Morbidity and mortality of candidaemia in Europe: an epidemiologic meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Candidaemia is a serious hazard to hospitalized patients, but European epidemiological data are restricted to national studies focusing on Northern Europe, population-based surveillance programmes or studies conducted in distinct local areas. The aim was to provide current data on the overall burden and epidemiological development of candidaemia in Europe. METHODS: A Web of Knowledge™ search was carried out from January 2000 to February 2019. Appropriate data were collected on total cases, study duration, incidence, species distribution and/or mortality rates. Meta-analysis was performed to pool individual studies. Heterogeneity was examined using the I2 statistic. Calculations of pooled incidence and mortality rates, subgroup analysis by geographical origin, study period and scenarios were carried out. Daily candidaemia incidence and mortality rates in Europe were extrapolated. Systematic review and meta-analysis were used to determine incidence and mortality of candidaemia in the UN European region. Complete datasets were categorized into population-based and hospital-based epidemiological studies and were analysed separately. Subgroup analyses were performed for geographic distributions and time-dependent developments. RESULTS: In population-based studies, 43 799 cases of candidaemia were diagnosed in 1 885 271 885 person-years, revealing an overall pooled incidence rate of 3.88/100 000. The highest pooled incidence rate was observed in intensive care units (5.5/1000 admissions, Day 30 mortality rate 37%), followed by tertiary care centres (0.96/1000 admissions, pooled Day 30 mortality rate 38%) and the mixed group of teaching and general hospitals (0.52/1000 admissions, pooled Day 30 mortality rate 37%). European incidence of candidaemia was extrapolated to approximately 79 cases per day, of which an estimated 29 patients might have fatal outcome at Day 30. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled incidence rates, species distribution and outcome of candidaemia differ considerably between clinical groups, European regions and over time. We observed an increasing overall pooled incidence rate of candidaemia and a higher proportion of Candida spp. other than C. albicans in the current decade in population-based data.

Survival of patients with Kaposi's sarcoma in the South African antiretroviral treatment era: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: When South Africa (SA) implemented its antiretroviral therapy (ART) programme in 2004, the model for treating HIV-positive Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) patients shifted from symptomatic palliation to potential cure. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate survival and changes over time in AIDS-KS patients treated at a tertiary academic hospital oncology unit (the Steve Biko Academic Hospital medical oncology unit) in Pretoria, SA, in the context of ART availability in SA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of electronic and paper records of KS patients who accessed cancer care between May 2004 and September 2012. We used Kaplan-Meier survival functions to estimate 1- and 2-year survival, and Cox regression models to identify changes over time and prognostic factors. RESULTS: Our study included 357 AIDS-KS patients, almost all of whom were black Africans (n=353, 98.9%); 224 (62.7%) were men. The median age at cancer diagnosis was 37 (interquartile range (IQR) 30 - 43) years, and the median baseline CD4+ count was 242 (IQR 130 - 403) cells/µL. Most patients received ART (n=332, 93.0%) before or after KS diagnosis; 169 (47.3%) were treated with chemotherapy and 209 (58.6%) with radiation therapy. Mortality was 62.7% lower (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 - 0.73) in the late (2009 - 2012) than in the early (2004 - 2008) ART period. Receiving chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.15 - 0.61) and poor-risk AIDS Clinical Trials Group KS stage (adjusted HR 2.88, 95% CI 1.36 - 6.09) predicted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that large national ART roll-out programmes can successfully reduce KS-related mortality at the individual patient level. If ART coverage is extended, KS-associated morbidity and mortality are likely to drop.

Survival of patients with Kaposi's sarcoma in the South African antiretroviral treatment era: A retrospective cohort study

