User login
Patients with CLL have significantly reduced response to COVID-19 vaccine
Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.
Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination.
In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.
Study details
The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.
Troubling results
The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001).
Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination.
In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.
Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017).
Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.
“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.
The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.
Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination.
In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.
Study details
The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.
Troubling results
The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001).
Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination.
In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.
Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017).
Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.
“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.
The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.
Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination.
In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.
Study details
The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.
Troubling results
The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001).
Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination.
In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.
Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017).
Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.
“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.
The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
GENUINE improvements: Ublituximab plus ibrutinib for CLL
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CLL patients: Diagnostic difficulties, treatment confusion with COVID-19
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients present significant problems with regard to COVID-19 disease, according to a literature review by Yousef Roosta, MD, of Urmia (Iran) University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues.
Diagnostic interaction between CLL and COVID-19 provides a major challenge. CLL patients have a lower rate of anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG development, and evidence shows worse therapeutic outcomes in these patients, according to study published in Leukemia Research Reports.
The researchers assessed 20 retrieved articles, 11 of which examined patients with CLL and with concomitant COVID-19; and 9 articles were designed as prospective or retrospective case series of such patients. The studies were assessed qualitatively by the QUADAS-2 tool.
Troubling results
Although the overall prevalence of CLL and COVID-19 concurrence was low, at 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.5%-0.7%) according to the meta-analysis, the results showed some special challenges in the diagnosis and care of these patients.
Diagnostic difficulties are a unique problem. Lymphopenia is common in patients with COVID-19, while lymphocytosis may be considered a transient or even rare finding. The interplay between the two diseases is sometimes very misleading for specialists, and in patients with lymphocytosis, the diagnosis of CLL may be completely ignored, according to the researchers. They added that when performing a diagnostic approach for concurrent COVID-19 and CLL, due to differences in the amount and type of immune response, “relying on serological testing, and especially the evaluation of the anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels may not be beneficial,” they indicated.
In addition, studies showed unacceptable therapeutic outcome in patients with concurrent CLL and COVID-19, with mortality ranging from 33% to 41.7%, showing a need to revise current treatment protocols, according to the authors. In one study, 85.7% of surviving patients showed a considerable decrease in functional class and significant fatigue, with such a poor prognosis occurring more commonly in the elderly.
With regard to treatment, “it is quite obvious that despite the use of current standard protocols, the prognosis of these patients will be much worse than the prognosis of CLL patients with no evidence of COVID-19. Even in the first-line treatment protocol for these patients, there is no agreement in combination therapy with selected CLL drugs along with management protocols of COVID-19 patients,” the researchers stated.
“[The] different hematological behaviors of two diseases might mimic the detection of COVID-19 in the CLL state and vise versa. Also, due to the low level of immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in CLL patients, both scheduled immunological-based diagnosis and treatment may fail,” the researchers added.
The authors reported that they had no disclosures.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients present significant problems with regard to COVID-19 disease, according to a literature review by Yousef Roosta, MD, of Urmia (Iran) University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues.
Diagnostic interaction between CLL and COVID-19 provides a major challenge. CLL patients have a lower rate of anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG development, and evidence shows worse therapeutic outcomes in these patients, according to study published in Leukemia Research Reports.
The researchers assessed 20 retrieved articles, 11 of which examined patients with CLL and with concomitant COVID-19; and 9 articles were designed as prospective or retrospective case series of such patients. The studies were assessed qualitatively by the QUADAS-2 tool.
Troubling results
Although the overall prevalence of CLL and COVID-19 concurrence was low, at 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.5%-0.7%) according to the meta-analysis, the results showed some special challenges in the diagnosis and care of these patients.
Diagnostic difficulties are a unique problem. Lymphopenia is common in patients with COVID-19, while lymphocytosis may be considered a transient or even rare finding. The interplay between the two diseases is sometimes very misleading for specialists, and in patients with lymphocytosis, the diagnosis of CLL may be completely ignored, according to the researchers. They added that when performing a diagnostic approach for concurrent COVID-19 and CLL, due to differences in the amount and type of immune response, “relying on serological testing, and especially the evaluation of the anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels may not be beneficial,” they indicated.
