SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2024
The effect of erythropoiesis‑stimulating agents on lung cancer patients: a meta‑analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anemia of Chronic Disease: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management.Hematology reports · 2026Review
- Rethinking EPO: A Paradigm Shift in Oncology?Cancers · 2025Article
- Personalized Therapeutic Advances in Erythropoietin Signaling: From Anemia Management to Extensive Clinical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent types on malignancy in hemodialysis patients.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- CrespFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Recurrence risk of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on early-stage urothelial carcinoma in patients with end stage renal disease.American journal of cancer research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can reduce anemia and improve quality of life in cancer patients, but ESAs may increase mortality. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the effect and risk of ESAs about the prevention or treatment of anemia in cancer patients. Four databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane Library were searched for published RCTS on ESAs in the treatment of anemia in lung cancer patients from 2000 to 2023. Endpoints including mortality, incidence of thrombotic vascular events, blood transfusion requirement, and incidence of adverse events. Our meta-analysis included 8 studies, with a sample size of 4240 patients, including 2548 patients in the ESAs group and 1692 patients in the control group. The risk of mortality was lower in patients using ESAs than control group (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99, P = 0.02). But there was no significant difference in the risk of mortality between the patients using ESAs and controls (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.06, P = 0.69) after removing Pere 2020. Subgroup analysis found that patients diagnosed with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.08, P = 0.16) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87-1.17, P = 0.13) were no significant difference in mortality rate. The thrombotic vascular events increase in patients using ESAs than control group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.72, P = 0.002). The blood transfusion requirement of ESAs group was lower than control group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.72, P < 0.00001). And the subgroups of Darbepoetin alfa (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41-0.79, P = 0.003) and Epoetin alfa (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.99, P = 0.01) had lower transfusion requirements than the control group. In the SCLC subgroup (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40-0.65, P = 0.34), blood transfusion requirements were lower in the ESAs group, but there was no significant difference between the subgroup of patients with NSCLC (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36-1.04, P = 0.009). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of adverse reactions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.10). In conclusion, ESAs does not increase the mortality of lung cancer patients or may reduce the risk of death, and can reduce the need for blood transfusion, although ESA can increase the incidence of thrombotic vascular adverse events.Registration PROSPERO CRD42023463582.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.