Search

Many physicians agree on the advantages of using Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) in daily practice, but they do not make use of this method very often. One reason for this lack of EbM implementation is that it is difficult to access clinically relevant and appropriate information in daily practice. The division "Principles and Practices of EbM" in the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (DNEbM) initiated a pilot project to improve their information management. During two weeks in February 2007 physicians in a local setting in the southeast part of Germany were offered an EbM expert service. They were asked to formulate open-ended questions arising from daily practice. Seventeen experts answered these questions within a three day period. In addition, all participants regularly received an edited version of these topics, and finally a questionnaire was sent out to evaluate physician satisfaction. Five family doctors and two hospital departments formulated 28 questions in two weeks. There was a wide range of answers, from evidence summaries (including full texts of the trials or relevant guidelines) up to expert opinion together with a discussion of different action strategies in the case of uncertain evidence. The participating physicians' satisfaction with this offer of low-barrier access to the best available evidence and the answers provided by the experts was high. Apart from the suggested solutions to the respective problems the project initiated a critical self-analysis of their individual clinical practice among the participating physicians. All of them saw the need for continuing this project. Further investigations are needed in order to optimise both the process of EbM implementation on a long-term basis and the health care quality by providing EbM expert services.

This is an updated systematic review of 57 trials and 9353 cancer patients from articles, abstracts, and reports published between January 1, 1985, and April 30, 2005, on the effects of epoetin alfa and beta (i.e., epoetin) and darbepoetin alfa (i.e., darbepoetin). We included randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin or darbepoetin plus red blood cell transfusion with red blood cell transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anemia in cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and conference proceedings were searched. Effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with fixed-effects models. Treatment with epoetin or darbepoetin statistically significantly reduced the risk for red blood cell transfusions (relative risk [RR] = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.68; 42 trials and 6510 patients) and improved hematologic response (RR = 3.43, 95% CI = 3.07 to 3.84; 22 trials and 4307 patients). Treatment with epoetin or darbepoetin increased the risk of thrombo-embolic events (RR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.35 to 2.06; 35 trials and 6769 patients). Uncertainties remain as to whether and how epoetin or darbepoetin affects overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.18; 42 trials and 8167 patients). Caution is advised when using epoetin or darbepoetin in combination with thrombogenic chemotherapeutic agents or for cancer patients who are at high risk for thrombo-embolic events.

In patients with acute myelogenous leukemia, published guidelines and treatment recommendations are usually the basis for starting the work-up process for allogeneic transplant. However, only consistent recommendations would allow a standardized clinical practice. We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search to identify and evaluate the best available evidence from controlled clinical trials. In addition, recommendations given by leading organizations in the USA and Europe were analyzed. The following aspects were selected for systematic comparison: factors for risk assessment and categorization, role of type of donor, significance of allogeneic transplant in first or second complete remission and in relapse/progressive disease; and role of reduced intensity conditioning regimens. In conclusion, the recommendations for the use of allogeneic transplant given by the literature and by published guidelines are inconsistent and will need clarification.

