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.
-
Jul 30, 2026, 18:36Amina Ammar: Evaluating Rivaroxaban Dosing Alignment Across Cockcroft–Gault and eGFR Equations
-
Jul 30, 2026, 18:11Tobias Tritschler: Evaluating Timing, Translation and Preparedness in COVID-19 Anticoagulation Management
-
Jul 30, 2026, 16:05Peter Zdziarski: Today is Chronic Disease Awareness Day
-
Jul 30, 2026, 15:50Ahmad Gharehbaghian: New Blood Transfusion Centers Open in Iran
-
Jul 30, 2026, 15:32Can We Better Protect Hospitalized Patients With Obesity From Venous Thromboembolism? – RPTH Journal
-
Jul 30, 2026, 15:162025 Platelet Transfusion Thresholds: When to Transfuse and When Not to Transfuse – Chokri Ben Lamine
-
Jul 30, 2026, 14:34Flora Peyvandi: Genetics of Early-Onset Coronary Artery Disease in Iranians
-
Jul 30, 2026, 14:22Stéphanie Forté: New Evidence Strengthens the Case for Hydroxyurea in HbSC Disease
-
Jul 30, 2026, 14:09Hilal Ahmad: New Guidelines for Pediatric Ischemic Stroke Management