International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2024
Prognostic impact of erythropoietin-stimulating agent use during front-line chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer: A Korean multicenter cohort study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shim Seung-Hyuk, Yang Eun-Jung, Jang Eun Bi, Lee Seungjun, Kim Hee Seung, Shin Yoon-Kyung, Lee Shin-Wha, Chang Chi-Son, Song Heekyoung, Lee Sung Jong, Kim Jeeyeon, Chang Suk-Joon, Lim Myong Cheol, Choi Chel Hun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) for chemotherapy-induced anemia affects progression-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving front-line chemotherapy following surgery for ovarian cancer (OC).
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients who received front-line chemotherapy after surgery between 2013 and 2019 at six institutions. The patients were divided according to the use of ESAs during front-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was PFS. The secondary endpoint was the occurrence of thromboembolism. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to compare survival between matched cohorts.
RESULTS: Overall, 2147 patients (433 receiving ESA and 1714 for no-ESA) were identified, with a median follow-up of 44.0 months. The ESA group showed a significantly higher proportion of stage III/IV disease (81.8% vs 61.1%; P < 0.001) and postoperative gross residual disease (32.3% vs 21.2%; P < 0.001) than the no-ESA group. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, the use of ESAs did not affect PFS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.20; P = 0.661). The incidence of thromboembolism was 10.2% in the ESA group and 4.6% in the no-ESA group (adjusted odds ratio, 6.58; 95% CI: 3.26-13.28; P < 0.001). When comparing the well-matched cohorts after PSM, PFS did not differ between the ESA (median PFS 23.5 months) and no-ESA groups (median PFS 22.2 months) (P = 0.540, log-rank test).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of ESAs during front-line chemotherapy did not negatively affect PFS in patients with OC after surgery but increased the risk of thromboembolism.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients who received front-line chemotherapy after surgery between 2013 and 2019 at six institutions. The patients were divided according to the use of ESAs during front-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was PFS. The secondary endpoint was the occurrence of thromboembolism. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to compare survival between matched cohorts.
RESULTS: Overall, 2147 patients (433 receiving ESA and 1714 for no-ESA) were identified, with a median follow-up of 44.0 months. The ESA group showed a significantly higher proportion of stage III/IV disease (81.8% vs 61.1%; P < 0.001) and postoperative gross residual disease (32.3% vs 21.2%; P < 0.001) than the no-ESA group. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, the use of ESAs did not affect PFS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.20; P = 0.661). The incidence of thromboembolism was 10.2% in the ESA group and 4.6% in the no-ESA group (adjusted odds ratio, 6.58; 95% CI: 3.26-13.28; P < 0.001). When comparing the well-matched cohorts after PSM, PFS did not differ between the ESA (median PFS 23.5 months) and no-ESA groups (median PFS 22.2 months) (P = 0.540, log-rank test).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of ESAs during front-line chemotherapy did not negatively affect PFS in patients with OC after surgery but increased the risk of thromboembolism.