Re-evaluation of laboratory predictors of response to current anemia treatment regimens of erythropoiesis stimulating agents in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is a major cause of morbidity in cancer. Erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) are a mainstay of treatment, although some patients lack response for unknown reasons. Recently, ESA dosing recommendations have changed and iron is increasingly used as an adjunct. Due to these changes, potential laboratory predictors of response were re-evaluated. METHODS: This was a multi-center, observational study in cancer outpatients developing anemia under standard chemotherapy without absolute iron deficiency. For up to 12 weeks, laboratory data was collected while patients were treated with darbepoetin α (DA) either alone or along with intravenous iron. Baseline erythropoietin (Epo), changes in soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) and in hemoglobin (Hb) early after treatment initiation were re-evaluated as response predictors, based on logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 279 patients (mean age 66.1 years, 59.5% female) entered the study; 171 (61%) received at least one iron dose along with DA. Response and its predictability hardly increased through adjunct iron, although baseline ferritin <100 mg/L resulted in a 10 times higher probability of response to the combination than to ESA alone. Baseline Epo had low predictive value, regardless of tumor type or use of adjunct iron, although it varied with sex and age. If criteria for all three - Epo, sTfR, and Hb - were met, probability of preventing transfusions was 97%, dropping to 44%, if all three failed. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in ESA treatment recommendations had no impact on the predictability of response. Best prediction is still based on the immediacy of Hb increase.

Effectiveness of Long-Term Treatment of Multiple Myeloma in Regular Care: Comparison of a Longitudinal and a Cross-Sectional Analysis Approach.

INTRODUCTION: New drugs for multiple myeloma have considerably increased the options for consecutive treatment lines in regular care. Official treatment guidelines still discuss several regimens per line, and therefore, current practice is of topical interest. Large cross-sectional studies revealed a greater than linear loss of patients reaching consecutive treatment lines of ever decreasing effectiveness. METHODS: In a longitudinal approach, we analyzed data of all 145 multiple myeloma patients treated in our outpatient clinic in Germany between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019, using a time-to-event analysis with death as competitive risk. RESULTS: The estimated incidences of reaching the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th lines of therapy were 88, 66, 44, and 30%, respectively. Median times to subsequent treatment lines were 34, 18, 14, 13, and 15 months, respectively. DISCUSSION: Percentages of patients reaching later therapy lines were considerably greater than predicted by cross-sectional studies and median times after the 1st line did not suggest a further decrease in effectiveness, while use of new drug regimens was similar to that reported in cross-sectional studies. CONCLUSION: Effectiveness of later therapy lines appears to be underestimated by cross-sectional analyses, and the conveyed focus on 1st-line treatment for multiple myeloma needs to be scrutinized.