In addition, studies showed unacceptable therapeutic outcome in patients with concurrent CLL and COVID-19, with mortality ranging from 33% to 41.7%, showing a need to revise current treatment protocols, according to the authors. In one study, 85.7% of surviving patients showed a considerable decrease in functional class and significant fatigue, with such a poor prognosis occurring more commonly in the elderly.
With regard to treatment, “it is quite obvious that despite the use of current standard protocols, the prognosis of these patients will be much worse than the prognosis of CLL patients with no evidence of COVID-19. Even in the first-line treatment protocol for these patients, there is no agreement in combination therapy with selected CLL drugs along with management protocols of COVID-19 patients,” the researchers stated.
“[The] different hematological behaviors of two diseases might mimic the detection of COVID-19 in the CLL state and vise versa. Also, due to the low level of immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in CLL patients, both scheduled immunological-based diagnosis and treatment may fail,” the researchers added.
The authors reported that they had no disclosures.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients present significant problems with regard to COVID-19 disease, according to a literature review by Yousef Roosta, MD, of Urmia (Iran) University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues.
Diagnostic interaction between CLL and COVID-19 provides a major challenge. CLL patients have a lower rate of anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG development, and evidence shows worse therapeutic outcomes in these patients, according to study published in Leukemia Research Reports.
The researchers assessed 20 retrieved articles, 11 of which examined patients with CLL and with concomitant COVID-19; and 9 articles were designed as prospective or retrospective case series of such patients. The studies were assessed qualitatively by the QUADAS-2 tool.
Troubling results
Although the overall prevalence of CLL and COVID-19 concurrence was low, at 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.5%-0.7%) according to the meta-analysis, the results showed some special challenges in the diagnosis and care of these patients.
Diagnostic difficulties are a unique problem. Lymphopenia is common in patients with COVID-19, while lymphocytosis may be considered a transient or even rare finding. The interplay between the two diseases is sometimes very misleading for specialists, and in patients with lymphocytosis, the diagnosis of CLL may be completely ignored, according to the researchers. They added that when performing a diagnostic approach for concurrent COVID-19 and CLL, due to differences in the amount and type of immune response, “relying on serological testing, and especially the evaluation of the anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels may not be beneficial,” they indicated.
In addition, studies showed unacceptable therapeutic outcome in patients with concurrent CLL and COVID-19, with mortality ranging from 33% to 41.7%, showing a need to revise current treatment protocols, according to the authors. In one study, 85.7% of surviving patients showed a considerable decrease in functional class and significant fatigue, with such a poor prognosis occurring more commonly in the elderly.
With regard to treatment, “it is quite obvious that despite the use of current standard protocols, the prognosis of these patients will be much worse than the prognosis of CLL patients with no evidence of COVID-19. Even in the first-line treatment protocol for these patients, there is no agreement in combination therapy with selected CLL drugs along with management protocols of COVID-19 patients,” the researchers stated.
“[The] different hematological behaviors of two diseases might mimic the detection of COVID-19 in the CLL state and vise versa. Also, due to the low level of immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in CLL patients, both scheduled immunological-based diagnosis and treatment may fail,” the researchers added.
The authors reported that they had no disclosures.
FROM LEUKEMIA RESEARCH REPORTS
COVID-19 vaccine failure in patients with blood cancers
COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.
A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).
“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.
“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.
“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.
The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.
Antibody responses
The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.
All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.
Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.
“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.
The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.
Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.
In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.
“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.
Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.
As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.
“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.
A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).
“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.
“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.
“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.
The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.
Antibody responses
The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.
All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.
Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.
“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.
The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.
Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.
In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.
“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.
Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.
As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.
“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.
A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).
“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.
“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.
“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.
The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.
Antibody responses
The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.
All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.
Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.
“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.
The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.
Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.
In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.
“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.
Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.
As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.
