Chronic diseases reduce the availability of iron for effective erythropoiesis. This review summarises clinical consequences of iron deficiency (ID) and anaemia in cancer patients, mechanisms how ...impaired iron homeostasis affects diagnosis and treatment of ID, and data from clinical trials evaluating i.v. iron with or without concomitant erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs).
Clinical trial reports were identified in PubMed and abstracts at relevant major congresses.
Reported prevalence of ID in cancer patients ranges from 32 to 60% and most iron-deficient patients are also anaemic. Randomised clinical trials have shown superior efficacy of i.v. iron over oral or no iron in reducing blood transfusions, increasing haemoglobin, and improving quality of life in ESA-treated anaemic cancer patients. Furthermore, i.v. iron without additional ESA should be evaluated as potential treatment in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia. At recommended doses, i.v. iron is well tolerated, particularly compared with oral iron. No serious drug-related adverse effects were seen during long-term use in renal disease and no effect on tumour growth has been observed in trials with anaemic cancer patients.
Reliable diagnosis and treatment of ID are recommended key steps in modern cancer patient management to minimise impact on quality of life and performance status.
Ibrutinib (Imbruvica™) is an irreversible, potent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK). Over the last few years, ibrutinib has developed from a promising drug candidate to being approved by ...FDA for the treatment of three B cell malignancies, a truly remarkable feat. Few, if any medicines are monospecific and ibrutinib is no exception; already during ibrutinib's initial characterization, it was found that it could bind also to other kinases. In this review, we discuss the implications of such interactions, which go beyond the selective effect on BTK in B cell malignancies. In certain cases, the outcome of ibrutinib treatment likely results from the combined inhibition of BTK and other kinases, causing additive or synergistic, effects. Conversely, there are also examples when the clinical outcome seems unrelated to inhibition of BTK. Thus, more specifically, adverse effects such as enhanced bleeding or arrhythmias could potentially be explained by different interactions. We also predict that during long‐term treatment bone homoeostasis might be affected due to the inhibition of osteoclasts. Moreover, the binding of ibrutinib to molecular targets other than BTK or effects on cells other than B cell‐derived malignancies could be beneficial and result in new indications for clinical applications.
The aim of this subgroup analysis of the Mabthera International Trial Group study was to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy and rituximab in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) in comparison ...to other diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
Patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of CHOP-like regimens with or without rituximab.
Of 824 patients enrolled, 87 had PMBCL and 627 other types of DLBCL. Rituximab increased the rates of complete remission (unconfirmed) in both PMBCL (from 54% to 80%, P = 0.015) and DLBCL (from 72% to 87%, P < 0.001). In PMBCL, rituximab virtually eliminated progressive disease (PD) (2.5% versus 24%, P < 0.001), whereas without rituximab, PD was more frequent in PMBCL than in DLBCL (24% versus 10%, P = 0.010). With a median observation time of 34 months, 3-year event-free survival (EFS) was improved by rituximab for PMBCL (78% versus 52%, P = 0.012) and for DLBCL (81% versus 61%, P < 0.001). Overall survival benefit was similar for DLBCL (93% versus 85%, P < 0.001) and PMBCL (89% versus 78%, P = 0.158).
In young patients with PMBCL (age-adjusted International Prognostic Index 0–1), rituximab added to six cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy increases response rate and EFS to the same extent as other DLBCL. The combination of rituximab with CHOP chemotherapy is an effective treatment in PMBCL with good prognosis features.
