SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Cancer patients frequently develop chemotherapy-induced anemia, which can be treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. These agents have shifted the standard of chemotherapy-induced anemia treatment away from the previous mainstay of red blood cell transfusions. In July 2007, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a National Coverage Decision restricting reimbursement for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to those chemotherapy patients who have hemoglobin levels <10 g/dL at initiation of therapy. This decision was hypothesized to place a greater reliance on transfusions for chemotherapy-induced anemia treatment. This observational study examined transfusions and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent utilization rates within defined episodes of chemotherapy care using electronic medical records from seven practices consisting of 39 sites of care across seven states. We compared the frequency of myelosuppressive chemotherapy treatment, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administrations, and red blood cell transfusions before and after the National Coverage Decision in oncology patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia. Although exposure to myelosuppressive chemotherapy was not different, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administrations significantly decreased and blood transfusions significantly increased after implementation of the National Coverage Decision. The 31% increase in transfusions for patients aged 65 years and older was significant (P = 0.007) and higher than the 8% increase for patients younger than 65 years (P = 0.358). Changes in practice patterns for chemotherapy-induced anemia treatment that followed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement decision for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents seem to be impacting practice patterns. Further research is necessary to determine whether these changes represent a widespread and durable shift in patient treatment. Am. J. Hematol., 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Over one million new cases of cancer are diagnosed in the United States each year [1]. Chemotherapy treatment is associated with the development of anemia in approximately 50–60% of these patients [2], a risk that is increased in patients over 65 years of age [3]. Fatigue resulting from anemia can have a profound impact on physical functioning, mental health, and overall quality of life [4]. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia and to reduce the risk of transfusions [5–10].

Systematic reviews of randomized clinical studies using meta-analysis have shown that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents significantly reduce transfusion risk by 36–59% [11–13]. However, a retrospective 2009 study [14] based on 1991–2002 SEER-Medicare data concluded that transfusion rates were unchanged after the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, whereas a recent registry study [15, 16] and a practice-based Medicare study [17] found that transfusion rates did increase as erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use declined.

Before the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy, red blood cell transfusion was the only option for correction of anemia. Red blood cell transfusion continues to be indicated in situations of life-threatening anemia or when rapid reversal is required; however, transfusions carry their own inherent risks. Packed red blood cells have the potential to mediate graft-versus-host disease and cause volume overload, transfusion-associated lung injury, and febrile, nonhemolytic reactions [18]. Risks of infection and alloimmunization have also been documented extensively [19]. These risks are compounded in patients who require multiple transfusions to treat their anemia as hemoglobin levels decline.

Before 2007, practice guidelines for erythropoiesis-stimulating agent treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia recommended that corrective therapy be considered for symptomatic patients with hemoglobin levels 10–11 g/dL, with the goal of raising the level to the 10–12 g/dL range [20–22]. Since then, results from eight clinical trials in patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia associated with chemotherapy [8, 23–25], or the unapproved indications of radiotherapy [26, 27] and anemia of cancer [28, 29], have raised concerns regarding increased mortality and potential risks such as venous thromboembolism and tumor progression. All eight studies targeted erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use to hemoglobin levels ≥12 g/dL. These concerns also prompted three Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee meetings convened by the US Food and Drug Administration to provide guidance in minimizing this putative risk, the most recent occurring in March 2008 [30–32].

Responding in part to these concerns, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services opened a National Coverage Decision, which was finalized in July 2007. For chemotherapy-induced anemia patients, this decision restricted reimbursement for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to those with hemoglobin levels <10 g/dL at initiation of therapy. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents would no longer be covered if the pretreatment hemoglobin level equaled or exceeded 10 g/dL, if the hemoglobin level rose to exceed this level after 4 weeks of therapy, or if the observed hemoglobin levels increased by more than 1 g/dL in a 2-week period. The maximum duration of covered therapy was set to 8 weeks after completion of a chemotherapy regimen. Reimbursements for the nonlabeled use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to treat anemia of cancer and anemia associated only with radiotherapy were also discontinued.

After the National Coverage Decision, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network updated their evidence-based practice guidelines to state that erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy should be considered as the hemoglobin level is falling and approaches 10 g/dL and that the dose should be adjusted to maintain hemoglobin levels within the 10–12 g/dL range while avoiding transfusions.

