Search

Anemia is a common problem when patients present with cancer, and it can worsen during treatment. Anemia can directly impact the cognitive and physical quality of life and may impair fitness for oncological therapy. The most common cause of anemia is iron deficiency. Newer intravenous (IV) iron formulations offer a safe and rapidly effective treatment option. We performed a systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating intravenous iron therapy in patients with cancer and anemia and their outcomes. A total of 23 RCTs were identified. The median number of patients enrolled was 104 (IQR: 60–134). A total of 5 were focused on surgical outcomes (4 preoperative, 1 postoperative), and 15 were in adjuvant therapies for a variety of tumor types (breast, colorectal, lung, gynecological, myeloid, and lymphomas), 10 of which were in combination with erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) therapy, 2 in radiotherapy, and 1 in palliative care. Overall, the studies reported that the use of IV iron increased hemoglobin concentration and decreased transfusion rates during different cancer treatment regimes. IV iron can be administered safely throughout the cancer treatment pathway from primary surgery to the palliative setting. More studies are needed to demonstrate net clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Iron deficiency (ID) is the most common micronutrient deficiency in the world. It is of concern for women and girls of reproductive age as, despite frequent normalization, excessive menstrual blood loss and the iron demands associated with pregnancy increase the risk of developing an ID. Iron deficiency reduces health‐related quality of life with symptoms of fatigue, heart palpitations, difficulty concentrating, and poor mental health. When left untreated, ID can escalate to iron deficiency anemia (IDA), where there is an insufficiency of red blood cells, or hemoglobin within these cells, to meet the bodily demands for oxygen transport. Substantial guidance on screening for ID can be found in specific at‐risk groups, including pregnant women and patients with renal, cardiac, and inflammatory bowel disease. However, it was unclear whether guidance is available for women of reproductive age. We performed a literature search to explore the current recommendations for screening women of reproductive age for ID. While four manuscripts supportive of screening were found, no official guidance appears to exist regarding screening for this group. In line with the World Health Organization's 10 Principles of Screening, we present a case for ID screening in women and girls of reproductive age. Synopsis: Following review of current practice and the World Health Organization's 10 Principles of Screening, there is an evident need for iron deficiency screening in women and girls of reproductive age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient perceptions of iron deficiency and efficacy of iron therapy may differ from the interpretations of doctors. Qualitative investigation at an individual level related may help define patient expectations and therapeutic targets. Therefore, we aimed to explore this concept in exercising females of reproductive age.Methods: Exercising females (n = 403) who either (a) were currently experiencing iron deficiency, or (b) have experienced iron deficiency in the past were included. A survey comprising open-ended text response questions explored three 'domains': (1) the impact of iron deficiency, (2) the impact of iron tablet supplementation (where applicable), and (3) the impact of iron infusion treatment (where applicable). Questions were asked about training, performance, and recovery from exercise. Survey responses were coded according to their content, and sentiment analysis was conducted to assess responses as positive, negative, or neutral.Results: Exercising females showed negative sentiment toward iron deficiency symptoms (mean range = − 0.94 to − 0.81), with perception that fatigue significantly impacts performance and recovery. Iron therapies were perceived to improve energy, performance, and recovery time. Participants displayed a strong positive sentiment (mean range = 0.74 to 0.79) toward iron infusion compared to a moderately positive sentiment toward oral iron supplementation (mean range = 0.44 to 0.47), with many participants perceiving that oral iron supplementation had no effect.Conclusion: In Australia, women prefer an iron infusion in treatment of iron deficiency compared to oral iron. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.