Many physicians agree on the advantages of using Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) in daily practice, but they do not make use of this method very often. One reason for this lack of EbM implementation is that it is difficult to access clinically relevant and appropriate information in daily practice. The division "Principles and Practices of EbM" in the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (DNEbM) initiated a pilot project to improve their information management. During two weeks in February 2007 physicians in a local setting in the southeast part of Germany were offered an EbM expert service. They were asked to formulate open-ended questions arising from daily practice. Seventeen experts answered these questions within a three day period. In addition, all participants regularly received an edited version of these topics, and finally a questionnaire was sent out to evaluate physician satisfaction. Five family doctors and two hospital departments formulated 28 questions in two weeks. There was a wide range of answers, from evidence summaries (including full texts of the trials or relevant guidelines) up to expert opinion together with a discussion of different action strategies in the case of uncertain evidence. The participating physicians' satisfaction with this offer of low-barrier access to the best available evidence and the answers provided by the experts was high. Apart from the suggested solutions to the respective problems the project initiated a critical self-analysis of their individual clinical practice among the participating physicians. All of them saw the need for continuing this project. Further investigations are needed in order to optimise both the process of EbM implementation on a long-term basis and the health care quality by providing EbM expert services.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce anemia in cancer patients and may improve quality of life, but there are concerns that ESAs might increase mortality. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to examine the effect of ESAs and identify factors that modify the effects of ESAs on overall survival, progression free survival, thromboembolic and cardiovascular events as well as need for transfusions and other important safety and efficacy outcomes in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and conference proceedings for eligible trials. Manufacturers of ESAs were contacted to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin or darbepoetin plus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) versus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) alone, to prevent or treat anemia in adult or pediatric cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin alpha, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alpha plus red blood cell transfusions versus transfusion alone, for prophylaxis or therapy of anemia while or after receiving anti-cancer treatment. Patient-level data were obtained and analyzed by independent statisticians at two academic departments, using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were according to the intention-to-treat principle. Primary endpoints were on study mortality and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, regardless of anticancer treatment, and in patients receiving chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of ESAs on mortality across pre-specified subgroups. The present review reports only the results for the primary endpoint. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 13933 cancer patients from 53 trials were analyzed, 1530 patients died on-study and 4993 overall. ESAs increased on study mortality (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (cHR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33, respectively). Thirty-eight trials enrolled 10441 patients receiving chemotherapy. The cHR for on study mortality was 1.10 (95% CI 0.98-1.24) and 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients receiving different cancer treatments (P for interaction=0.42). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESA treatment in cancer patients increased on study mortality and worsened overall survival. For patients undergoing chemotherapy the increase was less pronounced, but an adverse effect could not be excluded.

Summary Background Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer. Methods Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups. Findings Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1·17, 95% CI 1·06–1·30) and worsened overall survival (1·06, 1·00–1·12), with little heterogeneity between trials ( I 2 0%, p=0·87 for mortality during the active study period, and I 2 7·1%, p=0·33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1·10 (0·98–1·24), and 1·04 (0·97–1·11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0·42). Interpretation Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits. Funding German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

BACKGROUND: Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and red blood cell transfusions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ESAs to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE and other databases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review, 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the first update and to November 2011 for the current update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients receiving or not receiving anti‐cancer therapy that compared the use of ESAs (plus transfusion if needed). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. One review author assessed quality assessment and extracted data, a second review author checked for correctness. MAIN RESULTS: This update of the systematic review includes a total of 91 trials with 20,102 participants. Use of ESAs significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.68, 70 trials, N = 16,093). On average, participants in the ESAs group received one unit of blood less than the control group (mean difference (MD) ‐0.98; 95% CI ‐1.17 to ‐0.78, 19 trials, N = 4,715). Haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving ESAs (RR 3.93; 95% CI 3.10 to 3.71, 31 trials, N = 6,413). There was suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve Quality of Life (QoL). There was strong evidence that ESAs increase mortality during active study period (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29, 70 trials, N = 15,935) and some evidence that ESAs decrease overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, 78 trials, N = 19,003). The risk ratio for thromboembolic complications was increased in patients receiving ESAs compared to controls (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 57 trials, N = 15,498). ESAs may also increase the risk for hypertension (fixed‐effect model: RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.56; random‐effects model: RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33, 31 trials, N = 7,228) and thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42; 21 trials, N = 4,507). There was insufficient evidence to support an effect of ESA on tumour response (fixed‐effect RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06, 15 trials, N = 5,012). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESAs reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions but increase the risk for thromboembolic events and deaths. There is suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve QoL. Whether and how ESAs affects tumour control remains uncertain. The increased risk of death and thromboembolic events should be balanced against the potential benefits of ESA treatment taking into account each patient’s clinical circumstances and preferences. More data are needed for the effect of these drugs on quality of life and tumour progression. Further research is needed to clarify cellular and molecular mechanisms and pathways of the effects of ESAs on thrombogenesis and their potential effects on tumour growth.