The U.S. product labeling for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, revised most recently in August 2008 [33], more fully describes the potential risks of tumor progression and mortality and includes information on each of the eight studies generating concerns. Current prescribing information for darbepoetin alfa contains a boxed warning stating that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents shortened overall survival and/or time to tumor progression in clinical studies in patients with breast, non-small-cell lung, head and neck, lymphoid, and cervical cancers when dosed to target a hemoglobin level of ≥12 g/dL [33]. The warning also states that the risks of shortened survival and tumor progression have not been excluded when erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are dosed to target a hemoglobin of <12 g/dL, within the range recommended by current evidence-based guidelines. Also, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are not indicated in any patient who is being treated with the expected outcome of cure, regardless of treatment with myelosuppressive chemotherapy (a recommendation made in the apparent absence of a documented evidence base). The current recommendations are to initiate erythropoiesis-stimulating agents at hemoglobin level <10 g/dL and to use the lowest dose required to avoid transfusions; the goal of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent treatment is defined as transfusion avoidance rather than a specific target hemoglobin range.

Because patients with hemoglobin levels <10 g/dL are already at increased risk for transfusions [34], the goal of transfusion avoidance would seem to be underserved by requiring patients' hemoglobin levels to fall to this level before initiating erythropoiesis-stimulating agent treatment. This has prompted concerns that chemotherapy-induced anemia patients receiving chemotherapy may be required to undergo more transfusions as a result of the July 2007 National Coverage Decision. In this study, we examined erythropoiesis-stimulating agent utilization and transfusion rates from electronic medical records in an equivalent timeframe before and after the National Coverage Decision to determine the impact, if any, of this change on red blood cell transfusions.

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

At the time of the study, the database comprised Varian electronic medical records (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) from 52 clinics and 350 oncologists, representing more than 150,000 patients. Among these sites, not all reported integrated transfusion data. For this study, the transfusion analysis set included seven practices that did record transfusion administrations in structured data fields within the electronic medical record. These practices were located in seven states with 39 sites of care, representing 194 physicians and 34,450 patients.

The Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee and National Coverage Decision meetings concerning the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer were largely conducted from March 2007 through June 2007. To compare changes in transfusion practice pre- and post-National Coverage Decision, two equivalent observational periods were selected. The calendar months were identical to account for any potential seasonal influences. The pre-National Coverage Decision study period was defined as June 2006 through March 2007. The post-National Coverage Decision comparator period was defined as June 2007 through March 2008. Within each period, episodes of chemotherapy care were defined as a group of chemotherapy administrations, with a 90-day gap delimiting the beginning and end of an episode. Therefore, the data set includes observations for transfusions delivered through June 2007 in the pre-National Coverage Decision group and June 2008 in the post-National Coverage Decision group because it uses the 90-day look-forward period for episodes of chemotherapy care ending in March. High or moderate myelosuppressive chemotherapy was defined as any of the following: any regimen containing topotecan, docetaxel, or paclitaxel; or cyclophosphamide or doxorubicin in combination with either paclitaxel or vincristine with average days between cycles >17.5 and <28. Highly myelosuppressive chemotherapy was defined as a regimen of cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, and doxorubicin; cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and ifosfamide; or cyclophosphamide or doxorubicin, with either paclitaxel or vincristine with ≤17.5 average days between cycles. The percent of episodes of chemotherapy care with myelosuppressive chemotherapy, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administration, blood transfusions, and the patient's minimum hemoglobin measure during the episodes of chemotherapy care were collected. Statistical significance was determined for differences pre- and post-National Coverage Decision using the χ2 test of independence for differences in proportions, the t-test for differences in means, and the two-sample linear rank test for differences in medians. No adjustments were made for the multiple comparisons that were conducted.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Patient demographics

Characteristics of patients in the study are summarized in Table I. The pre-National Coverage Decision sample (n = 4,784) included fewer patients than the post-National Coverage Decision sample (n = 5,605). The mean age in both groups was approximately 62 years, with slightly less than half of patients ≥65 years of age. There was a significantly greater percentage of female patients in the pre-National Coverage Decision sample (P = 0.025). As a result, there were more gynecologic cancer diagnoses in the pre-National Coverage Decision patients (P = 0.004). Lung cancer was also more prevalent among pre-National Coverage Decision patients (P = 0.038). No other cancer type showed significant differences in distribution between groups. The mean duration of episodes of chemotherapy care was lower in the pre-National Coverage Decision period (P = 0.012), but the median duration was the same across periods (P = 0.175).