“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Steroids can be stopped in some older multiple myeloma patients
For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.
The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.
“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”
This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”
The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
Curtailing steroids
Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.
In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.
The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.
S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”
He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.
“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
Improved event-free survival
In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.
The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.
The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.
With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)
The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).
Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).
Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).
The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.
The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.
“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”
This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”
The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
Curtailing steroids
Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.
In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.
The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.
S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”
He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.
“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
Improved event-free survival
In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.
The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.
The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.
With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)
The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).
Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).
Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).
The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.
The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.
“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”
This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”
The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
Curtailing steroids
Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.
In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.
The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.
S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”
He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.
“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
Improved event-free survival
In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.
The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.
The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.
With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)
The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).
Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).
Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).
The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
First CAR T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma: Abecma
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.
The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.
Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.
All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.
In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”
However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.
In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
‘Phenomenal’ results in MM
The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.
The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”
Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.
“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.
The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented:
Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.
Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.
In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.
Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.
The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.
In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.
At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.
In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.
The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.
The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.
The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.
“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.
The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.
Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.
All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.
In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”
However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.
In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
‘Phenomenal’ results in MM
The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.
The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”
Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.
“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.
The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented:
Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.
Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.
In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.
Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.
The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.
In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.
At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.
In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.
The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.
The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.
The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.
“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.
The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.
Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.
All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.
In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”
However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.
In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
‘Phenomenal’ results in MM
The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.
The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”
Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.
“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.
The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented:
Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.
Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.
In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.
Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.
The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.
In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.
At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.
In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.
The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.
The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.
The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.
“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Concern over response to COVID-19 in patients with blood cancers
Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.
The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.
The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.
“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.
“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.
Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.
“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.
“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
Study details
This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.
Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.
The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.
The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.
The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.
Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.
The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.
Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.
Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.
Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.
The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.
Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.
In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.
Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.
However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.
The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.
This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.
The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.
“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.
The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.
The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.
“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.
“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.
Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.
“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.
“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
Study details
This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.
Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.
The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.
The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.
The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.
Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.
The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.
Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.
Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.
Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.
The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.
Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.
In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.
Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.
However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.
The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.
This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.
The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.
“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.
The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.
The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.
“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.
“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.
Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.
“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.
“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
Study details
This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.
Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.
The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.
The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.
The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.
Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.
The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.
Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.
Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.
Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.
The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.
Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.
In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.
Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.
However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.
The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.
This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.
The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.
“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sequential Targeted Treatment for a Geriatric Patient with Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Concurrent FLT3-TKD and IDH1 Mutations
Nearly 20,000 patients are diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the US annually.1 Despite the use of aggressive chemotherapeutic agents, the prognosis remains poor, with a mean 5-year survival of 28.3%.2 Fortunately, with the refinement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematology panels and development of systemic targeted therapies, the treatment landscape for eligible patients has improved, both in frontline and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients.
Specifically, investigations into alterations within the FMS-like tyrosine kinase (FLT3) and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes have led to the discovery of a number of targeted treatments. Midostaurin is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for use in combination with induction chemotherapy for patients with internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) gene or mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain (FLT3-TKD).3 Ivosidenib is indicated for frontline treatment for those who are poor candidates for induction chemotherapy, and R/R patients who have an R132H mutation in IDH1.4,5 Enasidenib is FDA-approved for R/R patients with R140Q, R172S, and R172K mutations in IDH2.6
The optimal treatment for patients with AML with ≥ 2 clinically actionable mutations has not been established. In this article we describe a geriatric patient who initially was diagnosed with AML with concurrent FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations and received targeted, sequential management. We detail changes in disease phenotype and mutational status by repeating an NGS hematology panel and cytogenetic studies after each stage of therapy. Lastly, we discuss the clonal evolution apparent within leukemic cells with use of ≥ 1 or more targeted agents.
