[Supportive treatment and decision-making in a patient with severe anaemia when blood transfusion is not an option]. / Ernstige anemie terwijl bloedtransfusie geen optie is.

In severely anaemic patients, blood transfusions remain the standard of care when haemoglobin levels become dangerously low. However, in some situations blood transfusion is not an option. In this clinical lesson, we present a case of a young Jehovah's Witness who developed a life-threatening anaemia due to a gastro-intestinal bleeding. The patient did not want to receive blood products. Although blood transfusions seemed crucial, we successfully treated our patient with only supportive measures. This articles gives an overview of supportive treatment options in severely anaemic patients in the absence of blood transfusions. These measures include monitoring and optimization of hemodynamics, prevention of further blood loss, correction of the haemostatic balance, enhancing haemostasis, improving oxygen delivery and optimizing haematopoiesis.

Serum-based measurements of stromal activation through ADAM12 associate with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recently it has been recognized that stromal markers could be used as a clinically relevant biomarker for therapy response and prognosis. Here, we report on a serum marker for stromal activation, A Disintegrin and Metalloprotease 12 (ADAM12) in colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Using gene expression databases we investigated ADAM12 expression in CRC and delineated the source of ADAM12 expression. The clinical value of ADAM12 was retrospectively assessed in the CAIRO2 trial in metastatic CRC with 235 patients (31% of total cohort), and an independent rectal cancer cohort (n = 20). RESULTS: ADAM12 is expressed by activated CRC associated fibroblasts. In the CAIRO2 trial cohort, ADAM12 serum levels were prognostic (ADAM12 low versus ADAM12 high; median OS 25.3 vs. 17.1 months, HR 1.48 [95% CI 1.11-1.96], P = 0.007). The prognostic potential was specifically high for metastatic rectal cancer (HR 1.78 [95% CI 1.06-3.00], P = 0.030) and mesenchymal subtype tumors (HR 2.12 [95% CI 1.25-3.60], P = 0.004). ADAM12 also showed potential for predicting recurrence in an exploratory analysis of non-metastatic rectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Here we describe a non-invasive marker for activated stroma in CRC which associates with poor outcome, especially for primary cancers located in the rectum.

Consensus statement on essential patient characteristics in systemic treatment trials for metastatic colorectal cancer: Supported by the ARCAD Group.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are key features influencing trial outcomes. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to develop a minimum set of essential baseline characteristics and stratification factors to include in such trials. METHODS: We performed a modified, two-round Delphi survey among international experts with wide experience in the conduct and methodology of phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. RESULTS: Thirty mCRC experts from 15 different countries completed both consensus rounds. A total of 14 patient characteristics were included in the recommended set: age, performance status, primary tumour location, primary tumour resection, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, liver-only disease, liver involvement, surgical resection of metastases, synchronous versus metachronous metastases, (K)RAS and BRAF mutation status, microsatellite instability/mismatch repair status and number of prior treatment lines. A total of five patient characteristics were considered the most relevant stratification factors: RAS/BRAF mutation status, performance status, primary tumour sidedness and liver-only disease. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a minimum set of essential baseline patient characteristics and stratification factors to include in phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Inclusion of these patient characteristics and strata in study protocols and final study reports will improve interpretation of trial results and facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 - June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007. RESULTS: Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5-18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%-100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%-25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1-9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4-11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007. CONCLUSIONS: We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.

Clinicopathological factors influencing outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment vs observation: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: The CAIRO3 and AIO 0207 trials demonstrated the efficacy of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (FP+Bev) maintenance treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. In this individual patient data meta-analysis with updated follow-up, we aim to provide more precise estimates of treatment effects and to identify subgroups that benefit most from maintenance treatment or observation. METHODS: In 871 patients, randomised to FP+Bev maintenance treatment or observation, we investigated whether treatment effect was modified by sex, age, performance status, response to induction treatment, primary tumour location, number of metastatic sites, disease stage and primary tumour resection, serum LDH, platelet count, CEA, and RAS/BRAF mutation status. Primary end point was time to second progression after reintroduction of the induction regimen (PFS2). Secondary end points were first progression-free survival (PFS1) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 68.5 months (IQR 54.6-87.0 months), maintenance treatment was more effective compared with observation in PFS1 (HR 0.40(95% CI 0.34-0.47)) and PFS2 (HR 0.70(0.60-0.81)). No subgroups were identified that did not benefit from maintenance treatment in PFS1 and PFS2; no clinically relevant subgroup effects were observed. Regarding OS, pooled results were not significant (HR 0.91(0.78-1.05)), and the trials showed marked heterogeneity in overall treatment effect and subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS: FP+Bev maintenance treatment is effective in all patients, regardless of the investigated subgroups.

Significant increase of synchronous disease in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer trials: Results of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although synchronous and metachronous metastases are considered as separate entities of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with different outcomes, its proportion is reported infrequently. We compared inclusion rates and survival of synchronous versus metachronous mCRC in different types of studies investigating initial systemic therapy or surgical treatment of mCRC. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE (January 2004 - February 2016) for mCRC studies investigating first-line systemic therapy or surgical treatment of mCRC including information on synchronous versus metachronous metastases. Outcomes were the proportion of synchronous mCRC, and estimated median overall survival (OS) of the total study population. Spearman analysis (rs) was used to study correlations between outcomes and median year of study enrolment. RESULTS: We included 46 articles, reporting data from 23 phase 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), twenty cohort and three population-based studies (total: 25,941 patients). Seventeen different definitions for synchronous mCRC were identified. In systemic therapy RCTs, we observed an increased proportion of synchronous mCRC during recent years (rs .77, p < .001). In these trials, estimated median OS slightly improved over time (rs .48, p = .03). No significant inclusion or survival trends were observed in included cohort and population-based studies. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, the proportion of patients with synchronous compared with metachronous mCRC enrolled in first-line systemic therapy RCTs increased. Estimated median OS of the total study population in these RCTs slightly increased over time. Many different definitions of synchronous disease were used. Uniform definitions and consistent reporting of the proportion of synchronous versus metachronous metastases could improve cross-study comparisons and interpretation of reported data in all mCRC studies.