Table 1. Patient Characteristics
 Pre-National Coverage Decision (n = 4,784)aPost-National Coverage Decision (n = 5,605)bP-value
MetricSDMetricSD
  • Post-National Coverage Decision period was June 2007 to March 2008, and the pre-National Coverage Decision period was June 2006 to March 2007.

  • SD is standard deviation.

  • P-values for χ2 test on proportions (reported as percentages in the table), t-test on means, and two-sample linear rank test on medians, comparing pre-National Coverage Decision with post-National Coverage Decision.

  • a

    The number of episodes of chemotherapy care was 4,784, and the number of patients was 4,430.

  • b

    The number of episodes of chemotherapy care was 5,605, and the number of patients was 5,193.

Episodes of chemotherapy care duration (days), mean941081001360.012
Episodes of chemotherapy care duration (days), median63 63 0.175
Female (%)60.249.058.049.40.025
Age, mean61.815.061.915.40.522
Age categories (%)
<4511.632.111.732.20.879
45–6442.649.542.049.40.534
≥6545.749.846.249.90.604
Cancer type (%)
Bladder1.411.81.512.20.688
Breast23.242.223.842.60.487
Colorectal10.430.510.230.30.710
Leukemia3.819.13.618.60.556
Lung14.535.213.133.70.038
Lymphoma12.132.612.733.30.336
Myelodysplastic syndrome1.612.71.712.90.798
Prostate4.420.45.122.10.067
Uterine/cervical/ovarian8.327.56.825.10.004
Other20.440.321.641.10.137

Treatment results

Table II summarizes outcomes by treatment received pre- and post-National Coverage Decision. Over the two test periods, the numbers of episodes of chemotherapy care with chemotherapy treatment were comparable. Similar proportions of patients received myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the pre-National Coverage Decision period (29.3%; n = 1,403 episodes of chemotherapy care) and the post-National Coverage Decision period (28.5%; n = 1,598 episodes of chemotherapy care) (P = 0.360). In contrast, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administrations significantly decreased by 10.9 percentage points (a relative 26% reduction) from the pre-National Coverage Decision period (41.3%; n = 1,975 episodes of chemotherapy care) to the post-National Coverage Decision period (30.4%; n = 1,704 episodes of chemotherapy care) (P < 0.001). Concurrently, there was a significant increase of 1.2 percentage points in the rate of blood transfusions, a 17% increase from the pre-National Coverage Decision period (7.6%; n = 364) to the post-National Coverage Decision period (8.9%; n = 501 episodes of chemotherapy care) (P = 0.015). The mean minimum hemoglobin measured during the episodes of chemotherapy care decreased from the pre-National Coverage Decision (10.9 g/dL) to the post-National Coverage Decision period (10.7 g/dL; P < 0.001).

Table 2. Outcomes in the Pre-National Coverage Decision and Post-National Coverage Decision Periods
 All patientsPatients aged ≥65
Pre-decision (n = 4,784)Post-decision (n = 5,605)Relative change (%)P-valuePre-decision (n = 2,188)Post-decision (n = 2,592)Relative change (%)P-value
  1. Post-National Coverage Decision period was June 2007 to March 2008 and the pre-National Coverage Decision period was June 2006 to March 2007.

  2. P-values are for χ2 tests on proportions, comparing pre-National Coverage Decision with post-National Coverage Decision.