Case Presentation
A 68-year-old man presented to the Emergency Department at The Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in North Carolina with fatigue and light-headedness. Because of his symptoms and pancytopenia, a bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed, which showed 57% myeloblasts, 12% promyelocytes/myelocytes, and 2% metamyelocytes in 20 to 30% cellular bone marrow. Flow cytometry confirmed a blast population consistent with AML. A LeukoVantage (Quest Diagnostics) hematologic NGS panel revealed the presence of FLT3-TKD, IDH1, RUNX1, BCOR-E1477, and SF3B1 mutations (Table). Initial fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results showed a normal pattern of hybridization with no translocations. His disease was deemed to be intermediate-high risk because of the presence of FLT3-TKD and RUNX1 mutations, despite the normal cytogenetic profile and absence of additional clinical features.
Induction chemotherapy was started with idarubicin, 12 mg/m2, on days 1 to 3 and cytarabine, 200 mg/m2, on days 1 to 7. Because of the presence of a FLT3-TKD mutation, midostaurin was planned for days 8 to 21. After induction chemotherapy, a bone marrow biopsy on day 14 revealed an acellular marrow with no observed myeloblasts. A bone marrow biopsy conducted before initiating consolidation therapy, revealed 30% cellularity with morphologic remission. However, flow cytometry found 5% myeloblasts expressing CD34, CD117, CD13, CD38, and HLA-DR, consistent with measurable residual disease. He received 2 cycles of consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine combined with midostaurin. After the patient's second cycle of consolidation, he continued to experience transfusion-dependent cytopenias. Another bone marrow evaluation demonstrated 10% cellularity with nearly all cells appearing to be myeloblasts. A repeat LeukoVantage NGS panel demonstrated undetectable FLT3-TKD mutation and persistent IDH1-R123C mutation. FISH studies revealed a complex karyotype with monosomy of chromosomes 5 and 7 and trisomy of chromosome 8.
We discussed with the patient and his family the options available, which included initiating targeted therapy for his IDH1 mutation, administering hypomethylation therapy with or without venetoclax, or pursuing palliative measures. We collectively decided to pursue therapy with single-agent oral ivosidenib, 500 mg daily. After 1 month of treatment, our patient developed worsening fatigue. His white blood cell count had increased to > 43 k/cm2, raising concern for differentiation syndrome.
A review of the peripheral smear showed a wide-spectrum of maturing granulocytes, with a large percentage of blasts. Peripheral flow cytometry confirmed a blast population of 15%. After a short period of symptom improvement with steroids, the patient developed worsening confusion. Brain imaging identified 2 subdural hemorrhages. Because of a significant peripheral blast population and the development of these hemorrhages, palliative measures were pursued, and the patient was discharged to an inpatient hospice facility. A final NGS panel performed from peripheral blood detected mutations in IDH1, RUNX1, PTPN11, NRAS, BCOR-E1443, and SF3B1 genes.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a patient who sequentially received targeted treatments directed against both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations. Initial management with midostaurin and cytarabine resulted in sustained remission of his FLT3-TKD mutation. However, despite receiving prompt standard of care with combination induction chemotherapy and targeted therapy, the patient experienced unfavorable clonal evolution based upon his molecular and cytogenetic testing. Addition of ivosidenib as a second targeting agent for his IDH1 mutation did not achieve a second remission.
Clonal evolution is a well-described phenomenon in hematology. Indolent conditions, such as clonal hematopoiesis of intermediate potential, or malignancies, such as myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms, could transform into acute leukemia through the accumulation of driver mutations and/or cytogenetic abnormalities. Clonal evolution often is viewed as the culprit in patients with AML whose disease relapses after remission with initial chemotherapy.7-10 With the increasing availability of commercial NGS panels designed to assess mutations among patients experiencing hematologic malignancies, patterns of relapse, and, models of clonal evolution could be observed closely in patients with AML.
We were able to monitor molecular changes within our patient’s predominant clonal populations by repeating peripheral comprehensive NGS panels after lines of targeted therapies. The repeated sequencing revealed that clones with FLT3-TKD mutations responded to midostaurin with first-line chemotherapy whereas it was unclear whether clones with IDH1 mutation responded to ivosidenib. Development of complex cytogenetic findings along with the clonal expansion of BCOR mutation-harboring cells likely contributed to our patient’s acutely worsening condition. Several studies have found that the presence of a BCOR mutation in adults with AML leads to lower overall survival and relapse-free survival.11,12 As of now, there are no treatments specifically targeting BCOR mutations.
