1
K. Pavenski, MD FRCPCTransfusion Medicine Resident, McMaster University
TMR Journal ClubJune 20, 2007
Risk of Cancer After Blood Transfusion From Donors with Subclinical Cancer:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
2
IntroductionCan blood transfusion transmit cancer? YES
Postulated mechanism• Immune modulation• Transmission of factors causally related to cancer development (ex.
Oncogenic virus)• Engraftment of malignant cells of donor origin
Cohorts and case control studiesBlomberg 1993 (case control; based on age and sex stratified analyses,
odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.44 for lymphoma and skin cancer)
Brandt et al 1996 (cohort; age and sex adjusted RR for Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) 1.74, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.44)
Cerhan et al 2001 (cohort; age-adjusted RR for NHL 1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.1)
3
IntroductionCan blood transfusion transmit cancer? Yes
Proof of principle– Cancer can be transmitted by solid organ or tissue transplant,
hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and from mother to fetus (AABB News Sept/Oct 2006)– Caveats: immunosuppression, HLA similarity, prolonged
exposure, tissue damage at exposure site, etc.– Blood, HSCT and solid organ or tissue transplant can transmit
oncogenic viruses (ex. HHV-8)– Needles or surgical instruments can transmit cancer cells– Cancer cells can survive in human graft recipients– Long-term donor microchimerism after blood transfusion has
been demonstrated (Reed 2007)
4
Introduction• Can blood transfusion transmit cancer? NO
• Case control studies (all deal with NHL)Adami et al 1997 (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.23) Chow & Holly 2002 (odds ratio 1.0, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.2)Maguire-Boston et al 1999 (odds ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.50 to
1.41)Zhang et al 2004 (odds ratio 1.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.3)
5
IntroductionCan blood transfusion transmit cancer? NO
Proof of principleUnsuccessful attempts at transmission of cancer to human research
subjects by blood transfusion (Thiersch 1945, Lanman et al 1950) or sternal marrow route (Thiersch 1946)
Intentional transfusion of blood from patients with CML to patients with AML and acute infection (Schiffer et al 1983) In rare cases malignant granulocytes persisted but recipients did
not develop CML Accidental transfusion of blood from cancerous donors does not
result in cancer in recipient (Vargas et al 1999 (case, CML), Greenwald 1976 (cohort, leukemia and lymphoma))
Cancer recurrence is no more likely in patients who received intra-op salvaged autologous blood versus allogeneic blood (Stoffel 2006)
6
MethodsDesign:
Retrospective cohort studyGoal of the study:
To investigate the possible risk of cancer transmission through blood transfusion
7
Methods• Databases:
– SCANDAT • All computerized registers of blood donations and transfusions
maintained by blood banks and transfusion medicine clinics in Sweden from 1968-2002 and Denmark from 1982-2002
• Donor and recipient variables: DOB, sex, type, number and dates of donations/transfusions
• Each transfused blood unit can be traced to its donor – National population and health registers of Denmark
and Sweden• Included national registers of migration, death, cancer and in-
hospital care
8
Methods• Recipients
– All individuals with no history of cancer and who received at least 1 unit of WB, RBC, platelets, or plasma between 1968 and 2002
– All transfusions during the first 30 days after the first recorded blood transfusion were considered
• Donors– All donors that have contributed to the above
transfusions– Precancerous blood donors - donors who have been
diagnosed with malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) within 5 years of a blood donation
9
MethodsDefinitions:
Exposed – recipients of blood from precancerous donors
Unexposed (controls) – recipients of blood exclusively from donors NOT diagnosed with cancer within 5 years of donation
10
Methods• Follow-up
– Started 6 months after the first recorded transfusion• Recipients who developed cancer, died or emigrated within first
6 months were excluded from analysis• To exclude recipients with incipient cancer
– Ended on the date of first cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or December 31, 2002