The aim of the Cochrane Collaboration (CC) is to bridge the gap of information transfer between the clinician and the patient. For this purpose, the CC pursues since years the concept of involving the consumers in the process of collaborative review groups. In spite of a positive experience altogether, some barriers (for example the communication between the scientists involved in CC review groups and the patients) remain to be overcome. To improve the information transfer, the Cochrane Hematological Malignancies Group (CHMG) has built a consumer network within the initiatives of the German Cancer Association, for example devising specific training concepts. The German Cochrane Center, on the other hand, focuses on direct information of patients and interested consumers, and provides translated consumer synopses of all available systematic reviews (SR) adapted for use in the German health system. In the future, it will be necessary to develop more concepts to optimize the patient participation process, and to find methods to measure the impact of these projects on the patient outcome.

For cancer patients, anemia can be a debilitating problem that negatively influences their overall quality of life and worsens their prognosis. The condition is caused either by the cancer itself or by cytotoxic treatment. Anemia is the primary indication for transfusion of red blood cells, but the development of recombinant human erythropoietins (epoetins) provides an alternative to red blood cell transfusions. Treatment with epoetins has been shown to reduce transfusion rates and increase hemoglobin response. There is some evidence that epoetins improve quality of life. It remains unclear, however, whether erythropoietin affects tumor growth and survival, and this area requires further investigation. Data from clinical trials suggest that erythropoietin increases the risk of thromboembolic complications. In the management of anemic patients, physicians should follow closely the dosing recommendations in products' package inserts or the ASCO/American Society of Hematology guidelines. Treatment of patients beyond the correction of anemia, however, has to be regarded as experimental and is potentially harmful, so should only be conducted in clinical trials.

In order to promote the quality of health care and guidelines in Germany the German Guideline Clearinghouse (Sponsors: German Medical Association, National Association of the Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, German Hospital Federation, Associations of the Sickness Funds and the Statutory Pension Insurance) was established at the Agency for Quality in Medicine (AQuMed) in 1999. The results of the 10th Guideline Clearing Project, the Guideline Clearing Report "Breast Cancer", were published in December 2003. In a systematic search using English/German language guideline databases and literature databases (Medline, Healthstar, Embase), 16 national guidelines were identified which were in accordance to the inclusion criteria (breast cancer treatment; German or English language; published after 1992; new guideline or genuine update (no adaptation); recommended for country-wide implementation). The methodological quality of these 16 guidelines was evaluated using the appraisal instrument of the German Guideline Clearinghouse, the checklist "Methodological Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines". A peer review of the guidelines was performed by a multidisciplinary focus group of experts (intended guideline users from clinical and ambulatory settings as well as patients). This group consented comments and recommendations for actions of health care policy makers in Germany for a German breast cancer guideline based on examples from the appraised guidelines. None of the identified guidelines contained information about all of the 24 key topics that the focus group considered to be relevant for a German national guideline. The selected exemplary text extracts from the evaluated guidelines can be used as benchmarks and example sources for the development of a national German breast cancer guideline. From the beginning, patients should be involved in the development process within a multidisciplinary team. Due to the rapid emergence of new evidence, oncology guidelines need an effective procedure for updating in order to ensure that they are able to promote health care quality by giving current recommendations based on best available evidence. International networks such as the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) will be helpful to collect and appraise the evidence for the national guideline development groups in an effective way.

This sixteenth biannual report of the Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group highlights recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of hemato-oncology, with special focus on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The report covers the publication period June 2012 to July 2013. Trials are selected regarding their methodology and implication for clinical practice. Studies were identified by electronic search of MEDLINE using a broad search filter that covers all topics in hemato-oncology combined with a highly sensitive search filter for randomized trials (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions). Four RCTs are presented in detail, followed by two further RCTs of high importance in a short version. The report is finalized with an overview of new and updated Cochrane Reviews.

