In 1997, the Agency for
Care Policy and Research, now
known as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), launched an
initiative to promote evidence-based practice in everyday care by establishing
12 Evidence-based Practice Centers. AHRQ establishes contracts with the
Evidence-based Practice Centers to develop evidence reports and technology
assessments on clinical topics that are common, expensive, and/or significant
for the Medicare and Medicaid populations. Through this program, AHRQ partners
with private and public organizations to improve the quality, effectiveness, and
appropriateness of clinical care by facilitating the translation of research
evidence into clinical practice.
In 1998, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and the
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) jointly nominated the topic
"Uses of Erythropoietin in Oncology" to AHRQ for an Evidence-based
Practice Center systematic review and evidence report. A panel appointed jointly
by ASH and ASCO intended to use the resulting evidence report to support
development of a clinical guideline for dissemination to their members. AHRQ
contracted with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) Technology
Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center to conduct the systematic
review and evidence report on erythropoietin.
Evidence-based Practice Centers develop evidence reports and
technology assessments based on rigorous, comprehensive syntheses and analyses
of relevant scientific literature, emphasizing explicit and detailed
documentation of methods, rationale, and assumptions. These scientific syntheses
may include meta-analyses and cost analyses. Each Evidence-based Practice Center
collaborates with other medical and research organizations so that a broad range
of experts is included in the development process. More detailed information on
the Evidence-based Practice Centers program, the topic nomination process, and
the list of centers is available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcix/htm.
Executive summaries and full copies of completed reports (with bibliographies
and evidence tables) are available at the same URL for viewing or complimentary
downloading. Complimentary single, printed copies also may be obtained from the
AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse (1-800-358-9295).
Systematic Review Methods
Protocols for systematic review are prospectively designed to
define study objectives and key questions; search strategy; patient populations
of interest; study selection criteria and methods to determine study
eligibility; outcomes of interest; data elements to be abstracted and
abstraction methods; and methods
to assess study quality. Usually, two independent reviewers complete
each step of the protocol. Reviewers individually evaluate studies against
selection criteria, abstract data separately, and compare their results after
each step. Disagreements are generally resolved by consensus
but may require resolution by a third reviewer.
A technical advisory group provides ongoing guidance on all
phases of each Evidence-based Practice Centers’ review. Six technical advisors
participated in the evidence report on use of erythropoietin in oncology
patients. ASCO and ASH each appointed two of the six advisors (including the
guideline panel co-chairs) and the Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based
Practice Center staff recruited the remaining two.
Evidence-based Practice Centers reviews begin with a
comprehensive literature search that attempts to identify all publications of
relevant controlled trials. The search strategy for the review on erythropoietin
is described briefly in the Executive Summary posted on the AHRQ web site and
more completely in the full evidence report. The Medline, Cancerlit, and
Embase databases, last searched in December 1998, yielded 2,915 references. We
identified 28 additional reports by supplementary searches (eg, Current
Contents, bibliographies from manufacturers) through October 30, 1999, for a
total yield of 2,943 references.
Next, studies are selected for data abstraction using
criteria specified in the protocol. The primary study selection criteria for the
erythropoietin review required that studies be designed as controlled trials
comparing the outcomes of managing anemia with and without erythropoietin in a
patient population relevant to one of four clinical settings. These were (1)
anemia due primarily to cancer therapy; (2) anemia due primarily to a
malignancy; (3) high-dose myeloablative therapy followed by an allogeneic
transplant of hematopoietic stem cells from peripheral blood or bone marrow; and
(4) high-dose myeloablative therapy followed by an autologous transplant of
hematopoietic stem cells. We defined the setting as anemia primarily due to
cancer therapy if trials limited enrollment to patients undergoing concurrent
chemotherapy or radiation therapy with conventional nonmyeloablative doses. We
defined the setting as anemia primarily due to malignancy if some enrolled
patients did not receive concurrent chemotherapy or radiation therapy while on
study. Trials were excluded if there were < 10 similarly treated evaluable
patients in each arm.
In the available trials, erythropoietin treatment (with
transfusion used as necessary) was always compared with red blood cell (RBC)
transfusion alone; no trials compared erythropoietin to any other alternative.
