| Title: |
A real‐world observation on thrombopoietic agents for patients with cancer treatment–induced thrombocytopenia in China: A multicenter, cross‐sectional study |
| Authors: |
Chen, Meiting; Li, Lu; Xia, Qing; Chen, Xiaobing; Liao, Zijun; Wang, Chang; Shen, Bo; Zhou, Min; Zhang, Qingyuan; Zhang, Yanqiao; Qian, Liting; Yuan, Xianglin; Wang, Zhehai; Xue, Cong; An, Xin; Liu, Bin; Gu, Kangsheng; Hou, Mei; Wang, Xiaojia; Wang, Wei; Li, Enxiao; Zhong, Jincai; Cheng, Jing; Shu, Yongqian; Yang, Nong; Wang, Huaqing; Yang, Runxiang; Liu, Tianshu; Deng, Ting; Ma, Fei; Liao, Wangjun; Qiu, Wensheng; Chen, Yu; Chen, Xi; Zhang, Mingzhi; Xu, Ruilian; Li, Xiaoling; Feng, Jifeng; Ba, Yi; Shi, Yanxia |
| Source: |
Cancer ; volume 130, issue S8, page 1524-1538 ; ISSN 0008-543X 1097-0142 |
| Publisher Information: |
Wiley |
| Publication Year: |
2024 |
| Collection: |
Wiley Online Library (Open Access Articles via Crossref) |
| Description: |
Background Studies on various thrombopoietic agents for cancer treatment–induced thrombocytopenia (CTIT) in China are lacking. This study aimed to provide detailed clinical profiles to understand the outcomes and safety of different CTIT treatment regimens. Methods In this retrospective, cross‐sectional study, 1664 questionnaires were collected from 33 hospitals between March 1 and July 1, 2021. Patients aged >18 years were enrolled who were diagnosed with CTIT and treated with recombinant interleukin 11 (rhIL‐11), recombinant thrombopoietin (rhTPO), or a thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPO‐RA). The outcomes, compliance, and safety of different treatments were analyzed. Results Among the 1437 analyzable cases, most patients were treated with either rhTPO alone (49.3%) or rhIL‐11 alone (27.0%). The most common combination regimen used was rhTPO and rhIL‐11 (10.9%). Platelet transfusions were received by 117 cases (8.1%). In multivariate analysis, rhTPO was associated with a significantly lower proportion of platelet recovery, platelet transfusion, and hospitalization due to chemotherapy‐induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) than rhIL‐11 alone. No significant difference was observed in the time taken to achieve a platelet count of >100 × 10 9 /L and chemotherapy dose reduction due to CIT among the different thrombopoietic agents. The outcomes of thrombocytopenia in 170 patients who received targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy are also summarized. The results show that the proportion of platelet recovery was similar among the different thrombopoietic agents. No new safety signals related to thrombopoietic agents were observed in this study. A higher proportion of physicians preferred to continue treatment with TPO‐RA alone than with rhTPO and rhIL‐11. Conclusions This survey provides an overview of CTIT and the application of various thrombopoietic agents throughout China. Comparison of monotherapy with rhIL‐11, rhTPO, and TPO‐RA requires further randomized clinical trials. The appropriate application ... |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
English |
| DOI: |
10.1002/cncr.35292 |
| Availability: |
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35292 |
| Rights: |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.393F1FD7 |
| Database: |
BASE |