Effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on survival and other outcomes in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies: a study-level meta-analysis

Approaches to aggressive B-cell lymphomas in less fit patients

Treating unfit patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma poses the dilemma of balancing potential cure while minimizing toxicity because of frailty and comorbidities. Age greater than 80 years and common comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus often preclude the use of full-dose anthracyclines and steroids, the backbones of standard regimens for aggressive B-cell lymphomas. Assessing patient fitness remains subjective, with no consensus on best practice or how to integrate assessment tools into decision making. Incorporation of prephase steroids for all unfit patients may markedly improve performance status with consideration of standard dose therapy, especially in patients less than age 80. Although randomized studies are lacking, current data suggest patients age ≥ 80 years are considered unfit a priori and should receive dose-reduced anthracycline regimens or anthracycline-free regimens. Severe toxicity is highest after the first cycle of chemotherapy. Dose reductions for cycle 1 in unfit patients with plans to escalate as tolerated is often an effective strategy. Unfit patients often benefit from comanagement with gerontologists, cardio-oncologists, and endocrinologists depending on age and the nature of comorbidities. Palliative therapy for patients with newly diagnosed aggressive B-cell lymphoma results in median survivals of less than 3 months, and in general, should only be considered in patients with untreatable comorbidities such as advanced dementia or refractory metastatic solid tumors. Incorporating new, potentially less toxic agents such as novel antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and bispecific antibodies into first-line therapy is an exciting future direction with potential for substantial benefit in less fit patients.

Management of cancer-associated anemia with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: ASCO/ASH clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/American Society of Hematology (ASH) recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs in patients with cancer published from January 31, 2010, through May 14, 2018. For biosimilar ESAs, the literature search was expanded to include meta-analyses and RCTs in patients with cancer or chronic kidney disease and cohort studies in patients with cancer due to limited RCT evidence in the cancer setting. ASCO and ASH convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.

RESULTS

The primary literature review included 15 meta-analyses of RCTs and two RCTs. A growing body of evidence suggests that adding iron to treatment with an ESA may improve hematopoietic response and reduce the likelihood of RBC transfusion. The biosimilar literature review suggested that biosimilars of epoetin alfa have similar efficacy and safety to reference products, although evidence in cancer remains limited.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ESAs (including biosimilars) may be offered to patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia whose cancer treatment is not curative in intent and whose hemoglobin has declined to < 10 g/dL. RBC transfusion is also an option. With the exception of selected patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, ESAs should not be offered to most patients with nonchemotherapy-associated anemia. During ESA treatment, hemoglobin may be increased to the lowest concentration needed to avoid transfusions. Iron replacement may be used to improve hemoglobin response and reduce RBC transfusions for patients receiving ESA with or without iron deficiency. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.hematology.org/guidelines.

Comorbidity assessment to determine prognosis in older adult patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma

The clinical management of older adult patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a major challenge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of comorbidity assessment according to a standardized approach, the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), on prognosis in patients with classical HL aged 60 years and older. We studied 76 consecutive older adult patients with HL (median age 69 y, range 60-84) who had been treated in our institution between 1999 and 2018. Comorbidity was assessed at diagnosis according to CIRS. Anthracycline-containing chemotherapy with curative intent was administered in 59 (78%) patients. We identified 41 (54%) patients with at least one severe comorbidity rated on CIRS grade ≥ 3. Patients with severe comorbidity were more likely to have advanced-stage disease (P = .003), to have an International Prognostic Score (IPS) > 3 (P = .03), and to not receive anthracycline-containing chemotherapy (P = .008). The probability of overall survival (OS) at 3 years was 88% (95% CI, 71%-95%) in patients without severe comorbidities, while it was only 46% (95% CI, 29%-62%) in patients with a comorbidity CIRS grade ≥ 3 (P = .0001). The impact of comorbidity on prognosis was also evident when restricting the analysis to patients treated with anthracycline-containing therapy. The 3-year OS was 93% (95% CI, 76%-98%) (P = .004) in patients without severe comorbidity and 72% (95% CI, 47%-87%) in patients with severe comorbidity (P = .004). In a multivariate analysis, presence of comorbidity, but not age, was a significant factor for OS. Therefore, we conclude that a significant proportion of older adult patients with HL has severe comorbidity on the CIRS scale, which impacts more importantly than age on prognosis.