Background. When South Africa (SA) implemented its antiretroviral therapy (ART) programme in 2004, the model for treating HIV-positive Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) patients shifted from symptomatic palliation to potential cure.Objective. To evaluate survival and changes over time in AIDS-KS patients treated at a tertiary academic hospital oncology unit (the Steve Biko Academic Hospital medical oncology unit) in Pretoria, SA, in the context of ART availability in SA. Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of electronic and paper records of KS patients who accessed cancer care between May 2004 and September 2012. We used Kaplan-Meier survival functions to estimate 1- and 2-year survival, and Cox regression models to identify changes over time and prognostic factors.Results. Our study included 357 AIDS-KS patients, almost all of whom were black Africans (n=353, 98.9%); 224 (62.7%) were men. The median age at cancer diagnosis was 37 (interquartile range (IQR) 30 - 43) years, and the median baseline CD4+ count was 242 (IQR 130 - 403) cells/µL. Most patients received ART (n=332, 93.0%) before or after KS diagnosis; 169 (47.3%) were treated with chemotherapy and 209 (58.6%) with radiation therapy. Mortality was 62.7% lower (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 - 0.73) in the late (2009 - 2012) than in the early (2004 - 2008) ART period. Receiving chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.15 - 0.61) and poor-risk AIDS Clinical Trials Group KS stage (adjusted HR 2.88, 95% CI 1.36 - 6.09) predicted mortality.Conclusions. Our results show that large national ART roll-out programmes can successfully reduce KS-related mortality at the individual patient level. If ART coverage is extended, KS-associated morbidity and mortality are likely to drop

Effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms in cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analyses of published and unpublished data.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions; however, they increase the risk of thromboembolic events and mortality. The impact of ESAs on quality of life (QoL) is controversial and led to different recommendations of medical societies and authorities in the USA and Europe. We aimed to critically evaluate and quantify the effects of ESAs on QoL in cancer patients. METHODS: We included data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of ESAs on QoL in cancer patients. Randomised controlled trials were identified by searching electronic data bases and other sources up to January 2011. To reduce publication and outcome reporting biases, we included unreported results from clinical study reports. We conducted meta-analyses on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) and FACT-Anaemia (FACT-An) subscales (primary outcomes) or other validated instruments. RESULTS: We identified 58 eligible RCTs. Clinical study reports were available for 27% (4 out of 15) of the investigator-initiated trials and 95% (41 out of 43) of the industry-initiated trials. We excluded 21 RTCs as we could not use their QoL data for meta-analyses, either because of incomplete reporting (17 RCTs) or because of premature closure of the trial (4 RCTs). We included 37 RCTs with 10581 patients; 21 RCTs were placebo controlled. Chemotherapy was given in 27 of the 37 RCTs. The median baseline haemoglobin (Hb) level was 10.1 g dl(-1); in 8 studies ESAs were stopped at Hb levels below 13 g dl(-1) and in 27 above 13 g dl(-1). For FACT-F, the mean difference (MD) was 2.41 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.39-3.43; P<0.0001; 23 studies, n=6108) in all cancer patients and 2.81 (95% CI 1.73-3.90; P<0.0001; 19 RCTs, n=4697) in patients receiving chemotherapy, which was below the threshold (≥ 3) for a clinically important difference (CID). Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents had a positive effect on anaemia-related symptoms (MD 4.09; 95% CI 2.37-5.80; P=0.001; 14 studies, n=2765) in all cancer patients and 4.50 (95% CI 2.55-6.45; P<0.0001; 11 RCTs, n=2436) in patients receiving chemotherapy, which was above the threshold (≥ 4) for a CID. Of note, this effect persisted when we restricted the analysis to placebo-controlled RCTs in patients receiving chemotherapy. There was some evidence that the MDs for FACT-F were above the threshold for a CID in RCTs including cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with Hb levels below 12 g dl(-1) at baseline and in RCTs stopping ESAs at Hb levels above 13 g dl(-1). However, these findings for FACT-F were not confirmed when we restricted the analysis to placebo-controlled RCTs in patients receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients, particularly those receiving chemotherapy, we found that ESAs provide a small but clinically important improvement in anaemia-related symptoms (FACT-An). For fatigue-related symptoms (FACT-F), the overall effect did not reach the threshold for a CID.

Prophylaxis of infectious complications with colony-stimulating factors in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy-evidence-based guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party AGIHO of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO).

BACKGROUND: Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies. METHODS: We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines. RESULTS: We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.