Abstract 4632 Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) accounts for 25% of all leukemias and remains incurable with conventional chemotherapy (CX). Rituximab (R) may be an effective treatment option for CLL patients with the potential to improve overall survival (OS) when given in combination with CX but there is also a risk of more side effects such as infections. This review aims to summarize the evidence for this new treatment option by evaluating the effects on OS, progression-free survival (PFS) and side effects. Methods: MEDLINE and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials up to April 2010. Trials of patients with CLL comparing CX including R and treatment with CX alone (CX identical in both groups) were included. Clinical trials with previously untreated and pre-treated patients were explored in the main meta-analyses. Trial selection, quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two review authors. Dichotomous data were analyzed as relative effect measures (i.e. relative risk, RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Time-to-event outcomes were analyzed with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI in a random effects model. Results: A total of 992 records were screened. Two eligible trials with 921 untreated (GCLLSG CLL 8 trial (CLL8) and CALGB 9712 trial (CALGB 9712)) and two eligible trials with 604 pre-treated patients (REACH trial (REACH) and NCRI CLL 201 trial) that were fitting the inclusion criteria were identified. The NCLRI CLL 201 trial provided response data only. CALGB 9721 did not report HRs or P-values on OS or PFS and the survival curves for PFS and OS were of low quality, so the provided data were not included in the meta-analysis. Both, CLL8 and REACH examined patients receiving fludarabine (F) and cyclophosphamide (C) with or without R and were meta-analyzed with regard to PFS and OS. PFS (1342 patients) was significantly longer for FCR (HR 0.65, 95% CI [0.48, 0.88]). Analysis of OS (1368 patients) also showed a significantly longer survival for FCR (HR 0.73 (95% CI [0.58, 0.93]). CLL8 provided HRs for the different disease stages and showed significantly improved OS after FCR for Binet B patients only [Binet A: HR 0,19, 95% CI [0.23, 1.613]; Binet B: HR 0.45, 95% CI [0.295, 0.689]; Binet C: HR 1.4, 95% CI [0.843, 2.620]). REACH had not been significant regarding OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI [0.59, 1.17]). With regard to severe hematologic toxicity, meta-analysis of CLL8, REACH and CALGB 9721 showed a significantly higher risk of neutropenia (RR 1.46, CI 95% [1.03, 2.08]) for regimens including R, but there was no statistical difference for thrombocytopenia (RR 1.06, CI 95% [0.60, 1.87]), anemia (RR 0.89 [0.63, 1.26]) or the incidence of severe infections (RR 1.08 CI 95% [0.86, 1.35]). REACH reported a higher rate of secondary malignancies in the FCR-arm (FCR (7%), FC (5%)). Conclusions: This systematic review demonstrates significantly longer OS for CLL patients that received FCR compared to FC (HR 0.65, 95% CI [0.48, 0.88]) and confirms better PFS for patients receiving FCR (HR 0.73 (95% CI [0.58, 0.93]). Adverse events (particularly neutropenia) occurred more often when patients were treated with CX plus R but did not result in an increased infection rate. However, data of CLL8 were only available from the abstract and need to be subsequently confirmed. Disclosures: Hallek: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract 1419 Poster Board I-442 For more than 20 years high dose chemotherapy followed by allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) has been considered as a reasonable approach for the treatment of patients with AML. Moreover, during the last decade new scientific and technical developments results in major changes of clinical practice of transplantation. Enhanced donor availabilities and new strategies, e.g. dose-reduced conditioning, now make allogeneic stem cell transplantation available to patients who do not have a related donor or would not tolerate high-dose chemotherapy due to age or comorbidities. Usually, the decision to start the work-up process for allogeneic transplantation in AML patients is based on the availability of a donor, the assignment to the cytogenetic risk group, and the response to induction therapy, as well as patient factors. However, there would be greater confidence in defining who should, or should not, receive an allograft if the available recommendations given in guidelines are consistent and similar. In this analysis, a comprehensive systematic literature search for best available evidence from controlled clinical trials was performed in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central. In addition, the websites of major organizations in Europe and the US (European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, EBMT; European Society for Medical Oncology, ESMO; British Committee for Standards in Hematology, BCSH; American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, ASBMT; National Comprehensive Cancer Network, NCCN) were screened and the specific databases of the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the Guideline International Network Database were also searched to identify the latest recommendations and guidelines. The following points were selected for systematic comparison of the best available evidence: Factors for risk assessment and categorization of AML, donor categories for allogeneic SCT (sibling donors / matched unrelated donors), allogeneic transplantation in first CR, allogeneic transplantation in relapse/progressive disease or second CR, and allogeneic transplants with reduced intensity conditioning regimen. Several interesting findings emerge from this analysis: 1) For patients with relapse or refractory disease donor availability should be explored and discussed, though this is not based on reliable evidence from randomized studies; 2) Patients in CR1 with intermediate or high risk disease who have a matched related donor available should receive allogeneic stem cell transplantation (intermediate risk; ASBMT: reasonable, NCCN: option); 3) For patients who lack a family donor the recommendations are not consistent; 4) Allogeneic transplantation with reduced conditioning in AML patients is feasible, but the superiority over standard therapeutic regimens has not been proven yet. In summary, current guidelines differ in critical points in the recommendation for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Furthermore, it is likely that only well-defined subgroups of AML patients will benefit from stem cell transplantation. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) consistently have been shown to decrease transfusions in anemic oncology patients. However, whether they increase mortality in cancer patients is under debate. Results from individual studies conflict, and results from literature based meta-analyses are inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Meta-analyses with individual patient data offer several advantages over study-level analysis, including the ability to gain statistical power and increase validity using time-to-event analyses, to adjust for prognostic variables that may have confounded the original treatment comparisons and to investigate subgroups in which treatment may be either more or less effective or harmful. Methods: An international collaboration conducted an individual patent data meta-analysis of ESA effects on mortality in cancer patients. With guidance from an independent steering committee of international experts in hematology, oncology, radiotherapy, epidemiology, medical statistics and a consumer representative, we developed a detailed protocol and statistical analysis plan. Independent RCT investigators and representatives from pharmaceutical companies who submitted data provided additional input through the project’s advisory board. IPD from RCTs of ESA plus red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) (as needed) versus placebo or no ESA plus RBCT (as needed), for prophylaxis or treatment of anemia in cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy, were included. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated per study and meta-analyzed with fixed-effects and random-effects models. Primary endpoints were overall survival (during active study phase and for the longest follow-up available) for patients receiving chemotherapy, and for all cancer patients regardless of anticancer treatment. Stratified multivariable Cox-regression analyses were conducted to assess the impact of baseline imbalances and to identify potential effect modifiers. Duplicate main statistical analyses were conducted independently at two academic statistical departments. Results: Data on 13933 patients enrolled in 53 studies were included in the analysis. Data were provided by the companies Amgen Inc., Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C., and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; and by five independent investigators. Results are currently undergoing internal verification and final evaluation and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: Final conclusions will be presented at the meeting. Future analyses using IPD will be conducted to estimate the risks (clots, tumor progression) and potential benefits (transfusion needs and quality of life/fatigue) from other outcomes.

