Rahul Kumar: Improved Chemotherapy Delivery Is Meaningful Only When It Improves Patient Outcomes
Rahul Kumar, DM Medical Oncology Trainee at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), shared a post on LinkedIn:
“Excellent commentary by Bishal Gyawali et al. on the RECITE trial.
We had, in fact, discussed RECITE in our Journal Club at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) soon after its NEJM Group publication. The discussion was lively and, as expected for a trial addressing such a clinically relevant but debatable question, the house was divided.
I happened to be presenting the paper and found myself leaning toward the more cautious side.
Beyond the excellent points raised by Dr BG, here are a few additional thoughts from our JC discussion. I’ll also be sharing a few slides from my JC presentation.
RECITE is undoubtedly a robust phase III trial in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT), and it moves the field forward. However, a few aspects of the trial need careful reading.
First, the primary endpoint, prevention of chemotherapy dose delays or modification, was clinically relevant, but it was also the outcome where romiplostim was most likely to show benefit. This may have helped drive the positive result.
Second, whether improved chemotherapy delivery ultimately translates into better survival, quality of life, or reduced hospitalizations remains uncertain.
Third, exclusion of Cycle 1 from the primary endpoint may have favoured the treatment effect, as early chemotherapy delays, omissions, and dose modifications were not captured.
Fourth, although ECOG 0–2 patients were eligible, no ECOG 2 patients were actually enrolled. That matters because in real-world practice, these are often the patients where chemotherapy delivery becomes most difficult.
For me, improved chemotherapy delivery is meaningful only if it translates into outcomes that matter to patients: OS, PFS, QoL, symptom burden, or fewer hospitalizations.
In our setting, where cost considerations are substantial and supportive care resources are finite, I am not yet convinced that routine adoption of romiplostim for CIT is warranted outside carefully selected patients.
None of these concerns diminish the importance of RECITE. Rather, they remind us that efficacy, effectiveness, and value are not always synonymous.
Would be interested to hear how others are interpreting this trial in real-world practice.”
Stay updated with Hemostasis Today.
-
Oct 30, 2026, 02:43D Chandra: Reduce the Apixaban Dose for a Patient with VTE and a Creatinine Clearance of 25?
-
Oct 30, 2026, 02:38Spencer Dorn: Why AI Decision Support Must Integrate Local Clinical Context
-
Oct 30, 2026, 02:33Jens Eschen: Randomized Controlled Trial on Acute Aortic Dissection Anticoagulation Strategies
-
Oct 30, 2026, 02:23Mavis Agnes Kisakye: Landmark Study Paves the Way for Standardized Bleeding Disorder Guidelines in Uganda
-
Oct 30, 2026, 02:16Zelalem G. Moges: Recognizing Leech Infestation in Rural Patients with Unexplained Vaginal Bleeding
-
Oct 29, 2026, 23:09Brad Flora: Reaching 15 Gallons of Lifetime Blood Donations
-
Oct 29, 2026, 23:07David McIntosh: Why We Need Thousands of Blood Donations Every Day
-
Oct 29, 2026, 23:07Tamer El-Sayed: Could Anaemia Be an Overlooked Factor in Patients with Intermittent Claudication?
-
Oct 29, 2026, 23:05Sakditad Saowapa: AF and Cancer From Shared Biology to Anticoagulation Challenges