Management of Cancer-Associated Anemia With Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents: ASCO/ASH Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Systematic reviews are often advocated as the best source of evidence to guide clinical decisions and health care policy, yet we know little about the extent to which they require updating. To estimate the average time to changes in evidence that are sufficiently important to warrant updating systematic reviews. Survival analysis of 100 quantitative systematic reviews. Systematic reviews published from 1995 to 2005 and indexed in ACP Journal Club. Eligible reviews evaluated a specific drug or class of drug, device, or procedure and included only randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials. Quantitative signals for updating were changes in statistical significance or relative changes in effect magnitude of at least 50% involving 1 of the primary outcomes of the original systematic review or any mortality outcome. Qualitative signals included substantial differences in characterizations of effectiveness, new information about harm, and caveats about the previously reported findings that would affect clinical decision making. The cohort of 100 systematic reviews included a median of 13 studies and 2663 participants per review. A qualitative or quantitative signal for updating occurred for 57% of reviews (95% CI, 47% to 67%). Median duration of survival free of a signal for updating was 5.5 years (CI, 4.6 to 7.6 years). However, a signal occurred within 2 years for 23% of reviews and within 1 year for 15%. In 7%, a signal had already occurred at the time of publication. Only 4% of reviews had a signal within 1 year of the end of the reported search period; 11% had a signal within 2 years of the search. Shorter survival was associated with cardiovascular topics (hazard ratio, 2.70 [CI, 1.36 to 5.34]) and heterogeneity in the original review (hazard ratio, 2.15 [CI, 1.12 to 4.11]). Judgments of the need for updating were made without involving content experts. In a cohort of high-quality systematic reviews directly relevant to clinical practice, signals for updating occurred frequently and within a relatively short time.

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.

To evaluate the effect on survival and quality of life of maintaining hemoglobin (Hb) in the range of 12 to 14 g/dL with epoetin alfa versus placebo in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving first-line chemotherapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive epoetin alfa 40,000 U once weekly or placebo for 12 months. Study drug was initiated if baseline Hb was < or = 13 g/dL or when Hb decreased to < or = 13g/dL during the study. The primary end point was 12-month overall survival (OS). The study drug administration was stopped early in accordance with a recommendation from the Independent Data Monitoring Committee because of higher mortality in the group treated with epoetin alfa. Enrollment had been completed, with 939 patients enrolled (epoetin alfa, n = 469; placebo, n = 470). Most patients had Hb more than 12 g/dL at baseline (median Hb, 12.8 g/dL) or during the study. From the final analysis, 12-month OS was 70% for epoetin alfa recipients and 76% for placebo recipients (P = .01). Optimal tumor response and time to disease progression were similar between groups. The reason for the difference in mortality between groups could not be determined from additional subsequent analyses involving both study data and chart review. In this trial, the use of epoetin alfa to maintain high Hb targets in women with MBC, most of whom did not have anemia at the start of treatment, was associated with decreased survival. Additional research is required to clarify the potential impact of erythropoietic agents on survival when the Hb target range is 10 to 12 g/dL.