Abstract Anaemia is frequently diagnosed in patients with cancer, and may have a detrimental effect on quality of life (QoL). We previously conducted a systematic literature review (1996–2003) to ...produce evidence-based guidelines on the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer.Bokemeyer C, Aapro MS, Courdi A, et al. EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:2201–2216. We report here an update to these guidelines, including literature published through to November 2005. The results of this updated systematic literature review have enabled us to refine our guidelines based on the full body of data currently available. Level I evidence exists for a positive impact of erythropoietic proteins on haemoglobin (Hb) levels when administered to patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease, when used to prevent cancer anaemia, and in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The addition of further Level I studies confirms our recommendation that in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, treatment with erythropoietic proteins should be initiated at a Hb level of 9–11 g/dL based on anaemia-related symptoms rather than a fixed Hb concentration. Early intervention with erythropoietic proteins may be considered in asymptomatic anaemic patients with Hb levels ⩽11.9 g/dL provided that individual factors like intensity and expected duration of chemotherapy are considered. Patients whose Hb level is below 9 g/dL should primarily be evaluated for need of transfusions potentially followed by the application of erythropoietic proteins. We do not recommend the prophylactic use of erythropoietic proteins to prevent anaemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy who have normal Hb levels at the start of treatment, as the literature has not shown a benefit with this approach. The addition of further supporting studies confirms our recommendation that the target Hb concentration following treatment with erythropoietic proteins should be 12–13 g/dL. Once this level is achieved, maintenance doses should be titrated individually. There is Level I evidence that dosing of erythropoietic proteins less frequently than three times per week is efficacious when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia, with studies supporting the use of epoetin alfa and epoetin beta weekly and darbepoetin alfa given every week or every 3 weeks. We do not recommend the use of higher than standard initial doses of erythropoietic proteins with the aim of producing higher haematological responses, due to the limited body of evidence available. There is Level I evidence that, within reasonable limits of body weight, fixed doses of erythropoietic proteins can be used to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia. This analysis confirms that there are no baseline predictive factors of response to erythropoietic proteins that can be routinely used in clinical practice if functional iron deficiency or vitamin deficiency is ruled out; a low serum erythropoietin (EPO) level (only in haematological malignancies) appears to be the only predictive factor to be verified in Level I studies. Further studies are needed to investigate the value of hepcidin, c-reactive protein, and other measures as predictive factors. In these updated guidelines, we explored a new question of whether oral or intravenous iron supplementation increases the response rate to erythropoietic proteins. We found no evidence of increased response with the addition of oral iron supplementation, but there is Level II evidence of improved response to erythropoietic proteins with the addition of intravenous iron. However, the doses and schedules for intravenous iron supplementation are not yet well defined, and further studies in this area are warranted. The two major goals of erythropoietic protein therapy are prevention or elimination of transfusions and improvement of QoL. The total body of evidence shows that red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements are reduced following treatment with erythropoietic proteins. This analysis also confirms that QoL is significantly improved in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia and in those with anaemia of chronic disease following erythropoietic protein therapy, with more robust evidence now available that QoL was improved in studies investigating early intervention in cases of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced anaemia. There is only indirect evidence that patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease initially classified as non-responders to standard doses proceed to respond to treatment following a dose increase. None of the studies addressed the question in a prospective, randomised fashion, and so the Taskforce does not recommend dose escalation as a general approach in all patients who are not responding. There is still insufficient data to determine the effect on survival following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Our analysis of survival endpoints in studies involving patients receiving radio(chemo)therapy found that most studies were inconclusive, with no clear link between the use of erythropoietic proteins and survival. Likewise, we found no clear link between erythropoietic therapy and other endpoints such as local tumour control, time to progression, and progression-free survival. There is no evidence that pure red cell aplasia occurs in cancer patients following treatment with erythropoietic proteins, and the fear of this condition developing should not lead to erythropoietic proteins being withheld in patients with cancer. There is Level I evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events and hypertension are slightly elevated in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia receiving erythropoietic proteins. Additional trials are warranted, especially to define the optimal doses and schedules of intravenous iron supplementation during erythropoietic therapy. While our review did not address cost benefit evaluations in detail, the consensus is that studies taking into account all real determinants of cost and benefit need to be performed prospectively.