Erythropoietin and its derivatives: from tissue protection to immune regulation

Erythropoietin (EPO) is an evolutionarily conserved hormone well documented for its erythropoietic role via binding the homodimeric EPO receptor (EPOR)₂. In past decades, evidence has proved that EPO acts far beyond erythropoiesis. By binding the tissue-protective receptor (TPR), EPO suppresses proinflammatory cytokines, protects cells from apoptosis and promotes wound healing. Very recently, new data revealed that TPR is widely expressed on a variety of immune cells, and EPO could directly modulate their activation, differentiation and function. Notably, nonerythropoietic EPO derivatives, which mimic the structure of helix B within EPO, specifically bind TPR and show great potency in tissue protection and immune regulation. These small peptides prevent the cardiovascular side effects of EPO and are promising as clinical drugs. This review briefly introduces the receptors and tissue-protective effects of EPO and its derivatives and highlights their immunomodulatory functions and application prospects.

Management of Cancer-Associated Anemia With Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents: ASCO/ASH Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/American Society of Hematology (ASH) recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs in patients with cancer published from January 31, 2010, through May 14, 2018. For biosimilar ESAs, the literature search was expanded to include meta-analyses and RCTs in patients with cancer or chronic kidney disease and cohort studies in patients with cancer due to limited RCT evidence in the cancer setting. ASCO and ASH convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.

RESULTS

The primary literature review included 15 meta-analyses of RCTs and two RCTs. A growing body of evidence suggests that adding iron to treatment with an ESA may improve hematopoietic response and reduce the likelihood of RBC transfusion. The biosimilar literature review suggested that biosimilars of epoetin alfa have similar efficacy and safety to reference products, although evidence in cancer remains limited.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ESAs (including biosimilars) may be offered to patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia whose cancer treatment is not curative in intent and whose hemoglobin has declined to < 10 g/dL. RBC transfusion is also an option. With the exception of selected patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, ESAs should not be offered to most patients with nonchemotherapy-associated anemia. During ESA treatment, hemoglobin may be increased to the lowest concentration needed to avoid transfusions. Iron replacement may be used to improve hemoglobin response and reduce RBC transfusions for patients receiving ESA with or without iron deficiency. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.hematology.org/guidelines .

Effectiveness of Darbepoetin Alfa for Chemotherapy-induced Anemia When Initiated at Hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL

PURPOSE

Limited data are available to describe the effectiveness of darbepoetin alfa (DA) in terms of hemoglobin (Hb) and transfusion outcomes when initiated at Hb ≤10 g/dL (the threshold specified in the summary of prescribing characteristics). We assessed DA, initiated according to current labeling (Hb ≤10 g/dL), in chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA).

METHODS

Data for patients with cancer and CIA who initiated DA at Hb ≤10 g/dL were extracted from a database of Amgen-sponsored trials. A comparative analysis was limited to randomized, controlled trials in patients treated with DA or control (placebo/best supportive care). Data for the DA arm(s) of randomized, multiple-arm, or prospective, single-arm trials were also extracted (DA-only analysis; non-front-loaded studies only). Outcomes included Hb increase ≥1 g/dL or ≥2 g/dL during the first 12 weeks of treatment. Crude and Kaplan-Meier proportions of patients who experienced each outcome and time (days) to each outcome were summarized by treatment arm. Meta-analysis (fixed-effects inverse-variance method) was performed to compare outcomes for DA with control.

FINDINGS

The comparative analysis included 4 studies (2 in lung cancer, 1 in lymphoproliferative disease, and 1 in non-myeloid malignancy: DA, n = 261; control, n = 273). The DA-only analysis included 15 studies (n = 3768). In comparative analyses, more patients who received DA than placebo achieved Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL (fixed-effects hazard ratio [HR] = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.62-2.63) or ≥2 g/dL (HR = 2.91; 95% CI, 2.09-4.06). Median times to ≥1 g/dL or ≥2 g/dL increase were 43 or 78 days for DA (not evaluable for placebo). Transfusions were less common in patients who received DA (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77). Addition of 2 dose-finding studies did not change the findings of the main comparative analysis. Results were similar in the DA-only analyses.

IMPLICATIONS

This is the first patient-level meta-analysis, to our knowledge, to evaluate the efficacy in terms of Hb response of DA treatment when initiated according to current product labeling in patients with CIA. Limitations include the small number of studies and patients eligible for inclusion in the comparative analyses and the absence of non-Amgen trials of DA. The results of the comparative analysis confirm that DA is more effective than placebo at increasing serum Hb levels and at reducing the need for transfusion in patients with CIA when treatment is initiated at Hb ≤10 g/dL, as per current product labeling.