2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality and 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 the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. In Europe, prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim (including approved biosimilars), lenograstim or pegfilgrastim is available to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. 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. The need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines led to the formation of a European Guidelines Working Party by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the publication in 2006 of guidelines for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. A new systematic literature review has been undertaken to ensure that recommendations are current and provide guidance on clinical practice in Europe. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors, such as elderly age (≥65 years) and neutrophil count be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk before administering each cycle of chemotherapy. It is important that after a previous episode of FN, patients receive prophylactic administration of G-CSF in subsequent cycles. We provide an expanded list of common chemotherapy regimens considered to have a high (≥20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN. Prophylactic G-CSF continues to be recommended in patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with high risk of FN. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% of 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. Clinical evidence shows 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. Filgrastim biosimilars are also approved for use in Europe. While other forms of G-CSF, including biosimilars, are administered by a course of daily injections, pegfilgrastim allows once-per-cycle administration. Choice of formulation remains a matter for individual clinical judgement. Evidence from multiple low level studies derived from audit data and clinical practice suggests that some patients receive suboptimal daily G-CSFs; the use of pegfilgrastim may avoid this problem.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation in the first line treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in adults.

BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support (HDT) has been proven effective in relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, conflicting results of HDT as part of first-line treatment have been reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of such treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation as part of first-line treatment improves survival in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancer Lit, the Cochrane Library and smaller databases, Internet-databases of ongoing trials, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology were searched. We included full-text, abstract publications and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing conventional chemotherapy versus high-dose chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of adults with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma were included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. All authors were contacted to obtain missing data and asked to provide individual patient data. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs including 3079 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. Overall treatment-related mortality was 6.0% in the HDT group and not significantly different compared to conventional chemotherapy (OR 1.33 [95% CI 0.91 to 1.93], P=0.14). 13 studies including 2018 patients showed significantly higher CR rates in the group receiving HDT (OR 1.32, [95% CI 1.09 to 1.59], P=0.004). However, HDT did not have an effect on OS, when compared to conventional chemotherapy. The pooled HR was 1.04 ([95% CI 0.91 to 1.18], P=0.58). There was no statistical heterogeneity among the trials. Sensitivity analyses underlined the robustness of these results. Subgroup analysis of prognostic groups according to IPI did not show any survival difference between HDT and controls in 12 trials (low and low-intermediate risk IPI: HR 1.41[95% CI 0.95 to 2.10], P=0.09; high-intermediate and high risk IPI: HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.83 to 1.13], P=0.71. Event-free survival (EFS) also showed no significant difference between HDT and CT (HR 0.93, [95% CI 0.81 to 1.07], P=0.31). Other possible risk factors such as the proportion of patient with diffuse large cell lymphoma, protocol adherence, HDT strategy, response status before HDT, conditioning regimens and methodological issues were analysed in sensitivity analyses. However, there was no evidence for an association between these factors and the results of our analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: . Despite higher CR rates, there is no benefit for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation as a first line treatment in patients with aggressive NHL.

