ineffective, and studies are now looking at the role of intravenous iron to treat anaemia in the surgical setting. In this article, we review the incidence and impact of anaemia on the pre-operative patient. We explain how anaemia may be caused by functional iron deficiency, and how iron deficiency anaemia may be diagnosed and treated.

The safety of intravenous iron preparations: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To amass all available evidence regarding the safety of intravenous (IV) iron preparations to provide a true balance of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing IV iron to another comparator. All electronic databases until January 1, 2014, were reviewed. Primary outcome was occurrence of severe adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and other adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of type of IV iron, comparator, treated condition, and system involved.

RESULTS

A total of 103 trials published between 1965 through 2013 were included. A total of 10,390 patients were treated with IV iron compared with 4044 patients treated with oral iron, 1329 with no iron, 3335 with placebo, and 155 with intramuscular iron. There was no increased risk of SAEs with IV iron (relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17; I(2)=9%). Subgroup analysis revealed a decreased rate of SAEs when IV iron was used to treat heart failure (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70; I(2)=0%). Severe infusion reactions were more common with IV iron (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.43-4.28; I(2)=0%). There was no increased risk of infections with IV iron. Gastrointestinal AEs were reduced with IV iron.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous iron therapy is not associated with an increased risk of SAEs or infections. Infusion reactions are more pronounced with IV iron.

Iron therapy in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Anaemia affects about a quarter of the world's population. An estimated 50% of anaemic people have anaemia due to iron deficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia who are not pregnant or lactating and do not have chronic kidney disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 11 July 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus (EBSCO Host), the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science (ISI WOS) Scientific Citation Index (SCI)-EXPANDED (1970) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI)-Science (1990) and Clinicaltrials.gov; we also screened reference lists. An updated search was run on 24 November 2014 but the results have not yet been incorporated into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full-text articles for selected references.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis when possible, when I(2) was less than or equal to 80% using a fixed-effect or random-effects model, using Review Manager software. The range of point estimates for individual studies is presented when I(2) > 80%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this systematic review 4745 participants who were randomly assigned in 21 trials. Trials were conducted in a wide variety of clinical settings. Most trials included participants with mild to moderate anaemia and excluded participants who were allergic to iron therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias for one or more domains. We compared both oral iron and parenteral iron versus inactive controls and compared different iron preparations.The comparison between oral iron and inactive control revealed no evidence of clinical benefit in terms of mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61; four studies, N = 659; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged from 0.3 to 3.1 g/dL higher in the oral iron group than in the inactive control group. The proportion of participants who required blood transfusion was lower with oral iron than with inactive control (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; three studies, N = 546; very low-quality evidence). Evidence was inadequate for determination of the effect of parenteral iron on mortality versus oral iron (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.94; 10 studies, N = 2141; very low-quality evidence) or inactive control (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.69; six studies, N = 1009; very low-quality evidence). Haemoglobin levels were higher with parenteral iron than with oral iron (MD -0.50 g/dL, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.27; six studies, N = 769; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged between 0.3 and 3.0 g/dL higher in the parenteral iron group than in the inactive control group. Differences in the proportion of participants requiring blood transfusion between parenteral iron and oral iron groups (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.58; two studies, N = 371; very low-quality evidence) or between parenteral iron groups and inactive controls (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06; eight studies, N = 1315; very low-quality evidence) were imprecise. Average blood volume transfused was less in the parenteral iron group than in the oral iron group (MD -0.54 units, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.12; very low-quality evidence) based on one study involving 44 people. Differences between therapies in quality of life or in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events were imprecise (very low-quality evidence). No trials reported severe allergic reactions due to parenteral iron, suggesting that these are rare. Adverse effects related to oral iron treatment included nausea, diarrhoea and constipation; most were mild.Comparisons of one iron preparation over another for mortality, haemoglobin or serious adverse events were imprecise. No information was available on quality of life. Thus, little evidence was found to support the use of one preparation or regimen over another.Subgroup analyses did not reveal consistent results; therefore we were unable to determine whether iron is useful in specific clinical situations, or whether iron therapy might be useful for people who are receiving erythropoietin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

