The mds Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mds Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mds and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mds content recommended for you
The long-term clinical impact of transfusional iron overload and toxicity is not known in pediatric cancer survivors and patients who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant and malignant disorders. Recently, a variety of surveillance modalities that can be used to monitor iron overload during and after treatment in pediatric cancer and blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) survivors, were presented by Lalefar NR during the 2021 Conference of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO).1
According to the recommendations made by the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) in their 2018 guideline, the following methods can be used for screening and testing iron overload:
Post-therapy iron overload occurs due to an acute rise in free iron and decrease in iron utilization after chemo-induced erythroid hyperplasia in the bone marrow. Therefore, each patient should be assessed individually post-therapy. A total transfused volume of >100 ml/kilo, or approximately 10 transfusions, is associated with an increase in iron burden in children.
The COG 2018 guidelines for iron overload in pediatric oncology and BMT survivors, recommends the evaluation of packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion exposure post end-of-therapy hematopoietic recovery.
Table 1. Serum markers to identify iron overload*
*Adapted from Lalefar NR, et al.1 |
|
Serum markers |
Iron overload |
---|---|
Serum iron |
↑ |
Serum ferritin |
↑ (>1,000 µg/L) |
Transferrin iron saturation, % |
↑ (>50%) |
Transferrin |
↓ |
Total iron binding capacity |
↓ |
Hemoglobin |
Normal |
Several clinical methods are used to detect presence of excessive iron in various tissues (Table 2).
Table 2. Modalities to measure iron overload†
BMT, blood and marrow transplantation; GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging. |
|||||
Modality |
T2* MRI |
Cardiac T2* MRI |
FerriScan® |
SQUID |
Liver biopsy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Principle |
An indirect instrumental estimation of tissue iron concentration. |
Detects myocardial iron accumulation |
Same as T2* MRI |
Measures the interference of an exteriorly applied small, but highly constant, magnetic field by the paramagnetic liver storage iron of the patient. |
Direct quantitative measure of liver iron concentration (LIC). |
Normal iron concentration |
80−480 µg/g wet liver weight OR 0.48−2.8 mg/g liver dry weight |
T2* >20 ms, no cardiac iron detected. |
— |
— |
— |
Abnormal values/iron overload/threshold |
>7 mg/g of liver dry weight |
T2* <10 ms, severe cardiac deposition of iron |
>1,000 ng/ml |
— |
— |
Advantages |
Noninvasive, and repeatable. |
— |
Clinically validated in the liver. |
Direct instrumental measure of hepatic iron concentration. |
Good at excluding other liver dysfunction such as fibrosis, cirrhosis, viral hepatitis, fatty liver, and cases of BMT patients for GvHD. |
Disadvantages |
Expensive, low accessibility, and may require anesthesia in some cases. |
Expert handling. |
Same as T2*MRI. |
Limited availability. |
Invasive, susceptible to sampling errors, and not feasible for patients with thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy. |
Frequently used treatments for iron overload are as follows:
Both methods can result in the reduction of iron burden in patients. However, it was observed that LIC reductions were greater with deferasirox than with phlebotomy for patients with a baseline serum ferritin of 1,000 ng/ml or higher (−8.1 ± 1.5 vs −3.5 ± 5.7 mg Fe/g dw; P = 0.048). Serum ferritin and nontransferrin-bound iron also decreased significantly.2
The treatment regimen will depend on the condition of the patient after BMT. Figure 1 summarizes the suggested treatment algorithm for posttransplant pediatric patients with iron overload.
Figure 1. Surveillance and treatment algorithm*
ALT, alanine aminotransferase; LIC, liver iron concentration; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; pRBCs, packed red blood cells.
*Adapted from Lalefar et al.1
†Hb should be normal post-chemotherapy. Blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) patients should wait >100 days.
‡Liver dry weight.
§Post-pubertal adolescent/young adults, chronic GvHD, hepatitis C, history of liver fibrosis.
According to a survey involving 55 participating centers carried out by the Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Consortium (PBMTC) transplant centers in North America, 48% of the centers had practice guidelines for assessment and management of iron load, where ferritin was used as a surveillance modality in 100%, FerriScan® in 90.2%, liver biopsy in 56.1%, and SQUID in 12.2%.
It was observed that oral chelation was the most popular modality, with an 87.5% score, followed by phlebotomy (82.5%), intravenous chelation (67.5%), a combination of chelation and phlebotomy (52.5%), and RBC pheresis (17.5%).
Iron overload is common in pediatric patients after HSCT and is associated with hepatic, cardiac, and endocrine dysfunction. Therefore, monitoring the serum iron and ferritin levels using the recommended modalities and tailored treatment as per condition of the patient, are necessary.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content