Episodes of chemotherapy care with:
 Myelosuppressive therapy29.3%28.5% −2.70.36024.7%23.2% −6.10.214
 Erythropoietin-stimulating agent administration41.3%30.4%−26.4<.00146.0%32.6%−29.1<.001
 Blood transfusion7.6%8.9%17.10.0156.7%8.8%31.30.007
 Mean minimum hemoglobin during episode (g/dL)10.910.7 <0.00110.910.8 0.008

The changes in the frequency of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administrations and red blood cell transfusions were most pronounced in the patient group aged ≥65 years old. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administrations decreased significantly by 13.4 percentage points among these patients, a 29% decrease from the pre-National Coverage Decision period (46.0%; n = 1,007) to the post-National Coverage Decision period (32.6%; n = 845) (P < 0.001). The rate of blood transfusions in older patients significantly increased by 2.1 percentage points, a 31% increase from the pre-National Coverage Decision period (6.7%; n = 146) to the post-National Coverage Decision period (8.8%; n = 227) (P = 0.007). The mean minimum hemoglobin measured during the episodes of chemotherapy care decreased from the pre-National Coverage Decision period (10.9 g/dL) to the post-National Coverage Decision period (10.8 g/dL; P = 0.008). In contrast, among patients aged <65 years, the percent of episodes of chemotherapy care with erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administrations decreased by 24% (P < 0.001); however, the 8% increase in blood transfusions was not significant (P = 0.358; Fig. 1).

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Episodes of chemotherapy care with erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administrations or transfusion administrations are compared for the pre- and post-National Coverage Decision test periods. When compared by age group, patients aged ≥65 years had a greater decrement in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use and a greater increase in transfusions, following the National Coverage Decision. ESA, erythropoietin-stimulating agent; NCD, National Coverage Decision; EOCC, episode of cancer care; CL, confidence limit.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

In this comparative study of the frequency of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administrations and red blood cell transfusions based on electronic medical records, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use decreased and transfusions increased significantly after the March 2007 Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee recommendations and the July 2007 Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent National Coverage Decision. One consequence of diminished erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use in patients undergoing chemotherapy may be an increase in rescue transfusions for patients with moderate anemia that was previously managed successfully through erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy. This influx to the overall pool of chemotherapy-induced anemia patients at risk for transfusions adds to the population previously identified to be at risk, including those with prior transfusions [35] and low baseline hemoglobin [6, 36].

The pattern of results in this study differs from findings of a 2009 investigation of use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients treated with chemotherapy from 1991 through 2002 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database [14]. In that study, although the proportion of patients receiving an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent increased, the rate of blood transfusions per year remained stable. Importantly, the study was based on data collected from 9 to 19 years ago, before the July 2007 Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent National Coverage Decision. In addition, the study covered a broad analytical window, e.g., transfusions in the year before patients received an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent were included. The results of the study reported herein constitute an important complement to the Hershman et al. study [14], and help put those data into current context along with other recent publications and similar findings.

Chemotherapy-induced anemia can pose serious risks to patients with cancer, including fatigue, tachycardia, shortness of breath, and dizziness. In older patients, particularly, cognitive impairment is a potential concern, as well as augmentation of existing comorbidities [37]. Patients may be reluctant to discuss their anemia symptoms with caregivers, and physicians may not recognize the impact these symptoms have on daily living. The burdens created by anemia symptoms, resulting in decreased work productivity and increased caregiver time, can be significant [38]. The risks and benefits of anemia treatments for chemotherapy-induced anemia patients should be considered carefully by oncologists and their patients.

Over the last 2 years, the risk-to-benefit profile of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in chemotherapy-induced anemia has been revisited. Before 2007, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents were indicated for use in chemotherapy-induced anemia up to a hemoglobin level of approximately 12 g/dL and were to be withheld if hemoglobin exceeded 13 g/dL. More recently, several studies have shown that chemotherapy-induced anemia patients who received erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to target hemoglobin greater than 12 g/dL have an increased risk of serious cardiovascular and thromboembolic events, mortality, and tumor progression. Through 2008, Food and Drug Administration-mandated label changes have responded to these signals by restricting initiation of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to patients with hemoglobin <10 g/dL and to the use of the lowest erythropoiesis-stimulating agent dose required to avoid a red blood cell transfusion.

