Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency and management of anaemia in Australian adults with solid and haematological malignancies. DESIGN: 6-month observational, prospective, multicentre study. PARTICIPANTS: 694 patients recruited from outpatient oncology clinics in 24 hospitals in five Australian states between 9 April 2001 and 31 July 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of anaemia (haemoglobin [Hb] level < 120 g/L) at enrolment and over ensuing 6 months, by tumour type, disease status and cancer treatment; anaemia treatment and "trigger" Hb level for this treatment. RESULTS: Participants had median age 60 years, and 61% were women. Prevalence of anaemia at enrolment was 35% (199/562), with 78% of these 199 having mild anaemia (Hb, 100-119 g/L). Frequency of anaemia (either present at enrolment or developing during the study) was 57% overall (323/566), and varied with tumour type, from 49% (lymphoma/myeloma) to 85% (urogenital cancer). Patients who received radiotherapy either in combination or concomitant with chemotherapy were more likely to have anaemia (73%) than those receiving chemotherapy alone (58%) (P = 0.004). Of all chemotherapy patients not anaemic at enrolment, 23% developed anaemia by the second monthly follow-up. Independent predictors for anaemia in chemotherapy patients were low baseline Hb level (odds ratio [OR], 5.4; 95% CI, 2.7-10.9) and use of platinum chemotherapeutic agents (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.1-11.4) (P < 0.001). Anaemia was treated in 41% of patients with anaemia at enrolment--by transfusion (36%), iron (5%) and erythropoietic agents (2%). Frequency of anaemia treatment varied between tumour types, from 19% (breast cancer) to 60% (leukaemia). The mean "trigger Hb" for initiating transfusion was 95 g/L. CONCLUSIONS: Anaemia is prevalent among Australian patients with cancer managed in hospital oncology units. Its management varies between tumour types. Many patients do not receive treatment for their anaemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seshadri et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: