Management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: practical guidance for prevention and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Bone mineral density (BMD)-based guidelines for bone-directed therapy in women with early breast cancer (EBC) appear inadequate for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Therefore, an algorithm was developed to better assess risk and direct treatment (Hadji P, Body JJ, Aapro MS et al. Practical guidance for the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 1407-1416). Here, we provide updated guidance on pharmacologic interventions to prevent/treat aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL). DESIGN: Systematic literature review identified recent advances in preventing/treating AIBL. Individual agents were assessed based on trial size, design, follow-up, and safety. RESULTS: Fracture risk factors in patients with EBC remain unchanged (Hadji P, Body JJ, Aapro MS et al. Practical guidance for the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 1407-1416). The World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool algorithm includes fracture risk factors plus BMD but does not adequately address AIBL effects. Several antiresorptives can prevent/treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term efficacy/safety remain. Overall, evidence is strongest for twice-yearly zoledronic acid (ZOL), and recent advances support additional anticancer benefits from ZOL. CONCLUSIONS: All patients initiating AIs need advice regarding exercise, calcium/vitamin D supplements, baseline BMD monitoring (when available), and bone-directed therapy if T-score <-2.0 or at least two fracture risk factors were observed. Patients with T-score > -2.0 and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during years 1-2. Unsatisfactory compliance/decreasing BMD after 12-24 months on oral bisphosphonates should trigger a switch to i.v. bisphosphonate.

Aprepitant: drug-drug interactions in perspective.

The implications of chemotherapeutic drug-drug interactions can be serious and thus need to be addressed. This review concerns the potential interactions of the antiemetic aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist indicated for use (in Europe) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and corticosteroids and (in the United States) in combination with other antiemetic agents, for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of highly emetogenic cancer chemotherapy including high-dose cisplatin. When considering use of aprepitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, its potential drug-drug interaction profile as a moderate inhibitor of cytochrome P-450 isoenzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4) has been a source of concern for some physicians and other health care professionals. We explore in this paper how real those concerns are. Our conclusion is that either no interaction or no clinically relevant interaction exists with chemotherapeutic agents (intravenous cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, intravenous vinorelbine) or 5-HT3 antagonists (granisetron, ondansetron, palonosetron). For relevant interactions, appropriate measures, such as corticosteroid dose modifications and extended International Normalized Ratio monitoring of patients on warfarin therapy, can be taken to effectively manage them. Therefore, the concern of negative interactions remains largely theoretical but needs to be verified with new agents extensively metabolized through the 3A4 pathway.

Practical guidance for the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that women with breast cancer are at increased risk of fracture compared with their age-matched peers. Current treatment guidelines are inadequate for averting fractures in osteopenic women, especially those receiving aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Therefore, we sought to identify clinically relevant risk factors for fracture that can be used to assess overall fracture risk and to provide practical guidance for preventing and treating bone loss in women with breast cancer receiving AI therapy. METHODS: Systematic review of pertinent information from published literature and meeting abstracts through December 2007 was carried out to identify factors contributing to fracture risk in women with breast cancer. An evidence-based medicine approach was used to select risk factors that can be used to determine when to initiate bisphosphonate treatment of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL). RESULTS: Fracture risk factors were chosen from large, well-designed, controlled, population-based trials in postmenopausal women. Evidence from multiple prospective clinical trials in women with breast cancer was used to validate AI therapy as a fracture risk factor. Overall, eight fracture risk factors were validated in women with breast cancer: AI therapy, T-score <-1.5, age >65 years, low body mass index (BMI <20 kg/m(2)), family history of hip fracture, personal history of fragility fracture after age 50, oral corticosteroid use >6 months, and smoking. Treatment recommendations were derived from randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend the following for preventing and treating AIBL in women with breast cancer. All patients initiating AI therapy should receive calcium and vitamin D supplements. Any patient initiating or receiving AI therapy with a T-score >/=-2.0 and no additional risk factors should be monitored every 1-2 years for change in risk status and bone mineral density (BMD). Any patient initiating or receiving AI therapy with a T-score <-2.0 should receive bisphosphonate therapy. Any patient initiating or receiving AI therapy with any two of the following risk factors-T-score <-1.5, age >65 years, low BMI (<20 kg/m(2)), family history of hip fracture, personal history of fragility fracture after age 50, oral corticosteroid use >6 months, and smoking-should receive bisphosphonate therapy. BMD should be monitored every 2 years, and treatment should continue for at least 2 years and possibly for as long as AI therapy is continued. To date, the overwhelming majority of clinical evidence supports zoledronic acid 4 mg every 6 months to prevent bone loss in women at high risk. Although there is a trend towards fewer fractures with zoledronic acid, studies completed to date have not been designed to capture significant differences in fracture rate, and longer follow-up is needed.

[Medical oncology trends]. / Oncotogie médicate.

The 2007 vintage leads to renewed enthusiasm in medical oncology, as published data with major impact on daily practice relate to many areas. While we do not review congress abstracts, exceptions are needed to this rule. Indeed, after renal cell cancer patients, we now see patients with another tumor, difficult to treat so far, being offered some hope: hepatocarcinoma has been the focus of recent attention. While many of the reviewed papers are about "targeted" cancer treatment, progress in chemotherapy data is also remarkable. One simply continues to regret the lack of focused studies which would improve on the response rates and survival impact. One may hope that the near future will deliver on this, leading to an increased treatment effectiveness and decreased exposure to unjustified toxicity.

Organization of the clinical activity of geriatric oncology: report of a SIOG (International Society of Geriatric Oncology) task force.

Management for elderly cancer patients world wide is far from being optimal and few older patients are entering clinical trials. A SIOG Task Force was therefore activated to analyze how the clinical activity of Geriatric Oncology is organized. A structured questionnaire was circulated among the SIOG Members. Fifty eight answers were received. All respondents identified Geriatric Oncology, as an area of specialization, however the organization of the clinical activity was variable. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) was performed in 60% of cases. A Geriatric Oncology Program (GOP) was identified in 21 centers, 85% located in Oncology and 15% in Geriatric Departments. In the majority of GOP scheduled case discussion conferences dedicated to elderly cancer patients took regular place, the composition of the multidisciplinary team involved in the GOP activity included Medical Oncologists, Geriatricians, Nurses, Pharmacists, Social Workers. Fellowships in Geriatric Oncology were present in almost half of GOPs. Over 60% of respondents were willing to recruit patients over 70 years in clinical trials, while the proportion of cases included was only 20%. Enrolment in clinical trials was perceived as more difficult by 52% and much more difficult in 12% of the respondents. In conclusion, a better organization of the clinical activity in Geriatric Oncology allows a better clinical practice and an optimal clinical research. The GOP which can be set up in the oncological as well as in the geriatric environment thought a multidisciplinary coordinator effort. Future plans should also concentrate on divisions, units or departments of Geriatric Oncology.

EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer: 2006 update.

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.

[Medical oncology]. / Oncologie médicate.

The 2006 vintage leads to decreased enthusiasm in medical oncology, compared to the amazing 2005. One notable exception is the marketing of sunitinib and sorafenib, two agents which increase remarkably the chances of benefiting renal cell cancer patients. Several of the reviewed papers indicate the need to better target cancer treatment, including chemotherapy. One may hope that the near future will deliver on this, leading to an increased treatment effectiveness and decreased exposure to unjustified toxicity.

EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is not only a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality, but is also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact on the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. The incidence of severe or FN can be reduced by prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim, lenograstim or pegfilgrastim. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. While several academic groups have produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in an effort to standardise and optimise the management of FN, there remains a need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines. To this end, we undertook a systematic literature review and formulated recommendations for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors such as elderly age (>or=65 years), be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk prior to administering each cycle of chemotherapy. In addition, when using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in >20% patients, prophylactic G-CSF is recommended. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Finally, studies have shown that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications, where indicated.

[Medical oncology]. / Oncotogie médicale.

Patients are more and more often coming to see the physician with reprints from the Oracle of modem times, (the Internet). Facing the rapid development of new anticancer drugs, even the expert can have difficulties in knowing which ones have already rigorous comparative trials and which results are really clinically significant, leading to important improvements in the treatment of patients with solid tumors. In past years we had already noticed that in some cancer types, these progresses unfortunately sometimes remain of marginal importance. Survival benefits are not always well established and, confronted with the exploding costs of medicine, the physician may not always want to use some promising drugs. This review summarizes results of some of the most important randomized clinical trials, but does not attempt to solve the cost-benefit question.

Colony formation in vitro as a prognostic indicator for primary breast cancer.

Cells from some, but not all, tumor biopsy samples form colonies when cultured in semi-solid media. The possibility that colony formation by progenitor cells in these tumors may reflect a more "aggressive" phenotype bearing clinical implications was examined in a series of 61 patients with primary breast cancer. Tumor cells from 32 samples formed colonies in vitro. There was no correlation between colony formation and any of the standard clinical parameters such as tumor size, nodal status, metastatic spread, or hormone receptor levels. Eighteen patients had inflammatory, locally advanced and/or detectable metastatic breast cancer at the time of surgery. Sixteen of these patients have progressed and 15 have died, with no relationship between colony formation and survival. For the 43 remaining patients, 23 had a tissue sample that gave rise to colonies in vitro; 14 of these have relapsed, with a median relapse-free survival (RFS) of 37.6 months, and eight have died with a median survival time of 46.8 months. This is compared with four relapses (median RFS not reached, P = .0043, Peto-Pike), and four deaths (median not reached, P = .1175) in the group without growth of the tumor specimen. These results indicate that colony formation is an independent prognostic parameter for breast cancer, which may be useful for selecting patients who would benefit from more intensive therapy.

Patients' estimation of overall treatment burden: why not ask the obvious?

PURPOSE: We investigated the clinical validity of patients' estimation of overall treatment burden. This measure was expected to be responsive to the wide spectrum of reactions on treatment and thus less precise for specific effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After the first chemotherapy within a randomized, double-blind trial of the prophylaxis for delayed emesis (SAKK 90/95), 249 patients documented nausea and vomiting daily for 6 days. Over the whole period, they estimated nausea/vomiting (N/V) burden and overall treatment burden by linear analog-self assessment (LASA) indicators and documented other side effects. RESULTS: At day 6, the two burden indicators were moderately correlated (r = 0.58) in accordance with their different concepts. No, partial, or total control of delayed emesis (days 2 to 6) was reflected in a consistent pattern by both indicators, with a stronger and more significant effect (P <.001) on changes in N/V burden than overall treatment burden. In contrast, toxicity other than N/V, assessed independently by patients and physicians, was mainly associated with overall treatment burden. Patients who indicated at least one other side effect rated their overall burden substantially higher than those with no indication of other toxicity (P <.0001). Physician-rated toxicity had a similar effect (P <.0001). CONCLUSION: A direct patient estimation of overall treatment burden by a LASA indicator may serve as an end point in clinical trials, particularly when treatments with different toxicity profiles are being compared. It is complementary to physicians' ratings of specific toxicities and a major component of patient-rated symptom checklists and quality-of-life measures.

Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To propose a classification of the acute emetogenicity of antineoplastic chemotherapy agents, and to develop an algorithm to define the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A Medline search was conducted to identify (1) clinical trials that used chemotherapy as single-agent therapy, and (2) major reviews of antiemetic therapy. The search was limited to patients who received commonly used doses of chemotherapy agents, primarily by short (< 3 hours) intravenous infusions. Based on review of this information and our collective clinical experience, we assigned chemotherapy agents to one of five emetogenic levels by consensus. A preliminary algorithm to determine the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens was then designed by consensus. A final algorithm was developed after we analyzed a data base composed of patients treated on the placebo arms of four randomized antiemetic trials. RESULTS: Chemotherapy agents were divided into five levels: level 1 (< 10% of patients experience acute [< or = 24 hours after chemotherapy] emesis without antiemetic prophylaxis); level 2 (10% to 30%); level 3 (30% to 60%); level 4 (60% to 90%); and level 5 (> 90%). For combinations, the emetogenic level was determined by identifying the most emetogenic agent in the combination and then assessing the relative contribution of the other agents. The following rules apply: (1) level 1 agents do not contribute to the emetogenic level of a combination; (2) adding > or = one level 2 agent increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level greater than the most emetogenic agent in the combination; and (3) adding level 3 or 4 agents increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level per agent. CONCLUSION: The proposed classification schema provides a practical means to determine the emetogenic potential of individual chemotherapy agents and combination regimens during the 24 hours after administration. This system can serve as a framework for the development of antiemetic guidelines.

Double-blind crossover study of the antiemetic efficacy of high-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose metoclopramide.