• Censored all recipients who after the initial 30-day exposure period received a transfusion originating from a precancerous donor, unknown donor or a donor with less than 5 years of follow-up
11
Results
12
Table 1
13
Results• Relative risk of cancer after transfusion with blood from a
precancerous donor was assessed as incidence rate ratios estimated from Poisson regression models
• Potential confounding factors: – sex, age (<40, 40-59, 60-69, or >70), area of residence at the time of
first transfusion, ABO blood group, number of transfusions during the first 30 days after first transfusion (1-2, 3-4, 5-9, or >10 transfusions), calendar period (1968-79, 1980-89, or 1990-2002) and number of years since first transfusion (<1, 1, 2, 3-4, 5-9, 10-19, or 20-34 years)
– Attained age, calendar period, and time since first transfusion were treated as time-dependent covariates allowing individuals to move between categories with time
• Subanalyses stratified by recipient age and sex, calendar period of transfusion, number of units administered and component type
14
ResultsAll recipients
Contributed 3 200 800 person-years of follow-up29 651 primary cancers were diagnosed
Exposed12 012 (3%) of recipientsContributed 90 928 person-years of follow-up978 cancers were recorded
15
Table 2
16
ResultsOverall, there was no excess of cancer among
recipients who had received one or more blood products from a precancerous blood donor compared with recipients who had received blood only from non-cancerous donors Adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval
(CI) 0.94-1.07The relative risk was not substantially affected by
sex, age, calendar period, or number of transfusions
17
ResultsAnalyses stratified by sex and follow-up revealed a
significantly increased cancer risk among exposed male recipients in the period between 5-9 years after the first transfusionAdjusted RR 1.19, 1.03-1.38
This was not true for women or any other follow-up period
Spurious result?
18
ResultsSensitivity analyses
No obvious pattern observed when definition of precancerous blood was varied
Number of years Adjusted RR
4 1.00 (0.93-1.07)
3 1.00 (0.92-1.07)
2 0.93 (0.84-1.02)
1 0.93 (0.81-1.05)
19
ResultsSensitivity analyses
Little variation in adjusted rate ratios of cancer among recipients of precancerous blood from donors at different anatomical sites compared to recipients of non-cancerous blood Risk of cancer transmission did not vary by type of cancer in the
donorLittle variation in adjusted rate ratios of site-specific
cancers among recipients of precancerous blood relative to recipients of non-cancerous bloodThere was no excess occurrences of cancers at any specific sites
in the recipients
20
Table 3
21
Table 4
22
ResultsSensitivity analyses:
No excess risk when the sites deemed at highest risk of hematogenous spread (lung, liver, skeleton and CNS) were combinedAdjusted RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85-1.17
23
ResultsSubanalysis (Danish data only)
Recipients of blood from donors who presented with metastatic cancer within 5 years of donation vs. unexposed recipients had no excess cancer riskAdjusted RR 0.99 with 95% CI 0.48-1.79
Analyses according to type of blood component, storage time, and time to cancer death of the donor showed no notable variation
24
Critical AppraisalWere there clearly defined groups of patients, similar in all
important ways other than exposure to blood from precancerous donors?Yes (Table 1)Strict definitions of exposed/unexposed to avoid
misclassificationAnalysis restricted to individuals with at least 5 years of follow-
upFollow-up began 6 months after transfusion to exclude cancers
already present at first transfusionTransfusion information restricted to the first 30 days of an
individual’s recorded transfusion history
25
Critical AppraisalWas assessment of outcomes either objective or blinded
to exposure?Exposure not blinded, however, assessment was
unbiased by virtue of study designSince impending cancer of a blood donor was unknown at the
time of transfusion, the possibilities for confounding were limitedSubanalyses taking into account other potential confounders (ex.
blood group, area of residence, calendar period) yielded the same results
Outcome was objective (diagnosis of cancer)
26
Critical AppraisalWas the follow-up of study patients long enough?