All randomized controlled trials relevant to any of the four clinical settings
were included. Studies that used nonrandomized concurrent or historical controls
were included if the reviewers could determine that similar patients were
included in the treatment and control groups. Nonrandomized trials were
considered to be of lesser quality than randomized controlled trials. Outcomes
of interest included
of change in hemoglobin (Hgb) levels.
of patients who met criteria for a hematologic response as defined in each study’s
of patients who were transfused.
of RBC units transfused per patient normalized to a 4-week period.
of anemia (besides fatigue or other components measured by quality-of-life
effects of treatment.
The systematic review addressed the following key questions
separately for each clinical setting:
1. Effects of
Erythropoietin TreatmentWhat were the
relative effects on outcomes of managing anemia with erythropoietin compared
with transfusion alone? In settings other than stem-cell transplants, what were
the relative effects of erythropoietin treatment when different Hgb thresholds
were used to initiate erythropoietin treatment?
2. Variations in
Erythropoietin RegimensIn the included
studies, did variations in the erythropoietin treatment regimen (such as dose,
frequency, duration, route) affect the outcomes of treatment? Were these
variations likely to confound interpretation of the evidence on the relative
effects of erythropoietin treatment according to the alternative Hgb thresholds
for initiating treatment?
3. Identification of Patient ResponseWere there populations
or subgroups of patients more or less likely to benefit from erythropoietin
treatment? Were there laboratory measurements that either predicted or permitted
early identification of patients whose anemia responded to erythropoietin?
4. Data on Adverse EffectsWhat
were the incidence and severity of adverse effects associated with the use of
erythropoietin and how did these compare with the adverse effects of
Data abstraction for adverse events also was limited to
controlled trials so that effects of erythropoietin could be distinguished from
effects of disease progression or concurrent therapies for the underlying
To supplement the systematic review, we conducted a
literature-based meta-analysis of the effect of erythropoietin on the odds of
transfusion for patients with anemia or at risk of anemia due primarily to
cancer therapy. A random effects model was used to calculate the combined odds
ratio of transfusion for the 12 randomized controlled trials that reported
numbers or percentages of patients transfused, with or without erythropoietin
administered subcutaneously, for treatment-related anemia. The odds ratio
expresses the relative likelihood that erythropoietin-treated patients will be
transfused compared with the likelihood for controls. Published data were
insufficient for literature-based meta-analysis of other outcomes, or of odds of
transfusion in other clinical settings.
Sensitivity analysis compared results of higher-quality
trials to those of lesser-quality trials. A trial was classified as higher
quality when it was randomized and double-blinded and met our criteria
concerning limits on the number of subjects excluded from the analysis of
results. We required that < 10% of subjects within each study arm were
excluded from the analysis and that the ratio of exclusions from each arm was
less than 2:1; or, alternatively, that results were reported as an
AHRQ requires that Evidence-based Practice Center reports
undergo extensive review by external experts and representatives of stakeholder
organizations. Early in each project, these individuals review and provide input
to modify the study protocol. Later, they review and comment on the report’s
initial draft. However, each Evidence-based Practice Center has ultimate
responsibility for the final draft of its reports, subject to AHRQ review.
For the erythropoietin report, the BCBSA Technology
Evaluation Center Medical Advisory Panel, which includes nationally recognized
experts in technology assessment and hematology/oncology, reviewed a preliminary
analysis of the evidence base. Additionally, 20 external reviewers critiqued the
study protocol and draft report, and revisions were made based on their
comments. Eight reviewers were invited by Technology Evaluation Center based on
their expertise in medical oncology, hematology, transfusion medicine,
quality-of-life and systematic review methodology. One reviewer directed another
AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center and is a medical oncologist. Ten reviewers
were appointed by professional organizations other than ASCO or ASH and by
patient advocacy groups. These reviewers included clinical and research
specialists involved in the treatment of cancer and/or management of
cancer-related anemia and patient advocacy representatives. One external
reviewer was from the technical staff of Ortho Biotech, Inc. Lists of the
Technology Evaluation Center Medical Advisory Panel members, external reviewers,
and technical advisors are included in the evidence report’s appendices.
1. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epicix/htm, accessed on June 1,
2. Aronson N, Seidenfeld J, Piper MA, et al: Uses of
Erythropoietin in Oncology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 30.
(Prepared by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Evidence-based Practice
Center under Contract No. 290-97-0015.) AHRQ Publication No. 01-E009. Rockville,
MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001.
3. Case DC Jr, Bukowski RM, Carey RW, et al: Recombinant
human erythropoietin therapy for anemic cancer patients on combination
chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:801-806, 1993.