Transfusions, although commonplace, are not without quantifiable risk. Although the most common adverse reaction to a blood transfusion is a febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reaction, which generally resolves without lasting effects, mortality can occur related to transfusions. Worldwide, transfusion-related acute lung injury is the leading cause of transfusion-related mortality. The estimated frequency of occurrence is 1 in 5,000 red cell transfusions, but may be greater because of underreporting [39]. In the United States, errors resulting in infusion of incompatible blood occur every 1 in 14,000 transfusions [19], and bacterial contamination and sepsis together account for an estimated 10% of transfusion-related deaths [40]. Acute hemolytic transfusion reactions and graft-versus-host disease complications are relatively rare, but the associated sequelae are serious and potentially fatal [41]. Patients requiring chronic transfusions, such as those with myelodysplastic syndromes, are at risk of developing transfusion-associated iron overload [42]. Transfusions also are a proven transmission route for serious infections. As a result of increased surveillance, the current risk for transfusion-transmitted viral and bacterial infections is low, but emerging pathogens continue to pose a potential risk, particularly in cases where adequate detection methods have yet to be developed [19, 43]. In patients undergoing tumor resection with curative intent, transfusion-related immunomodulation may increase the incidence of postoperative infection or promotion of tumor recurrence. Recently, a meta-analysis published by the Cochrane Collaboration reported an increased risk for cancer recurrence in colorectal cancer patients receiving perioperative transfusions [44].

Like other healthcare resources, the blood supply in the United States is limited. The 2005 National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey Report estimates that the US blood supply carries approximately 650,000 surplus units of blood to accommodate a spike in demand and shifting regional needs [45]. Currently, the majority of red blood cell units are used in critical care and surgical/trauma settings where transfusions serve as a life-saving therapy. Hospitals have postponed elective surgery because of blood inventory shortages [43]. Although historically accounting for a small proportion of blood consumption, an additional influx of cancer patients requiring red blood cell transfusions could add to this episodic shortage and result in additional challenges for the health care system. These considerations assume additional significance in the context of the limited shelf-life of stored red blood cells. In a recent study of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, transfusion of red blood cells that had been stored for more than 2 weeks was associated with increased risk of postoperative complications and reduced short- and long-term survival [46].

The number of new cancer patients is expected to double from 1.36 million to 2.0 million persons between 2000 and 2050 [1]. During this time, the ≥65 year age group is expected to increase to 88 million [47]. Currently, 50% of all malignancies occur in persons aged 65 years and older. By 2030, this percentage is expected to rise to 70%, during which time the absolute number of cancers in patients in this age group is also expected to double [48]. Because elderly patients with cancer often experience clinical symptoms of anemia at higher hemoglobin levels than do anemic patients without cancer [2], it is important that treatment guidelines are based on clinical symptoms as well as laboratory values.

The results of this study are consistent with those of a modeling simulation that compared the number of red blood cell units transfused in chemotherapy-induced anemia patients treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with the number of red blood cell units that would be transfused if erythropoiesis-stimulating agents were limited or discontinued [49]. The model predicted that up to 18% of the 2004 marginal US blood supply and up to 15% of the 2008 marginal US blood supply would be required to cover the incremental demand for blood that would arise from a 25% decrease in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use. The results suggest that limiting erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use in chemotherapy-induced anemia patients could negatively impact the blood supply margin. The authors caution that the public health consequences of such an outcome should be borne in mind when revisions to erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use are being considered.

In this study, patients older than 65 had a substantially greater increase in transfusions compared with patients under age 65, who also experienced a significant increase. Therefore, in addition to the overall increased transfusion risk for cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia, this increase suggests that the subgroup of patients in the Medicare population bear a greater share of the burden of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision to restrict erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use.

In conclusion, changes in practice patterns for chemotherapy-induced anemia treatment that followed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement decision for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents seem to be impacting patient care. In the year after the July 2007 National Coverage Decision, marked decreases in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent utilization and increases in red blood cell transfusions were observed, with patients in the ≥65-year-old age group experiencing greater changes than were observed in younger patients. Although the study findings are consistent with other recent publications [15–17], further research will be required to determine whether this represents a persistent change in physicians' practice patterns. It is important that practicing oncologists strive to maintain a clear perspective of the relative risks that these treatment options present to patients.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