Chemotherapy plus Rituximab versus chemotherapy alone for B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab has been shown to improve response rates and progression free survival when added to chemotherapy in patients with indolent and mantle cell lymphoma. However, the impact of R on overall survival (OS) when given in combination with chemotherapy (R-chemo) has remained unclear so far. OBJECTIVES: We thus performed a comprehensive systematic review in this group of patients to compare R-chemo with chemotherapy alone with respect to OS. Other endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), toxicity and disease control as assessed by measures such as time to treatment failure (TTF), event free-survival (EFS), progression free-survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference proceeding from 1990 to 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing R-chemo with chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed indolent lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed the study quality. Number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated to facilitate interpretation. MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials involving 1943 patients with follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, or other indolent lymphomas were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies were published as full-text articles, and two were in abstract form. Patients treated with R-chemo had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] for mortality 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.78), overall response (relative risk of tumour response 1.21; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27), and disease control (HR of disease event 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.71) than patients treated with chemotherapy alone. R-chemo improved overall survival in patients with follicular lymphoma (HR for mortality 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) and in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (HR for mortality 0.60; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98). However, in the latter case, there was heterogeneity among the trials (P 0.07), making the survival benefit less reliable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review demonstrated improved OS for patients with indolent lymphoma, particularly in the subgroups of follicular and in mantle cell lymphoma when treated with R-chemo compared to chemotherapy alone.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of epoetin alpha, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alpha in anaemia associated with cancer, especially that attributable to cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of epoetin alpha, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alpha (referred to collectively in this report as epo) in anaemia associated with cancer, especially that attributable to cancer treatment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from 2000 (1996 in the case of darbepoetin alpha) to September 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Using a recently published Cochrane review as the starting point, a systematic review of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epo with best standard was conducted. Inclusion, quality assessment and data abstraction were undertaken in duplicate. Where possible, meta-analysis was employed. The economic assessment consisted of a systematic review of past economic evaluations, an assessment of economic models submitted by the manufacturers of the three epo agents and development of a new individual sampling model (the Birmingham epo model). RESULTS: In total 46 RCTs were included within this systematic review, 27 of which had been included in the Cochrane systematic review. All 46 trials compared epo plus supportive care for anaemia (including transfusions), with supportive care for anaemia (including transfusions), alone. Haematological response (defined as an improvement by 2 g/dl(-1)) had a relative risk of 3.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 3.8, 22 RCTs] with a response rate for epo of 53%. The trial duration was most commonly 16-20 weeks. There was little statistical heterogeneity in the estimate of haematological response, and there were no important differences between the subgroups examined. Haemoglobin (Hb) change showed a weighted mean difference of 1.63 g/dl(-1) (95% CI 1.46 to 1.80) in favour of epo. Treatment with erythropoietin in patients with cancer-induced anaemia reduces the number of patients who receive a red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) by an estimated 18%. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data were analysed using vote counting and qualitative assessment and a positive effect was observed in favour of an improved HRQoL for patients on epo. Published information on side-effects was of poor quality. New trials provided further evidence of side-effects with epo, particularly thrombic events, but it is still unclear whether these could be accounted for by chance alone. The results of the previous Cochrane review had suggested a survival advantage for epo (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02), based on 19 RCTs. The update, based on 28 RCTs, suggests no difference (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.21). Subgroup analysis suggested some explanations for this heterogeneity, but it is difficult to draw firm conclusions without access to the substantial amounts of missing or unpublished data, or more detailed results from some of the trials with heterogeneous patient populations. The conclusions are, however, broadly in line with those of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety briefing, which recommended that patients with a haemoglobin above 12 g/dl(-1) should not be treated; the target rate of rise in Hb should not be too great, and further carefully conducted trials are required to determine which subgroups of patients may be harmed by the use of these products, in particular through the stimulation of tumour activity. Five published economic evaluations identified from the literature had inconsistent results, with estimates ranging from a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) under pound 10,000 through to epo being less effective and more costly than standard care. The more favourable evaluations assumed a survival advantage for epo. The three company models submitted each relied on assumed survival gains to achieve relatively low cost per QALY, from pound 13,000 to pound 28,000, but generated estimates from pound 84,000 to pound 159,000 per QALY when no survival gain was assumed. Each of these models relied on Hb levels alone driving utility, and each assumed gradual normalisation of Hb in the standard treatment arm after the end of treatment. The Birmingham epo model followed the company models in regard to the relationship between Hb levels and utility, and also assumed normalisation in the base case. With no survival gain, the incremental cost per QALY was pound 150,000, falling to pound 40,000 when the lower, more favourable, confidence interval for survival was used. CONCLUSIONS: Epo is effective in improving haematological response and reducing RBCT requirements, and appears to have a positive effect on HRQoL. The incidence of side-effects and effects on survival remains highly uncertain. However, if there is no impact on survival, it seems highly unlikely that epo would be considered a cost-effective use of healthcare resources. The main target for further research should be improving estimates of impact on survival, initially through more detailed secondary research, such as the individual patient data meta-analysis started by the Cochrane group. Further trials may be required, and have been recommended by the FDA, although many trials are in progress, completed but unreported or awaiting mature follow-up. The Birmingham epo model developed as part of this project contains new features that improve its flexibility in exploring different scenarios; further refinement and validation would therefore be of assistance. Finally, further research to resolve uncertainty about other parameters, particularly quality of life, adverse events, and the rate of normalisation, would also be beneficial.