4. Henry DH, Brooks BJ Jr, Case DC Jr, et al: Recombinant
human erythropoietin therapy for anemic cancer patients receiving cisplatin
chemotherapy. Cancer J Sci Am 1:252-260, 1995.
5. Cascinu S, Fedeli A, Del Ferro E, et al: Recombinant human
erythropoietin treatment in cisplatin-associated anemia: A randomized,
double-blind trial with placebo. J Clin Oncol 12:1058-1062, 1994.
6. Kurz C, Marth C, Windbichler G, et al: Erythropoietin
treatment under polychemotherapy in patients with gynecologic malignancies: A
prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter study. Gynecol
Oncol 65:461-466, 1997.
7. Littlewood TJ, Bajetta E, Nortier JWR, et al for the
Epoetin Alfa Study Group: 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
8. Wurnig C, Windhager R, Schwameis E, et al: Prevention of
chemotherapy-induced anemia by the use of erythropoietin in patients with
primary malignant bone tumors (a double-blind, randomized, phase III study). Transfusion
9. Porter JC, Leahey A, Polise K, et al: Recombinant human
erythropoietin reduces the need for erythrocyte and platelet transfusions in
pediatric patients with sarcoma: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
trial. J Pediatr 129:656-660, 1996.
10. Quirt I, Coutere F, Pichette R, et al: The role of
recombinant human erythropoietin (EPO) in reducing red blood cell transfusions
and maintaining quality of life (QOL) in patients with lymphoma and solid tumors
receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy: Results of a randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled clinical trial [abstract]. Blood 88(10 suppl 1):347a,
11. Oberhoff C, Neri B, Amadori D, et al: Recombinant human
erythropoietin in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia and prevention of
transfusion requirement associated with solid tumors: A randomized, controlled
study. Ann Oncol 9:255-260, 1998.
12. ten Bokkel Huinink WW, de Swart CAM, van Toorn DW, et al:
Controlled multicentre study of the influence of subcutaneous recombinant human
erythropoietin on anaemia and transfusion dependency in patients with ovarian
carcinoma treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Med Oncol 15:174-182,
13. Sweeney PJ, Nicolae D, Ignacio L, et al: Effect of
subcutaneous recombinant human erythropoietin in cancer patients receiving
radiotherapy: Final report of a randomized, open-labeled, phase II trial. Br
J Cancer 77:1996-2002, 1998.
14. Thatcher N, De Campos ES, Bell DR, et al: Epoetin alpha
prevents anaemia and reduces transfusion requirements in patients undergoing
primarily platinum-based chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer
15. Silvestris F, Romito A, Fanelli P, et al: Long-term
therapy with recombinant human erythropoietin (rHu-EPO) in progressing multiple
myeloma. Ann Hematol 70:313-318, 1995.
16. Varan A, Buyukpamukcu M, Kutluk T, et al: Recombinant
human erythropoietin treatment for chemotherapy-related anemia in children. Pediatrics
17. Henke M, Guttenberger R, Barke A, et al: Erythropoietin
for patients undergoing radiotherapy: A pilot study. Radiother Oncol
18. Gamucci T, Thorel MF, Frasca AM, et al: Erythropoietin
for the prevention of anaemia in neoplastic patients treated with cisplatin. Eur
J Cancer 29A(suppl 2):S13-S14, 1993.
19. Del Mastro L, Venturini M, Lionetto R, et al: Randomized
phase III trial evaluating the role of erythropoietin in the prevention of
chemotherapy-induced anemia. J Clin Oncol 15:2715-2721, 1997.
20. Welch RS, James RD, Wilkinson PM, et al: Recombinant
human erythropoietin and platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer.
Cancer J Sci Am 1:261-266, 1995.
21. Markman M, Reichman B, Hakes T, et al: The use of
recombinant human erythropoietin to prevent carboplatin-induced anemia. Gynecol
Oncol 49:172-176, 1993.
22. Lavey RS, Dempsey WH: Erythropoietin increases hemoglobin
in cancer patients during radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
23. Leon P, Jimenez M, Barona P, et al: Recombinant human
erythropoietin for the treatment of anemia in children with solid malignant
tumors. Med Pediatr Oncol 30:110-116, 1998.
24. Dusenbery KE, McGuire WA, Holt PJ, et al: Erythropoietin
increases hemoglobin during radiation therapy for cervical cancer. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 29:1079-84, 1994.
