The impact of pre‐operative intravenous iron on quality of life after colorectal cancer surgery: outcomes from the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer‐associated anaemia (IVICA) trial

Anaemia is associated with a reduction in quality of life, and is common in patients with colorectal cancer . Werecently reported thefindings of the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer-associated anaemia (IVICA) trialcomparing haemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements following intravenous or oral iron replacement inanaemic colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery. In this follow-up study, we compared theefficacy of intravenous and oral iron at improving quality of life in this patient group. We conducted amulticentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Anaemic colorectal cancer patients were randomlyallocated at least two weeks pre-operatively, to receive either oral (ferrous sulphate) or intravenous (ferriccarboxymaltose) iron. We assessed haemoglobin and quality of life scores at recruitment, immediately beforesurgery and at outpatient review approximately three months postoperatively, using the Short Form 36,EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia questionnaires. Werecruited 116 anaemic patients across seven UK centres (oral iron n=61 (53%), and intravenous iron n=55(47%)). Eleven quality of life components increased by a clinically significant margin in the intravenous irongroup between recruitment and surgery compared with one component for oral iron. Median (IQR [range])visual analogue scores were significantly higher with intravenous iron at a three month outpatient review (oraliron 70, (60–85 [20–95]); intravenous iron 90 (80–90 [50–100]), p=0.001). The Functional Assessment ofCancer Therapy–Anaemia score comprises of subscales related to cancer, fatigue and non-fatigue itemsrelevant to anaemia. Median outpatient scores were higher, and hence favourable, for intravenous iron on theFunctional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia subscale (oral iron 66 (55–72 [23–80]); intravenous iron 71(66–77 [46–80]); p=0.002), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia trial outcome index (oral iron108 (90–123 [35–135]); intravenous iron 121 (113–124 [81–135]); p=0.003) and Functional Assessment ofCancer Therapy–Anaemia total score (oral iron 151 (132–170 [69–183]); intravenous iron 168 (160–174 [125–186]); p=0.005). Thesefindings indicate that intravenous iron is more efficacious at improving quality of lifescores than oral iron in anaemic colorectal cancer patients