Although there are novel targeting agents with proven efficacy for both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations (Figure), it is difficult to determine which pathogenic mutation drives disease onset. No evidence suggests that these drugs could be administered in tandem. At the present time, interest is directed towards targeting all AML subclones simultaneously, which could reduce the likelihood of evolution among founder clones.7,10,13 In their comparison between molecular profiles and outcomes of patients with AML, Papaemmanuil and colleagues observed that > 80% of patients with AML harbor ≥ 2 driver mutations concurrently.14 Moreover, FLT3-ITD and IDH1 mutations tend to co-occur in approximately 9 to 27% of AML cases.15-18 Available targeted agents for AML are relatively new and hematologists’ familiarity with these drugs is continuing to grow. As the number of novel agents increases, investigations directed toward assessing the safety profile and efficacy of combining targeted agents will be beneficial for patients with AML with ≥ 1 driver mutation.
Conclusions
For our patient with AML, sequential targeted management of FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations was not beneficial. Higher-risk disease features, such as the development of a complex karyotype, likely contributed to our patient’s poor response to second-line ivosidenib. The sequential NGS malignant hematology panels allowed us to closely monitor changes to the molecular structure of our patient’s AML after each line of targeted therapy. Future investigations of combining targeted agents for patients with AML with concurrent actionable mutations would provide insight into outcomes of treating multiple clonal populations simultaneously.
1. De Kouchkovsky I, Abdul-Hay M. Acute myeloid leukemia: a comprehensive review and 2016 update. Blood Cancer J. 2016;6(7):e441. doi:10.1038/bcj.2016.50.
2. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Leukemia — acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Accessed November 4, 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/amyl.html
3. Stone RM, Mandrekar SJ, Sanford BL, et al. Midostaurin plus chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia with a FLT3 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):454-464. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614359.
4. DiNardo CD, Stein EM, de Botton S, et al. Durable remissions with ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated relapsed or refractory AML. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):2386-2398. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716984.
5. Roboz, GJ, DiNardo, CD, Stein, EM, et al. Ivosidenib induces deep durable remissions in patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2019;135(7), 463-471. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019002140
6. Stein EM, DiNardo CD, Pollyea DA, et al. Enasidenib in mutant IDH2 relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2017;130(6):722-731. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-04-779405.
7. Jan M, Majeti R. Clonal evolution of acute leukemia genomes. Oncogene. 2013;32(2):135-140. doi:10.1038/onc.2012.48.
8. Grove CS, Vassiliou GS. Acute myeloid leukaemia: a paradigm for the clonal evolution of cancer? Dis Model Mech. 2014;7(8):941-951. doi:10.1242/dmm.015974.
9. Anderson K, Lutz C, van Delft FW, et al. Genetic variegation of clonal architecture and propagating cells in leukaemia. Nature. 2011;469(7330):356-561. doi: 10.1038/nature09650.
10. Ding L, Ley TJ, Larson DE, et al. Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nature. 2012;481(7382):506-510. doi:10.1038/nature10738.
11. Terada K, Yamaguchi H, Ueki T, et al. Usefulness of BCOR gene mutation as a prognostic factor in acute myeloid leukemia with intermediate cytogenetic prognosis. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2018;57(8):401-408. doi:10.1002/gcc.22542.
12. Grossmann V, Tiacci E, Holmes AB, et al. Whole-exome sequencing identifies somatic mutations of BCOR in acute myeloid leukemia with normal karyotype. Blood. 2011;118(23):6153-6163. doi:10.1182/blood-2011-07-365320.
13. Parkin B, Ouillette P, Li Y, et al. Clonal evolution and devolution after chemotherapy in adult acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2013;121(2):369-377. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-04-427039.
14. Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, et al. Genomic classification and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2209-2221. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1516192.
15. DiNardo CD, Ravandi F, Agresta S, et al. Characteristics, clinical outcome, and prognostic significance of IDH mutations in AML. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(8):732-736. doi:10.1002/ajh.24072.
16. Rakheja D, Konoplev S, Medeiros LJ, Chen W. IDH mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Hum Pathol. 2012;43 (10):1541-1551. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2012.05.003.
17. Lai C, Doucette K, Norsworthy K. Recent drug approvals for acute myeloid leukemia. J H Oncol. 2019;12(1):100. doi:10.1186/s13045-019-0774-x.
18. Boddu P, Takahashi K, Pemmaraju N, et al. Influence of IDH on FLT3-ITD status in newly diagnosed AML. Leukemia. 2017;31(11):2526-2529. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.244.
Nearly 20,000 patients are diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the US annually.1 Despite the use of aggressive chemotherapeutic agents, the prognosis remains poor, with a mean 5-year survival of 28.3%.2 Fortunately, with the refinement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematology panels and development of systemic targeted therapies, the treatment landscape for eligible patients has improved, both in frontline and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients.
Specifically, investigations into alterations within the FMS-like tyrosine kinase (FLT3) and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes have led to the discovery of a number of targeted treatments. Midostaurin is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for use in combination with induction chemotherapy for patients with internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) gene or mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain (FLT3-TKD).3 Ivosidenib is indicated for frontline treatment for those who are poor candidates for induction chemotherapy, and R/R patients who have an R132H mutation in IDH1.4,5 Enasidenib is FDA-approved for R/R patients with R140Q, R172S, and R172K mutations in IDH2.6
The optimal treatment for patients with AML with ≥ 2 clinically actionable mutations has not been established. In this article we describe a geriatric patient who initially was diagnosed with AML with concurrent FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations and received targeted, sequential management. We detail changes in disease phenotype and mutational status by repeating an NGS hematology panel and cytogenetic studies after each stage of therapy. Lastly, we discuss the clonal evolution apparent within leukemic cells with use of ≥ 1 or more targeted agents.
Case Presentation
A 68-year-old man presented to the Emergency Department at The Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in North Carolina with fatigue and light-headedness. Because of his symptoms and pancytopenia, a bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed, which showed 57% myeloblasts, 12% promyelocytes/myelocytes, and 2% metamyelocytes in 20 to 30% cellular bone marrow. Flow cytometry confirmed a blast population consistent with AML. A LeukoVantage (Quest Diagnostics) hematologic NGS panel revealed the presence of FLT3-TKD, IDH1, RUNX1, BCOR-E1477, and SF3B1 mutations (Table). Initial fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results showed a normal pattern of hybridization with no translocations. His disease was deemed to be intermediate-high risk because of the presence of FLT3-TKD and RUNX1 mutations, despite the normal cytogenetic profile and absence of additional clinical features.
Induction chemotherapy was started with idarubicin, 12 mg/m2, on days 1 to 3 and cytarabine, 200 mg/m2, on days 1 to 7. Because of the presence of a FLT3-TKD mutation, midostaurin was planned for days 8 to 21. After induction chemotherapy, a bone marrow biopsy on day 14 revealed an acellular marrow with no observed myeloblasts. A bone marrow biopsy conducted before initiating consolidation therapy, revealed 30% cellularity with morphologic remission. However, flow cytometry found 5% myeloblasts expressing CD34, CD117, CD13, CD38, and HLA-DR, consistent with measurable residual disease. He received 2 cycles of consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine combined with midostaurin. After the patient's second cycle of consolidation, he continued to experience transfusion-dependent cytopenias. Another bone marrow evaluation demonstrated 10% cellularity with nearly all cells appearing to be myeloblasts. A repeat LeukoVantage NGS panel demonstrated undetectable FLT3-TKD mutation and persistent IDH1-R123C mutation. FISH studies revealed a complex karyotype with monosomy of chromosomes 5 and 7 and trisomy of chromosome 8.