The authors thank Geoffrey Smith, PhD, at Amgen, Inc., for assistance with the writing of the manuscript and Jane Saiers, PhD, at The WriteMedicine, Inc., for assistance with editing.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  • 1
    Hayat MJ,Howlader N,Reichman ME, et al. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Oncologist 2007; 12: 2037.
  • 2
    Groopman JE,Itri LM. Chemotherapy-induced anemia in adults: Incidence and treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 16161634.
  • 3
    Penninx BW,Cohen HJ,Woodman RC. Anemia and cancer in older persons. [seecomment]. J Support Oncol 2007; 5: 107113.
  • 4
    Curt GA. Impact of fatigue on quality of life in oncology patients. Semin Hematol 2000; 37(4 Suppl 6: ): 1417.
  • 5
    Canon JL,Vansteenkiste J,Bodoky G, et al. Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial of every-3-week darbepoetin alfa for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 273284.
  • 6
    Chang J,Couture F,Young S, et al. Weekly epoetin alfa maintains hemoglobin, improves quality of life, and reduces transfusion in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 25972605.
  • 7
    Gabrilove JL,Cleeland CS,Livingston RB, et al. Clinical evaluation of once-weekly dosing of epoetin alfa in chemotherapy patients: Improvements in hemoglobin and quality of life are similar to three-times-weekly dosing. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 28752882.
  • 8
    Hedenus M,Adriansson M,San Miguel J, et al. Efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa in anaemic patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Br J Haematol 2003; 122: 394403.
  • 9
    Littlewood TJ,Bajetta E,Nortier JW, et al. Effects of epoetin alfa on hematologic parameters and quality of life in cancer patients receiving nonplatinum chemotherapy: Results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 28652874.
  • 10
    Vansteenkiste J,Pirker R,Massuti B, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of darbepoetin alfa in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 12111220.
  • 11
    Bohlius J,Wilson J,Seidenfeld J, et al. Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3: CD003407.
  • 12
    Ross SD,Allen IE,Henry DH, et al. Clinical benefits and risks associated with epoetin and darbepoetin in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: A systematic review of the literature. Clin Ther 2006; 28: 801831.
  • 13
    Seidenfeld J,Piper M,Bohlius J, et al. Comparative effectiveness of epoetin and darbeopetin for managing anemia in patients undergoing cancer treatment. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Executive Summary, No. 3, May 2006. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006. [AHRQ 06-EHC008-1.]
  • 14
    Hershman DL,Buono DL,Malin J, et al. Patterns of use and risks associated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents among Medicare patients with cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 16331641.
  • 15
    Larholt K,Burton T,Pashos CL, et al. Hemoglobin (Hb) levels prior to blood transfusions in oncology patients receiving chemotherapy and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs): Observational data from the dosing and outcomes study of erythropoiesis-stimulating therapies (D.O.S.E.) registry. Presented at the Community Oncology Conference Washington, DC, February 1–3, 2008.
  • 16
    Larholt K,Burton T,Hoaglin DC, et al. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes based on achieved hemoglobin levels in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Community Oncol 2009; 6: 403408.
  • 17
    Gilmore J,Feinberg BA,Gondesen T, et al. Hematologic and transfusion outcomes following implementation of the erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) National Coverage Determination (NCD) in Medicare cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(Suppl):abstract 6548.
  • 18
    Cable R,Carlson B,Chamers L, et al. Practice Guidelines for Blood Transfusion: A CompilationFromRecent Peer-Reviewed Literature, 2nd ed. Available at: www.redcross.org.Accessed September 2008.
  • 19
    Goodnough LT,Brecher ME,Kanter MH, et al. Transfusion medicine. First of two parts—Blood transfusion. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 438447.
  • 20
    Bokemeyer C,Aapro MS,Courdi A, et al. EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40: 22012216.
  • 21
    Rizzo JD,Lichtin AE,Woolf SH, et al. Use of epoetin in patients with cancer: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 40834107.
  • 22
    Rodgers GM. Guidelines for supportive care: Cancer and treatment-related anemia: National Comprehensive Cancer Network. ed. v. 2.2004.
  • 23
    Amgen Inc. Amgen announces interim results of Aranesp® “PREPARE” study in breast cancer patients, Vol. 2007. Available at: http://www.amgen.com/media/media_pr_detail.jsp?year=2007&releaseID=1083091. Accessed 8 August 2010.
  • 24
