MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987424626 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-129219

The Impact of Red Blood Cell Transfusion on Mortality and Treatment Efficacy in Patients Treated with Radiation: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2019· review· en· W2987424626 on OpenAlexaff
Max Deschner, Sondos Zayed, Lakshman Vasanthamohan, Alejandro Lazo‐Langner, David A. Palma, David D’Souza, Syed O. Gilani, Gabriel Boldt, Ziad Solh

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythrocyte Function and Pathophysiology
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyBlood transfusionHemoglobinInternal medicineAdverse effectCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialCancerOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Oncology patients are generally transfused to maintain a hemoglobin (Hb) above 7 g/dL (Holst et. al. BMJ 2015). Some centers use higher Hb thresholds before radiation therapy (RT) because pre-clinical data suggest that oncology patients with low hemoglobin levels may respond sub-optimally to radiation therapy due to hypoxia-induced radio-resistance (Pitson et. al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; Tatum et. al. Int J Radiat Biol 2006). It is hypothesized that higher hemoglobin levels improve tissue oxygenation, which facilitates formation of reactive oxygen species that optimize cancer cell death. No standard red blood cell transfusion thresholds have been established using interventional study data for patients with malignancies treated with radiation. This systematic review aimed to investigate the role of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in radiation oncology patients and whether maintaining a higher Hb leads to improved overall survival, efficacy of RT on disease control and transfusion-related morbidity. Methods: We performed a literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and large case series comparing RBC transfusion thresholds in radiation oncology patients. We hand-searched references of identified articles. Eligibility criteria were studies that assessed patients receiving any RT modality for malignancy of any diagnosis and stage. Exclusion criteria were studies that did not evaluate hemoglobin or transfusion as an intervention or outcome. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included locoregional tumor control, number of transfusions and adverse events associated with either radiation or transfusion. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. A meta-analysis was planned with outcomes presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Our search yielded 6172 titles. After exclusions, 39 articles underwent full text review (Figure 1). Only one study met the pre-specified inclusion criteria; therefore, a meta-analysis was not performed. The identified study pooled results from two Danish randomized controlled trials (DAHANCA 5 and 7) that stratified patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with low pre-radiation hemoglobin levels (females <13 g/dL and males <14.5 g/dL) to RBC transfusion (235 patients) versus no transfusion (230 patients) (Hoff et. al. Acta Oncol 2011). The study found no significant differences between groups in locoregional disease control or overall survival after five years of follow up, despite increased hemoglobin levels in the transfused group. Given the search results, we expanded the review to extract data from other relevant trials not meeting inclusion criteria to conduct a narrative review of the available literature. The extracted studies involved a variety of malignancies and were primarily single-center retrospective studies assessing outcomes of local transfusion policies. Some studies featured univariate and multivariate analyses, but had conflicting results on the effects of transfusion on disease control and mortality. A major criticism of these studies was the lack of comparison between different transfusion thresholds in anemic patients. Conclusions: This systematic review illustrates the lack of data on the effect of RBC transfusion strategies in oncology patients undergoing radiation. Well-designed prospective studies are urgently needed in this area due to variability in practice. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicErythrocyte Function and PathophysiologyFrench-language works237,207