-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2012Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and red blood cell transfusions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of ESAs to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients.
SEARCH METHODS
This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE and other databases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review, 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the first update and to November 2011 for the current update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients receiving or not receiving anti-cancer therapy that compared the use of ESAs (plus transfusion if needed).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Several review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. One review author assessed quality assessment and extracted data, a second review author checked for correctness.
MAIN RESULTS
This update of the systematic review includes a total of 91 trials with 20,102 participants. Use of ESAs significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.68, 70 trials, N = 16,093). On average, participants in the ESAs group received one unit of blood less than the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.98; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.78, 19 trials, N = 4,715). Haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving ESAs (RR 3.93; 95% CI 3.10 to 3.71, 31 trials, N = 6,413). There was suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve Quality of Life (QoL). There was strong evidence that ESAs increase mortality during active study period (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29, 70 trials, N = 15,935) and some evidence that ESAs decrease overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, 78 trials, N = 19,003). The risk ratio for thromboembolic complications was increased in patients receiving ESAs compared to controls (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 57 trials, N = 15,498). ESAs may also increase the risk for hypertension (fixed-effect model: RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.56; random-effects model: RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33, 31 trials, N = 7,228) and thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42; 21 trials, N = 4,507). There was insufficient evidence to support an effect of ESA on tumour response (fixed-effect RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06, 15 trials, N = 5,012).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ESAs reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions but increase the risk for thromboembolic events and deaths. There is suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve QoL. Whether and how ESAs affects tumour control remains uncertain. The increased risk of death and thromboembolic events should be balanced against the potential benefits of ESA treatment taking into account each patient's clinical circumstances and preferences. More data are needed for the effect of these drugs on quality of life and tumour progression. Further research is needed to clarify cellular and molecular mechanisms and pathways of the effects of ESAs on thrombogenesis and their potential effects on tumour growth.
Topics: Anemia; Cause of Death; Darbepoetin alfa; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Erythropoietin; Humans; Hypertension; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 23235597
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003407.pub5 -
World Journal of Surgery Nov 2011No definitive evidence exists regarding the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Treatment modalities described include conservative management,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
No definitive evidence exists regarding the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Treatment modalities described include conservative management, anticoagulation, thrombolysis, and thrombectomy. This review examines the impact of such treatment, its outcomes, and the complications resulting from the resultant portal hypertension.
METHODS
A Medline literature search was undertaken using the keywords portal vein thrombosis, anticoagulation, thrombolysis, and thrombectomy. The primary end point was portal vein recanalization. Secondary outcome measures were morbidity and the development of portal hypertension and its sequelae, including variceal bleeding. Data from articles relating to PVT in the context of cirrhosis, malignancy, or liver transplant were excluded.
RESULTS
Early systemic anticoagulation results in complete portal vein recanalization in 38.3% of cases and partial recanalization in 14.0% of cases. Spontaneous recanalization without treatment can only be expected in up to 16.7% of patients. Frequently this is only when associated with self-limiting underlying pathology and/or minimal thrombus extension. Thrombolysis can be associated with major complications in up to 60% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The natural history of acute PVT is poorly described. Spontaneous resolution of acute portal vein thrombosis is uncommon. Early anticoagulation results in a satisfactory rate of recanalization with minimal procedure-associated morbidity. Thrombolysis should be used with caution and only considered if the disease is progressive and signs of mesenteric ischemia are present. Further well-designed trials with precise outcome reporting are needed to improve our understanding of the disease.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anticoagulants; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Mechanical Thrombolysis; Portal Vein; Thrombectomy; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 21882035
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-011-1198-0