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoietin (Epo), darbepoetin (Darbepo) and red blood cell transfusions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of Epo or Darbepo to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE and other data bases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review and 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients that compared the use of Epo/Darbepo (plus transfusion if needed) with observation until red blood cell transfusion was required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: This update of the systematic review included a total of 57 trials with 9,353 patients. Of these, 27 trials with 3,287 adults were also included in the first Cochrane Review. Thirty trials with 6,066 patients were added during the update process. Use of Epo/Darbepo significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.68, 42 trials, n = 6,510). On average participants in the Epo/Darbepo group received one unit of blood less than the control group (WMD -1.05; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.78, 14 trials, n = 2,353). For participants with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving Epo/Darbepo (RR 3.43; 95% CI 3.07 to 3.84, 22 trials, n = 4,307). There was suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve Quality of Life (QoL). The relative risk for thrombo embolic complications was increased in patients receiving Epo/Darbepo compared to controls (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06; 35 trials, n = 6,769). Uncertainties remain whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response (fixed effect RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23, 13 trials, n = 2,833; random effects: RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26) or overall survival (unadjusted and adjusted data: HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.18; 42 trials, n = 8,167). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence that administration of Epo/Darbepo reduces the relative risk for blood transfusions and the number of units transfused in cancer patients. For patients with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL (mild anaemia) there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo improves haematological response. There is suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve QoL. However, there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo increases the relative risk for thrombo embolic complications. Whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response and overall survival remains uncertain.

Purine antagonists for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials suggest improved response rates for purine antagonists compared to alkylator-based regimens in the treatment of B-CLL. However, none was able to show a survival advantage. OBJECTIVES: To determine if there is any advantage of purine antagonists compared to alkylating agents (alone or in combination) in the treatment of patients with previously untreated B-CLL. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medical databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE), conference proceedings and internet-based trial registers were searched electronically and/or by hand (1990-2003). All references were checked for further trial information. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing purine antagonists as single agents with alkylator-based regimens in patients with previously untreated B-CLL were included. We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and quality assessment were done in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Missing data were obtained from original authors. Endpoints included overall survival, overall response rate, rate of complete remissions, progression-free survival, treatment-related morbidity and mortality. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials with 1838 randomised patients were included. There is some evidence for improved overall survival after treatment with purine antagonists compared to alkylators, but statistical significance was not reached (HR 0.89 [95% CI 0.78-1.01], 4 trials, n=1638). However, the relative risk for achieving an overall response (RR 1.22 [95% CI 1.13-1.31], 5 trials, n=1751) and complete remission (RR 1.94 [95% CI 1.65-2.28], 5 trials, n=1751) was significantly higher, resulting in a longer progression-free survival (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.61-0.82], 4 trials, n=1638). Incidence of grade III/IV infections was significantly higher in patients receiving treatment with purine antagonists (RR 1.83 [95% 1.30-2.58], 4 trials, n=1620). There was no significant difference concerning the relative risk for grade III/IV neutropenia (RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.98-1.34], 4 trials, n=1620) and therapy-related mortality (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.45-1.95]). Overall incidence of hemolytic anemia was low, but significantly increased in the purine antagonist group (RR 3.36 [95% CI 1.27-8.91], 3 trials, n=1258). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite significantly increased overall response and complete remission rates and longer progression-free survival with first-line treatment of B-CLL patients with single-agent purine antagonists, we were not able to detect a statistically significant improvement of overall survival compared to alkylator-based regimens. Furthermore, the use of purine antagonists also augments the risk for grade III/IV infections and hemolytic anemia.

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.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Guidelines of the infectious diseases working party (AGIHO) of the german society of haematology and oncology.

Patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation are at high risk for infection with a variety of pathogens during different phases of the procedure. Bacteria and fungi predominate the first phase until engraftment. During the second phase, from engraftment to about day 100, major infectious problems are caused by fungi and cytomegalovirus. Both pathogens remain important under continued immunosuppression, however, in the late post-transplantation period infections with encapsulated bacteria may become a problem. In this review the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the DGHO gives recommendations for prophylaxis of infections under allogeneic stem cell transplantation with drugs and other measures. The aim of the group was to do this on an evidence-based-medicine rating, if possible.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2003). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 eligible randomised controlled trials with 1823 patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.66 to 2.82); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11), FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35) and OS (hazard ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16). One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.