This randomized study assessed if intravenous iron improves hemoglobin (Hb) response and permits decreased epoetin dose in anemic (Hb 9-11 g/dl), transfusion-independent patients with stainable iron ...in the bone marrow and lymphoproliferative malignancies not receiving chemotherapy. Patients (n=67) were randomized to subcutaneous epoetin beta 30 000 IU once weekly for 16 weeks with or without concomitant intravenous iron supplementation. There was a significantly (P<0.05) greater increase in mean Hb from week 8 onwards in the iron group and the percentage of patients with Hb increase >or=2 g/dl was significantly higher in the iron group (93%) than in the no-iron group (53%) (per-protocol population; P=0.001). Higher serum ferritin and transferrin saturation in the iron group indicated that iron availability accounted for the Hb response difference. The mean weekly patient epoetin dose was significantly lower after 13 weeks of therapy (P=0.029) and after 15 weeks approximately 10 000 IU (>25%) lower in the iron group, as was the total epoetin dose (P=0.051). In conclusion, the Hb increase and response rate were significantly greater with the addition of intravenous iron to epoetin treatment in iron-replete patients and a lower dose of epoetin was required.
Anaemia is frequently diagnosed in patients with cancer, yet it is difficult to identify a single cause due to its multifactorial aetiology. We conducted a systematic literature review (1996–2003) to ...produce evidence-based guidelines on the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer (see
Table 4). Level I evidence exists for a positive impact of erythropoietic proteins on haemoglobin (Hb) levels when administered to patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease, when used to prevent cancer anaemia, in patients undergoing cancer surgery and following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. The Hb level at which erythropoietic protein therapy should be initiated is difficult to determine as it varied between studies; a large number of Level I studies in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease enrolled patients with a Hb concentration ⩽105 g/L, but none compared the effect of different baseline Hb levels on the response to treatment. Similarly, several studies defined the target Hb concentration as 120–130 g/L following treatment with erythropoietic proteins, but none specifically addressed the correlation between target Hb level and clinical benefit in a randomised fashion. Level I evidence shows that red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements are significantly reduced with erythropoietic protein therapy in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or when used to prevent cancer anaemia (approximately 20% reduction compared with controls). We found indirect Level I and III evidence that patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease initially classified as non-responders to standard doses proceed to respond to treatment following a dose increase (absolute increases in response rate ranged from 8% to 18%). However, none of these studies examined the effect on response rates of a longer treatment period at the lower dose, or performed a randomised comparison of a dose increase versus an unchanged dose. There is Level I evidence to show that quality-of-life (QOL) is significantly improved in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia and in those with anaemia of chronic disease, particularly in patients achieving a Hb response to erythropoietic protein therapy. There are insufficient data to determine the effect on survival following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. There is Level I evidence that dosing of erythropoietic proteins less frequently than three times per week (TIW) is efficacious when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia. There is Level III evidence that initial doses of erythropoietic proteins considered to be higher than current standard practice produce higher haematological responses in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease. Level I evidence demonstrates that several baseline patient parameters (e.g., low endogenous erythropoietin EPO concentration, age <60 years, Hb concentration ⩾90 g/L) impact upon the response to erythropoietic proteins when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia. Evidence indicates that endogenous EPO concentration impacts on response in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies, but is not a valid parameter in patients with solid tumours. There is Level I evidence that fixed doses of erythropoietic proteins can be used at the start of therapy to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia, but maintenance doses should be titrated individually. There is no evidence that pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) occurs following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or when used prophylactically in patients with cancer. There is Level I evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events and hypertension are slightly elevated in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia receiving erythropoietic proteins. Level I evidence supports the effectiveness of erythropoietic proteins to prevent anaemia in non-anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or in those undergoing cancer surgery. However, these are non-licensed indications and we do not currently recommend the prophylactic use of erythropoietic proteins to prevent anaemia in patients who have normal Hb values at the start of treatment.
Additional trials are warranted, especially on the issues of iron replacement and cost-effectiveness of erythropoietic protein therapy, as well as on tumour response/progression and survival.
