4.7 Review

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in oncology: a study-level meta-analysis of survival and other safety outcomes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 301-315

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605498

关键词

erythropoiesis-stimulating agent; anaemia; oncology; meta-analysis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often develop the potentially debilitating condition of anaemia. Numerous controlled studies indicate that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can raise haemoglobin levels and reduce transfusion requirements in anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. To evaluate recent safety concerns regarding ESAs, we carried out a meta-analysis of controlled ESA oncology trials to examine whether ESA use affects survival, disease progression and risk of venous-thromboembolic events. METHODS: This meta-analysis included studies from the 2006 Cochrane meta-analysis, studies published/updated since the 2006 Cochrane report, and unpublished trial data from Amgen and Centocor Ortho Biotech. The 60 studies analysed (15 323 patients) were conducted in the settings of chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy, radiotherapy only treatment or anaemia of cancer. Data were summarised using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Results indicated that ESA use did not significantly affect mortality (60 studies: OR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.97-1.15) or disease progression (26 studies: OR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.90-1.14), but increased the risk for venous-thromoboembolic events (44 studies: OR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.28-1.72). CONCLUSION: Though this meta-analysis showed no significant effect of ESAs on survival or disease progression, prospectively designed, future randomised clinical trials will further examine the safety and efficacy of ESAs when used according to the revised labelling information. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 301-315. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605498 www.bjcancer.com Published online 5 January 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据