Nausea and vomiting remain common and debilitating side effects of therapy with many anticancer drugs. Recent reports have shown that both metoclopramide and dexamethasone are effective drugs for the treatment of severe nausea and vomiting caused by cis-platinum. A double-blind crossover study comparing the antiemetic properties of high-dose oral and intravenous regimens of metoclopramide and dexamethasone in outpatients was carried out. Standardized patient questionnaires and interviews were used to evaluate response. Dexamethasone and metoclopramide protected against more than five episodes of emesis in 48% and 40% of patients, respectively. Nausea persisted for less than six hours in 45% of patients on dexamethasone and in 37% on metoclopramide. The antiemetic efficacy of both regimens was retained through repeated courses of chemotherapy. Side effects were minimal with dexamethasone; however, 33% of patients experienced unacceptable extrapyramidal side effects to metoclopramide. Patient preference was significantly in favor of dexamethasone: 70% of patients chose to continue dexamethasone compared to 22% who preferred metoclopramide and 8% who chose other antiemetics. Dexamethasone was the preferred antiemetic in this patient population due to minimal side effects.

[Medical oncology]. / Oncologie médicale.

Progresses in medical oncology seem to be speeding up. New drugs developed these last years have been submitted to comparative trials, and many results lead us to expect improvements in the treatment of patients with solid tumors. Unquestionable in some cancer types, these progresses unfortunately sometimes remain marginal in other fields. Survival benefits are not always well established and, confronted with the exploding costs of medicine, the physician might tend to refrain from using some promising drugs. This review is summarizing results of the most important trials, while trying to present data in a context useful to the clinician.

Developments in cytotoxic chemotherapy: advances in treatment utilising vinorelbine.

Vinorelbine is a third generation vinca alkaloid which has been in clinical development for 15 years. Recent exploration of its pre-clinical activity has revealed unexpected evidence of potential synergy with taxane compounds and early clinical results support the suggestion of enhanced efficacy particularly in breast cancer. The initial studies establishing the clinical activity of vinorelbine in breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer have been extended to encompass a thorough evaluation of its contribution to combination chemotherapy for these disorders. In the treatment of breast cancer useful activity has been established for vinorelbine in combination with anthracyclines, anthracenediones, antimetabolites and the taxanes; additive toxicity is not a limiting factor. The activity of vinorelbine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer is significantly extended by incorporation into schedules utilising cisplatin and other agents. Vinorelbine has also demonstrated useful activity in the treatment of a wide range of other malignancies including prostatic carcinoma, multiple myeloma, cancer of the ovary, cervix and head and neck and malignant lymphomas.

Advances in systemic treatment of malignant melanoma.

This paper reviews recent developments in the systemic treatment of advanced malignant melanoma. In the introduction emphasis is given to prevention and early detection of this disease. Metastatic malignant melanoma patients have a median survival of less than 1 year in the most favourable situation. Adjuvant chemotherapeutic treatment after initial surgery has not had an impact on prognosis, while immunological manipulations with interferon alfa or other agents may prove beneficial after primary surgery. In advanced disease which cannot be palliated by surgery, many approaches are under investigation. Modulation of the patient's immune response can be achieved with vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, interleukin-2 and interferons, as single agents or in combination between themselves or with peripheral blood mononuclear cells or with tumour infiltrating lymphocytes or even with chemotherapy. Immunological approaches yield a 20-30% response rate, with some possibly long-term responses. Chemotherapeutic agents have a 10-30% response rate, which is usually of short duration. Combinations of chemotherapeutic agents can increase the response rate to 50%, but an impact on ultimate survival seems unlikely. Randomised studies have shown that modulation of chemotherapy with interferon or tamoxifen improves response rates. Clinicians should be encouraged to enter their patients with malignant melanoma in therapeutic trials.

Controlling emesis related to cancer therapy.

Combinations of dopamine antagonists or high-dose metoclopramide with steroids can provide complete control of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in up to 60-70% of patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. High-dose metoclopramide probably acts as a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, but because of its dopamine-receptor antagonism it is the cause of extrapyramidal side-effects. These compounds, and the agents used in combination with them, tend to cause sedation, an undesirable effect in the outpatient setting. Specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron) give a similar control of chemotherapy related nausea and vomiting, with minimum side-effects. These drugs can cause headaches and constipation and some have been related to transient liver enzyme abnormalities in cancer patients; however, disease and chemotherapy might also be the cause of the enzyme anomalies. Combinations of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with steroids may provide a very high degree of protection.

EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer.

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 ). 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 /=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 prevenroteins 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.