Elevated risk of venous but not arterial thrombosis in Waldenström macroglobulinemia/lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Many malignancies, including multiple myeloma and its precursor, monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significant, are associated with an elevated risk of thromboembolism. There is limited information on the risk of thrombosis in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of venous and arterial thrombosis in WM/LPL patients in a large population-based cohort study in Sweden.

PATIENTS/METHODS

A total of 2190 patients with WM/LPL and 8086 matched controls were identified through Swedish registers between 1987 and 2005. Information on occurrence of venous and arterial thrombosis after the diagnosis of WM/LPL was obtained through the centralized Swedish Patient Register, with follow-up to 2006. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Patients with WM/LPL had a significantly increased risk of venous thrombosis and the highest risk was observed during the first year following diagnosis (HR = 4.0, 95% CI 2.5-6.4). The risk was significantly elevated 5 (HR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.7-3.0) and 10 years after diagnosis (HR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.5). There was no increased risk of arterial thrombosis during any period of follow-up time (10-year HR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.9-1.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Venous thrombosis is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with WM/LPL. The potential role of thromboprophylaxis in WM/LPL, especially during the first year after diagnosis and in patients treated with thrombogenic agents, needs to be assessed to further improve outcome in WM/LPL patients.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are used in treating cancer- and chemotherapy-induced anemia with the aim of accelerating the recovery of red blood cells (RBCs), reduce the risks associated with RBC transfusions and improve quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review has been conducted to examine the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of using ESAs in hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs).

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the international recommendations for the use of ESAs in treating different malignancies, there is a lack of guidelines for their use in patients undergoing HSCT. An evaluation of published clinical trials shows that there are no available powerful studies concerning the use of ESAs in this setting, with only heterogeneous and small numbers of patients reported so far. Nevertheless, the more robust and intriguing of these data suggest that the ESA's administration at an appropriate time after the infusion of stem cells may be effective both in autologous and allogeneic HSCTs. New guidelines are required, overseen by an expert in the in the field of stem cell transplantation.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the management of cancer patients with anemia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are widely used in the management of anemia in cancer patients. Despite their apparent effectiveness, recent studies have suggested that ESAs could result in serious adverse events and even higher mortality. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the benefits and risks of ESAs in the management of cancer patients with anemia using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The initial literature search covered Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and identified 1,569 articles. The final meta-analysis included eight randomized controlled trials (n=2,387) in cancer patients with <11 g/dL hemoglobin (Hb) at the baseline and target Hb (for stopping ESA treatment) at no more than 13 g/dL. The assessment measures included Hb response, blood transfusion rate and adverse events that included venous thromboemblism (VTE), hypertension, and on-study mortality. The results are expressed as pooled odds ratio (OR). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot analysis.

RESULTS

ESAs significantly increased the Hb concentration [OR 7.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.85 to 10.53, P<0.001] and reduced the red blood cell (RBC) transfusion rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65, P<0.001). ESAs did not increase the accumulated adverse events (OR 0.95, P=0.82), or the on-study mortality (OR 1.09, P=0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

ESAs are not associated with increased frequency of severe adverse events in anemic cancer patients when the target Hb value is no more than 13 g/dL.

Pharmacovigilance in practice: erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

Pharmacovigilance (PV) is the science and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse effects or other problems related to medical products after they have been licensed for marketing. The purpose of PV is to advance the safe use of marketed medical products. Regulatory agencies and license holders collaborate to collect data reported by health care providers, patients, and the public as well as data from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and individual clinical and nonclinical studies. They validate and analyze the data to determine whether safety signals exist, and if warranted, develop an action plan to mitigate the identified risk. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) provide an example of how PV is applied in reality. Among other approved indications, ESAs may be used to treat anemia in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia. ESAs increase hemoglobin levels and reduce the need for transfusions; they are also associated with a known increased risk of thromboembolic events. Starting in 2003, emerging data suggested that ESAs might reduce survival. As a result of PV activities by regulatory agencies and license holders, labeling for ESAs addresses these risks. Meta-analyses and individual clinical studies have confirmed that ESAs increase the risk of thromboembolic events, but when used as indicated, ESAs have not been shown to have a significant effect on survival or disease progression. Ongoing safety studies will provide additional data in the coming years to further clarify the risks and benefits of ESAs.