Background: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce anemia in cancer patients; however, there are concerns that ESAs increase mortality in some patients. Within the framework of an international collaboration we thus conducted a patient-level meta-analysis to assess the effects of ESAs on mortality in cancer patients. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis, based on the intention-to-treat principle, of cancer patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin alfa, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alfa plus red blood cell transfusions as needed versus transfusion alone, for prophylaxis or treatment of anemia while or after receiving anticancer therapy. Patient-level data were obtained and analyzed by independent statisticians at two academic departments. Primary endpoints were on-study mortality and overall survival in patients receiving chemotherapy, defined as all patients from studies in which =/> 70% of study population received chemotherapy, and in all cancer patients regardless of anticancer therapy. On-study mortality was defined as death from any cause between date of randomization and 28 days after end of active study phase. Overall survival was defined as death from any cause between date of randomization and longest follow up available. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated per study and meta-analyzed with fixed-effects and random-effects models. Stratified multivariable Cox-regression analyses were conducted to assess the impact of baseline imbalances. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effect across pre-specified subgroups. All analyses were pre-specified in a peer-reviewed protocol (Bohlius et al. 2008). An independent steering committee consisting of clinicians and methodologists agreed on all analyses and interpretations. Independent investigators and representatives from manufacturers contributing data offered advice, but had no decision-making authority. Results: Data from 13,933 cancer patients enrolled in 53 studies were included in the analysis; 38 trials including 10,441 patients used mainly chemotherapy. Including all cancer patients ESAs increased on-study mortality by 17% (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.06–1.30), with little evidence for a difference between chemotherapy and other trials (p for interaction=0.42), and worsened overall survival by 6% (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00–1.12). In the chemotherapy population on-study mortality was increased by 10% (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.98–1.24) and overall survival was worsened by 4% (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97–1.11). Adjusting for known prognostic factors had little effect on the overall estimates. There was no conclusive evidence for effect modification by patient level characteristics such as age, sex, Hb and Hct at baseline, Hb ceiling, type and stage of tumor or study level characteristics (anticancer treatment, ESA treatment schedules, study design and quality) for the outcomes tested. Conclusion: ESA treatment in cancer patients increased on-study mortality by 17% and worsened overall survival by 6%. For patients undergoing chemotherapy the increase was less pronounced, but could not be excluded. In clinical practice, risks of ESAs must be balanced against benefits of ESAs depending on the clinical circumstances of the individual patient.