• Very low-quality evidence suggests that oral iron might decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion, and no evidence indicates that it decreases mortality. Oral iron might be useful in adults who can tolerate the adverse events, which are usually mild.• Very low-quality evidence suggests that intravenous iron results in a modest increase in haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron or inactive control without clinical benefit.• No evidence can be found to show any advantage of one iron preparation or regimen over another.• Additional randomised controlled trials with low risk of bias and powered to measure clinically useful outcomes such as mortality, quality of life and blood transfusion requirements are needed.

Iron sucrose - characteristics, efficacy and regulatory aspects of an established treatment of iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia in a broad range of therapeutic areas

INTRODUCTION

Iron is a key element in the transport and utilization of oxygen and a variety of metabolic pathways. Iron deficiency is a major cause of anemia and can be associated with fatigue, impaired physical function and reduced quality of life. Administration of oral or intravenous (i.v.) iron is the recommended treatment for iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) in different therapeutic areas.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides an overview of studies that evaluated i.v. iron sucrose for anemia and iron status management, either alone or in combination with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, across various diseases and conditions.

EXPERT OPINION

Iron sucrose is an established, effective and well-tolerated treatment of IDA in patients with acute or chronic conditions such as chronic kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, pregnancy (second and third trimester), postpartum period, heavy menstrual bleeding and cancer who need rapid iron supply and in whom oral iron preparations are ineffective or not tolerated. Available data on patient blood management warrant further studies on preoperative iron treatment. First experience with iron sucrose follow-on products raises questions about their therapeutic equivalence without comparative clinical data in newly diagnosed patients or patients on existing chronic treatment.

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.

Diagnosis and treatment of cancer-related anemia

Cancer-related anemia (CRA) is due to multiple etiologies, including chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, blood loss, functional iron deficiency, erythropoietin deficiency due to renal disease, marrow involvement with tumor as well as other factors. The most common treatment options for CRA include iron therapy, erythropoietic-stimulating agents (ESAs), and red cell transfusion. Safety concerns as well as restrictions and reimbursement issues surrounding ESA therapy for CRA have resulted in suboptimal treatment. Similarly, many clinicians are not familiar or comfortable using intravenous iron products to treat functional iron deficiency associated with CRA. This article summarizes our approach to treating CRA and discusses commonly encountered clinical scenarios for which current clinical guidelines do not apply.

Iron deficiency in patients with solid tumours: prevalence and management in clinical practice

PURPOSE

The objective of the present study was to describe the prevalence and management of anaemia and iron deficiency (ID) in treatment-naïve patients with solid tumours in Spain and the incidence of anaemia over 4 months of cancer treatment in clinical practice.

METHODS

Multicentre, prospective and observational study in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Data on anaemia and iron parameters and its management were collected prior to the initiation of chemotherapy, at each cycle of chemotherapy and after 4 months of treatment. The main outcomes of the study were the prevalence of anaemia at baseline, its incidence during cancer treatment and the prevalence of absolute ID (AID) and functional ID (FID) prior to chemotherapy initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 295 patients were included in the study. Anaemia was present at diagnosis in 38.6 % of patients and was treated only in 32.5 % of those. A total of 106 patients (60.2 %) without anaemia at baseline developed anaemia during cancer treatment. Serum ferritin and transferrin saturation data were available for 151 of the patients (51.2 %) included in the study. The overall prevalence of ID was 59 %: 48 patients (31.8 %) presented with AID and 41 patients (27.2 %) presented with FID before starting anti-cancer therapy. Thirty-three of 44 non-anaemic iron-deficient patients did not receive any type of iron supplementation before initiating cancer therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Iron parameters are not commonly measured in newly diagnosed cancer patients. A correct evaluation and early management of ID could reduce the incidence of treatment-related anaemia in cancer patients.