The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern (VOC) has destabilized global efforts to control the impact of coronavirus ...disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recent data have suggested that B.1.1.529 can readily infect people with naturally acquired or vaccine-induced immunity, facilitated in some cases by viral escape from antibodies that neutralize ancestral SARS-CoV-2. However, severe disease appears to be relatively uncommon in such individuals, highlighting a potential role for other components of the adaptive immune system. We report here that SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific CD4
and CD8
T cells induced by prior infection or BNT162b2 vaccination provide extensive immune coverage against B.1.1.529. The median relative frequencies of SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific CD4
T cells that cross-recognized B.1.1.529 in previously infected or BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals were 84% and 91%, respectively, and the corresponding median relative frequencies for SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific CD8
T cells were 70% and 92%, respectively. Pairwise comparisons across groups further revealed that SARS-CoV-2 spike-reactive CD4
and CD8
T cells were functionally and phenotypically similar in response to the ancestral strain or B.1.1.529. Collectively, our data indicate that established SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific CD4
and CD8
T cell responses, especially after BNT162b2 vaccination, remain largely intact against B.1.1.529.
The consensus views of an expert roundtable meeting are presented as updated management guidelines for using alemtuzumab in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Since the publication of previous management ...guidelines in 2004, clinical experience with alemtuzumab has grown significantly, especially regarding its efficacy and safety, management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, identification of patient subgroups likely to benefit from alemtuzumab therapy and subcutaneous administration of alemtuzumab. The updated recommendations include (1) alemtuzumab monotherapy can be safely used as first-line therapy; (2) suitable patient subgroups for alemtuzumab therapy include elderly patients, patients with 17p deletion, patients with refractory autoimmune cytopenias and patients with profound pancytopenia at baseline due to heavily infiltrated bone marrow; (3) alemtuzumab treatment should be continued for 12 weeks (36 doses) whenever possible, and bone marrow examination may be considered at week 12 to evaluate response; (4) monitoring CMV reactivation by weekly PCR is mandated during therapy; when CMV reactivation becomes symptomatic or viremia increases, alemtuzumab therapy should be interrupted and anti-CMV therapy started; (5) subcutaneous administration is safe, easy to perform and appears equally effective compared with intravenous infusion and (6) our strong recommendation is that alemtuzumab combination therapy and consolidation therapy shall not be used outside carefully controlled clinical studies.
To investigate the effect of recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin beta) on anemia, transfusion need, and quality of life (QOL) in severely anemic patients with low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma ...(NHL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), or multiple myeloma (MM).
Transfusion-dependent patients with NHL (n = 106), CLL (n = 126), or MM (n = 117) and a low serum erythropoietin concentration were randomized to receive epoetin beta 150 IU/kg or placebo subcutaneously three times a week for 16 weeks. Primary efficacy criteria were transfusion-free and transfusion- and severe anemia-free survival (hemoglobin Hb > 8.5 g/dL) between weeks 5 to 16. Response was defined as an increase in Hb > or = 2 g/dL with elimination of transfusion need. QOL was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale.
Transfusion-free (P =.0012) survival and transfusion- and severe anemia-free survival (P =.0001) were significantly greater in the epoetin beta group versus placebo (Wald chi(2) test), giving a relative risk reduction of 43% and 51%, respectively. The response rate was 67% and 27% in the epoetin beta versus the placebo group, respectively (P <.0001). After 12 and 16 weeks of treatment, QOL significantly improved in the epoetin beta group compared with placebo (P <.05); this improvement correlated with an increase in Hb concentration (> or = 2 g/dL). A target Hb that could be generally recommended could not be identified.
Many severely anemic and transfusion-dependent patients with advanced MM, NHL, and CLL and a low performance status benefited from epoetin therapy, with elimination of severe anemia and transfusion need, and improvement in QOL.
PDF