Follow-up probably sufficiently longTime between exposure and clinical cancer outcome was assumed
to be less than 5 years unrealistically short induction period for early stage carcinogens circulating tumour cells can be detected at an early stage (ex. 16-45%
of men with localized prostate cancer have detectable disease in peripheral circulation or bone marrow)
Long-term excess risk is probably very lowPoint estimate of relative risk is slightly below 1 with an upper
95% CI 1.38 for the follow-up period 20-34 years after first transfusion
27
Critical AppraisalWas the follow-up of study patients complete?
YesSCANDAT database of high quality (internally and
externally consistent)Cancer registers of Sweden and Denmark are known to
have a high degree of completeness
28
ResultsDo the results satisfy “diagnostic tests for
causation”?Did exposure precede the onset of outcome?
YesIs there a dose-response gradient?
Not observedIs association consistent from study to study?
No, some studies support and others refute the associationDoes association make biological sense?
Yes (see introduction)
29
Critical AppraisalAre these valid results of this harm study important?
Adverse Outcome
Present Absent
Exposed
Yes 978 11034
No 28 673 313 409
30
Critical AppraisalAre these valid results of this harm study important?
Relative risk (RR) RR = [ a / (a+b) ] / [ c / (c+d) ] =
[978/12012]/[28673/342082] = 0.97
Number needed to harm (NNH) NNH = 1 / [( a / (a+b) ) - ( c / (c+d))] unable to calculate
31
Critical AppraisalShould these valid, potentially important results
change the treatment of our donors/recipients?Practice of transfusion medicine (donor suitability
criteria, universal leukoreduction) in Sweden and Denmark is similar to oursLR efficiently removes spiked cancer cells from blood (Evans
1997) Study addressed risk of transfusing blood from donors
with subclinical cancerSuggests that blood from donors with cancer may be safe
32
In lieu of discussionCancer is common
American Cancer Society 20051.3 million new cancer diagnoses/year9.8 million cancer survivors in US10 000-100 000 donors each year have cancer cells in peripheral
circulation at time of donationPost-donation information (PDI)
5% of PDIs in US>1000 donors per year report a history of cancer after donation
33
In lieu of discussionIs this a risk to a donor?
UnlikelyIs this a risk to a recipient?
UnlikelyNo current federal regulations (FDA) or industry
standards (AABB)In U.S., donors evaluated and deemed suitable by a
blood centre medical director
34
In lieu of discussionHow do other blood agencies treat donors with
cancer?ABC survey 2005:
65% of blood centres had a 5 year deferral for breast cancer, adenocarcinoma, and sarcoma; donor had to be cancer and treatment free before eligible to donate again
50% of blood centres permanently deferred patients with melanoma
Majority of centres deferred donors with history of hematological malignancy indefinitely
Majority of centres accepted donors with basal cell or squamous cell carcinoma as long as the cancers were excised and healed
35
In lieu of discussionHow do other blood agencies treat donors with
cancer?ABC survey 2005:
For donors deferred with a cancer diagnosis, most centres retrieved all active products but did not perform lookback; others retrieved in-date components and performed lookback or did none of the above
American Red CrossDefer donors with solid cancers for 5 years after curative
treatmentDonors with hematological cancers are permanently deferred)
CBER workshop 1999Cured donors should be allowed to donate
36
In lieu of discussionHow does CBS treat donors with a history of cancer?
Donors with fully treated basal cell or squamous cell carcinoma as well as treated in situ cervical carcinoma are eligible to donate
Permanent deferral for all other types of cancerRetrieval of in-date components, lookback and notification of
recipients at the discretion of the medical directorSome CBS stats (courtesy of Heather Hume)
For 2004-2006, 1750 cancer-related PDIs were reported to CBS
Transfused minimum 2625 labile blood components from donors who were subsequently diagnosed with cancer
37
ConclusionBlood transfusions from precancerous blood donors
are not associated with increased risk of cancer among recipients
Should we consider accepting blood from donors with a history of cancer?Yes
What type of cancer?How long after cure?Increase donor base at a price of a small (real?) risk of
transmitting a cancer