4.7 Article

High serum levels of TNF-α and IL-6 predict the clinical outcome of treatment with human recombinant erythropoietin in anaemic cancer patients

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages 1523-1528

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdp568

Keywords

cytokines; erythropoiesis-stimulating agents; rHuEPO; treatment outcome

Categories

Funding

  1. European Society of Medical Oncology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients and methods: Thirty-five cancer patients and 25 healthy controls were enrolled in this study. Patients were treated with epoetin alfa at the dose of 150 IU/kg s.c. three times a week for 12 weeks. If the haemoglobin (Hb) level failed to improve at least 2 g/dl above baseline by week 6 of treatment, dose was increased to 300 IU/kg s.c. for the remainder of the treatment period. All patients filled out the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), a questionnaire for the self-evaluation of cancer-related fatigue. Serum samples from patients and control groups were frozen at -80 degrees C and TNF-alpha, IL-1 beta and IL-6 were later examined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results: Fatigued cancer patients had significant higher levels of circulating TNF-alpha, IL-1 beta and IL-6 than healthy controls. Responders (Rs) to erythropoietin had significant lower medium levels of TNF-alpha and IL-6 than nonresponders (NRs). Fatigued patients with a general BFI score >= 6 presented higher medium level of cytokines than nonfatigued patients (general BFI score < 6), but each group responded similarly to treatment with rHuEPO. Conclusions: High serum levels of TNF-alpha and IL-6 at the baseline are significantly correlated with a negative response to administration with rHuEPO. Thus, pretreatment evaluation of TNF-alpha and IL-6 serum levels can help to select those patients who are most likely to benefit from treatment with rHuEPO. On the contrary, Hb level, red blood cell count, lactate dehydrogenase and BFI score do not predict the outcome of treatment with rHuEPO.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available