25. Italian Cooperative Study Group for rHuEpo in
Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study
with subcutaneous recombinant human erythropoietin in patients with low-risk
myelodysplastic syndromes. Br J Haematol 103:1070-1074, 1998.
26. Garton JP, Gertz MA, Witzig TE, et al: Epoetin alfa for
the treatment of the anemia of multiple myeloma. A prospective, randomized,
placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Arch Intern Med 155:2069-2074,
27. Rose E, Rai K, Revicki D, et al and the EPO in Anemia of
CLL Study Group: Clinical and health status assessments in anemic chronic
lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients treated with epoetin alfa (EPO) [abstract]. Blood
84(10 Suppl 1):526a, 1994.
28. Osterborg A, Boogaerts MA, Cimino R, et al: Recombinant
human erythropoietin in transfusion-dependent anemic patients with multiple
myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomaA randomized multicenter study. The
European Study Group of Erythropoietin (Epoetin Beta) Treatment in Multiple
Myeloma and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Blood 87:2675-2682, 1996.
29. Dammacco F, Silvestris F, Castoldi GL, et al: The
effectiveness and tolerability of epoetin alfa in patients with multiple myeloma
refractory to chemotherapy. Int J Clin Lab Res 28:127-134, 1998.
30. Cazzola M, Messinger D, Battistel V, et al: Recombinant
human erythropoietin in the anemia associated with multiple myeloma or
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Dose finding and identification of predictors of
response. Blood 86:4446-4453, 1995.
31. Link H, Boogaerts MA, Fauser AA, et al: A controlled
trial of recombinant human erythropoietin after bone marrow transplantation. Blood
32. Klaesson S, Ringden O, Ljungman P, et al: Reduced blood
transfusions requirements after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: Results
of a randomised, double-blind study with high-dose erythropoietin. Bone
Marrow Transplant 13:397-402, 1994.
33. Biggs JC, Atkinson KA, Booker V, et al: Prospective
randomised double-blind trial of the in vivo use of recombinant human
erythropoietin in bone marrow transplantation from HLA-identical sibling donors.
The Australian Bone Marrow Transplant Study Group. Bone Marrow Transplant
34. Steegmann JL, Lopez J, Otero MJ, et al: Erythropoietin
treatment in allogeneic BMT accelerates erythroid reconstitution: Results of a
prospective controlled randomized trial. Bone Marrow Transplant
35. Vannucchi AM, Bosi A, Linari S, et al: High doses of
recombinant human erythropoietin fail to accelerate platelet reconstitution in
allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Results of a pilot study. Haematologica
36. Link H, Brune T, Hubner G, et al: Effect of recombinant
human erythropoietin after allogenic bone marrow transplantation. Ann Hematol
37. Locatelli F, Zecca M, Pedrazzoli P, et al: Use of
recombinant human erythropoietin after bone marrow transplantation in pediatric
patients with acute leukemia: Effect on erythroid repopulation in autologous vs
allogeneic transplants. Bone Marrow Transplant 13:403-410, 1994.
38. Vannucchi AM, Bosi A, Ieri A, et al: Combination therapy
with G-CSF and erythropoietin after autologous bone marrow transplantation for
lymphoid malignancies: A randomized trial. Bone Marrow Transplant
39. Chao NJ, Schriber JR, Long GD, et al: A randomized study
of erythropoietin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus
placebo and G-CSF for patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation. Blood 83:2823-2828,
40. Ayash LJ, Elias A, Hunt M, et al: Recombinant human
erythropoietin for the treatment of the anaemia associated with autologous bone
marrow transplantation. Br J Haematol 87:153-161, 1994.
41. Pene R, Appelbaum FR, Fisher L, et al: Use of granulocyte-macrophage
colony-stimulating factor and erythropoietin in combination after autologous
marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 11:219-222, 1993.
42. Glaspy J, Bukowski R, Steinberg D, et al: Impact of
therapy with epoetin alfa on clinical outcomes in patients with nonmyeloid
malignancies during cancer chemotherapy in community oncology practice. Procrit
Study Group. J Clin Oncol 15:1218-1234, 1997.
44. Demetri GD, Kris M, Wade J, et al: Quality-of-life
benefit in chemotherapy patients treated with epoetin alfa is independent of
disease response or tumor type: Results from a prospective community oncology
study. Procrit Study Group. J Clin Oncol 16:3412-3425, 1998.
45. 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 19:2875-2882, 2001.