    Leyland-Jones B,Semiglazov V,Pawlicki M, et al. Maintaining normal hemoglobin levels with epoetin alfa in mainly nonanemic patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy: A survival study. [seecomment]. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 59605972.
  • 25
    Thomas G,Ali S,Hoebers FJ, et al. Phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy of maintaining hemoglobin levels above 12.0 g/dL with erythropoietin vs above 10.0 g/dL without erythropoietin in anemic patients receiving concurrent radiation and cisplatin for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 108325.317–325.
  • 26
    Henke M,Laszig R,Rube C, et al. Erythropoietin to treat head and neck cancer patients with anaemia undergoing radiotherapy: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 362: 12551260.
  • 27
    Overgaard J,Hoff C,Sand Hansen H, et al. Randomized study of the importance of novel erythropoiesis stimulating protein (Aranesp®) for the effect of radiotherapy in patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC)—the Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA 10). Eur J Cancer 2007; 5: 7. [Abstract.]
  • 28
    Smith RE Jr, Aapro MS,Ludwig H, et al. Darbepoetin alpha for the treatment of anemia in patients with active cancer not receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy: Results of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 10401050.
  • 29
    Wright JR,Ung YC,Julian JA, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of erythropoietin in non-small-cell lung cancer with disease-related anemia. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 10271032.
  • 30
    Department of Health and Human Services: Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting. Fed Reg 2008; 73: 11928.
  • 31
    Department of Health and Human Services: Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting. Fed Reg 2007; 72: 3285232853.
  • 32
    Department of Health and Human Services: Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting. Fed Reg 2004; 69: 1658216583.
  • 33
    Amgen Inc. Aranesp® (Darbepoetin alfa) Package Insert. Thousand Oaks, CA: Amgen Inc.; 2008.
  • 34
    Barrett-Lee PJ,Bailey NP,O'Brien ME, et al. Large-scale UK audit of blood transfusion requirements and anaemia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 2000; 82: 9397.
  • 35
    Couture F,Turner AR,Melosky B, et al. Prior red blood cell transfusions in cancer patients increase the risk of subsequent transfusions with or without recombinant human erythropoietin management. Oncologist 2005; 10: 6371.
  • 36
    Quirt I,Robeson C,Lau CY, et al. Epoetin alfa therapy increases hemoglobin levels and improves quality of life in patients with cancer-related anemia who are not receiving chemotherapy and patients with anemia who are receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 41264134.
  • 37
    Schwartz RN. Anemia in patients with cancer: Incidence, causes, impact, management, and use of treatment guidelines and protocols. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007; 64(3 Suppl 2): S5S13.
  • 38
    Henry DH,Viswanathan HN,Elkin EP, et al. Symptoms and treatment burden associated with cancer treatment: Results from a cross-sectional national survey in the U.S. Support Care Cancer 2008; 16: 791801.
  • 39
    Webert KE,Blajchman MA. Transfusion-related acute lung injury. Transfus Med Rev 2003; 17: 252262.
  • 40
    Kuehnert MJ,Roth VR,Haley NR, et al. Transfusion-transmitted bacterial infection in the United States, 1998 through 2000. Transfusion 2001; 41: 14931499.
  • 41
    Anderson KC,Weinstein HJ. Transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 315321.
  • 42
    Greenberg PL. Myelodysplastic syndromes: Iron overload consequences and current chelating therapies. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2006; 4: 9196.
  • 43
    Alter HJ,Stramer SL,Dodd RY. Emerging infectious diseases that threaten the blood supply. Semin Hematol 2007; 44: 3241.
  • 44
    Amato A,Pescatori M. Perioperative blood transfusions for the recurrence of colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 1:CD005033.
  • 45
    Whitaker BI,Sullivan M. The 2005 nationwide blood collection and utilization survey report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/bloodsafety/2005NBCUS.pdf. Accessed on 9 August 2010.
  • 46
    Koch CG,Li L,Sessler DI, et al. Duration of red-cell storage and complications after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 12291239.
  • 47
    Projections of the Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for the United States: 2010 to 2050 (NP2008-T2). Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008.
  • 48
    Edwards BK,Howe HL,Ries LA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1999, featuring implications of age and aging on U.S. cancer burden. Cancer 2002; 94: 27662792.
  • 49
    Vekeman F,Bookhart BK,White J, et al. Impact of limiting erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use for chemotherapy-induced anemia on the United States blood supply margin. Transfusion 2009; 49: 895902.