Erythropoietin for patients with malignant disease.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoietin (EPO) and red blood cell transfusions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of erythropoietin to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (01/1985 to 12/2001), EMBASE (01/1985 to 12/2001), other databases and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the use of recombinant human erythropoietin (plus transfusion if needed) with red blood cell transfusions alone for the treatment or prevention of anaemia in cancer patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. All authors from included studies were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty seven trials with 3,287 adults were included. Use of erythropoietin significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.73, 25 trials, n = 3,069). On average participants in the erythropoietin group received one unit of blood less than the control group (WMD -1.00; 95% CI-1.31 to -0.70, 13 trials, n = 2,056). For participants with baseline haemoglobin below 10 g/dL haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving EPO (RR 3.60; 95% CI 3.07 to 4.23, 14 trials, n = 2,347). There was inconclusive evidence whether EPO improves tumour response (fixed effect RR 1.36; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.72, seven trials, n = 1,150; random effects: RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.59) and overall survival (adjusted data: HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99; unadjusted data: HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02, 19 trials, n = 2,865). There were no statistically significant adverse effects. Evidence was inconclusive with respect to quality of life and fatigue. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence that the administration of erythropoietin reduces the risk for blood transfusions and the number of units transfused in cancer patients. For patients with baseline haemoglobin below 10 g/dL there is strong evidence that erythropoietin improves haematological response. There is inconclusive evidence whether erythropoietin improves tumour response and overall survival. Research on side effects is inconclusive.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors (G-CSF and GM-CSF) are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infections in the treatment of patients with malignant lymphoma. The question whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose-intensity, tumour response and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive a systematic review was required. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review in patients with malignant lymphoma to determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF to prevent neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, infection, improve quality of life, adherence to the treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF), overall survival (OS) and to assess adverse events of G-CSF and GM-CSF. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, Embase, CancerLit, the Cochrane Library and smaller databases, Internet-databases of ongoing trials, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology were searched. We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included in this review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 eligible studies with 1.823 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, G-/GM-CSF significantly reduced the relative risk for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.60-0.73]), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.62-0.89]) and infection (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.64-0.85]). There was no evidence for G-/GM-CSF to decrease the number of patients who required iv antibiotics (RR 0.82 [95%CI 0.57-1.18]), to reduce infection related mortality (RR 1.37 [95% CI 0.66-2.82]), or to improve complete tumour response (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.94-1.11]), FFTF (HR 1.11 [95% CI 0.91-1.35]) and OS (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.86-1.16]). One study evaluated quality of life parameters and did not find differences between the groups. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF and GM-CSF, when given prophylactically in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the currently available randomised trials in this clinical setting, there is no evidence for G-/GM-CSF to provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF and OS.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors in the prevention for adverse effects in the therapeutic treatment of malignant lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors (G-CSF and GM-CSF) are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infections in the treatment of patients with malignant lymphoma. The question whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose-intensity, tumour response and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive a systematic review was required. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review in patients with malignant lymphoma to determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF to prevent neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, infection, improve quality of life, adherence to the treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF), overall survival (OS) and to assess adverse events of G-CSF and GM-CSF. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, Embase, CancerLit, the Cochrane Library and smaller databases, Internet-databases of ongoing trials, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology were searched. We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included in this review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. All authors were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 eligible studies with 1434 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, G-/GM-CSF significantly reduced the relative risk for severe neutropenia (RR 0.64 [95% CI 0.55-0.75]), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.62-0.89]) and infection (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.64-0.85]). There was no evidence for G-/GM-CSF to decrease the number of patients who required iv antibiotics (RR 0.82 [95%CI 0.57-1.18]), to reduce infection related mortality (RR 2.07 [95% CI 0.81-5.34]), or to improve complete tumour response (RR 1.06 [95% CI 0.96-1.16]), FFTF (HR 1.22 [95% CI 0.83-1.80]) and OS (HR 0.98 [95% CI 0.81-1.18]). None of the studies evaluated quality of life parameters. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF and GM-CSF, when given prophylactically in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the currently available randomised trials in this clinical setting, there is no evidence for G-/GM-CSF to provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF and OS.