Background: Epoetin (EPO), darbepoetin (DARB) and red blood cell transfusions (RBCT) are therapeutic alternatives to treat anemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy. Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conflict, and some question the safety of EPO and DARB. Previously, we systematically reviewed this topic (Bohlius et al, JNCI 2005). Since then many new studies became available necessitating an update the prior systematic review. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of recombinant human erythropoietin and darbepoetin to prevent or alleviate anemia in cancer patients (pts), and to compare current and previous results of systematic review. Methods: Included RCTs compared EPO or DARB plus RBCT if needed with observation plus RBCT for prophylaxis or treatment of anemia in cancer patients receiving or not receiving antineoplastic therapy. Patients had solid tumors or hematological malignancies including MDS. Endpoints were rates of RBCT, hematological response (defined as transfusion free Hb increase of 2 g/dL), tumor response, overall survival and thrombo embolic events. Medical databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and conference proceedings were searched (first review:1985–2001, update up to 04/2005). We included full-text and abstract publications plus unpublished data. Data extraction and quality assessment were in duplicate. Results: The update included 57 trials with 9,353 patients. Use of EPO or DARB significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) of RBCTs (RR 0.64; 95%-CI 0.60–0.68; 42 trials, n = 6,510). On average, participants in the EPO/DARB groups received one unit of blood less than controls (weighted mean difference −1.05; 95% CI− 1.32 −0.78; 14 trials, n = 2,353). Hb response (baseline Hb < 12 g/dL) was more likely in the EPO/DARB group (RR 3.43; 95%-CI 3.07–3.84; 22 trials, n = 4,307). Thrombo embolic complications were more frequent in patients receiving EPO/DARB: RR 1.67 (95%-CI 1.35–2.06; 35 trials, n = 6,769). Uncertainties remain whether and how EPO/DARB affects tumor response (fixed effect RR 1.12; 95%-CI 1.01–1.23; random effects: RR 1.09; 95%-CI 0.94–1.26; 13 trials, n = 2,833) or overall survival (HR 1.08; 95%-CI 0.99–1.18; 42 trials, n = 8,167). Subgroup analyses comparing EPO and DARB did not identify clinically or statistically significant differences. This update confirms previous findings for transfusion rates and hematological response. In contrast, the update suggests EPO/DARB may reduce survival whereas the first review suggested possible benefits (HR 0.81; 95%-CI 0.67–0.99; 19 trials, n = 2,865). Factors possibly contributing to these conflicting results include mortality due to thrombo embolic complications and tumor progression but also methodological limitations such as baseline imbalances. Conclusion: EPO or DARB given to cancer pts reduces the relative risk for red blood cell transfusion and increases likelihood of hematological response. However, EPO/DARB also increases the risk of thrombo embolic complications. The impact on tumor response and survival is uncertain.