We discussed with the patient and his family the options available, which included initiating targeted therapy for his IDH1 mutation, administering hypomethylation therapy with or without venetoclax, or pursuing palliative measures. We collectively decided to pursue therapy with single-agent oral ivosidenib, 500 mg daily. After 1 month of treatment, our patient developed worsening fatigue. His white blood cell count had increased to > 43 k/cm2, raising concern for differentiation syndrome.
A review of the peripheral smear showed a wide-spectrum of maturing granulocytes, with a large percentage of blasts. Peripheral flow cytometry confirmed a blast population of 15%. After a short period of symptom improvement with steroids, the patient developed worsening confusion. Brain imaging identified 2 subdural hemorrhages. Because of a significant peripheral blast population and the development of these hemorrhages, palliative measures were pursued, and the patient was discharged to an inpatient hospice facility. A final NGS panel performed from peripheral blood detected mutations in IDH1, RUNX1, PTPN11, NRAS, BCOR-E1443, and SF3B1 genes.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a patient who sequentially received targeted treatments directed against both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations. Initial management with midostaurin and cytarabine resulted in sustained remission of his FLT3-TKD mutation. However, despite receiving prompt standard of care with combination induction chemotherapy and targeted therapy, the patient experienced unfavorable clonal evolution based upon his molecular and cytogenetic testing. Addition of ivosidenib as a second targeting agent for his IDH1 mutation did not achieve a second remission.
Clonal evolution is a well-described phenomenon in hematology. Indolent conditions, such as clonal hematopoiesis of intermediate potential, or malignancies, such as myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms, could transform into acute leukemia through the accumulation of driver mutations and/or cytogenetic abnormalities. Clonal evolution often is viewed as the culprit in patients with AML whose disease relapses after remission with initial chemotherapy.7-10 With the increasing availability of commercial NGS panels designed to assess mutations among patients experiencing hematologic malignancies, patterns of relapse, and, models of clonal evolution could be observed closely in patients with AML.
We were able to monitor molecular changes within our patient’s predominant clonal populations by repeating peripheral comprehensive NGS panels after lines of targeted therapies. The repeated sequencing revealed that clones with FLT3-TKD mutations responded to midostaurin with first-line chemotherapy whereas it was unclear whether clones with IDH1 mutation responded to ivosidenib. Development of complex cytogenetic findings along with the clonal expansion of BCOR mutation-harboring cells likely contributed to our patient’s acutely worsening condition. Several studies have found that the presence of a BCOR mutation in adults with AML leads to lower overall survival and relapse-free survival.11,12 As of now, there are no treatments specifically targeting BCOR mutations.
Although there are novel targeting agents with proven efficacy for both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations (Figure), it is difficult to determine which pathogenic mutation drives disease onset. No evidence suggests that these drugs could be administered in tandem. At the present time, interest is directed towards targeting all AML subclones simultaneously, which could reduce the likelihood of evolution among founder clones.7,10,13 In their comparison between molecular profiles and outcomes of patients with AML, Papaemmanuil and colleagues observed that > 80% of patients with AML harbor ≥ 2 driver mutations concurrently.14 Moreover, FLT3-ITD and IDH1 mutations tend to co-occur in approximately 9 to 27% of AML cases.15-18 Available targeted agents for AML are relatively new and hematologists’ familiarity with these drugs is continuing to grow. As the number of novel agents increases, investigations directed toward assessing the safety profile and efficacy of combining targeted agents will be beneficial for patients with AML with ≥ 1 driver mutation.
Conclusions
For our patient with AML, sequential targeted management of FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations was not beneficial. Higher-risk disease features, such as the development of a complex karyotype, likely contributed to our patient’s poor response to second-line ivosidenib. The sequential NGS malignant hematology panels allowed us to closely monitor changes to the molecular structure of our patient’s AML after each line of targeted therapy. Future investigations of combining targeted agents for patients with AML with concurrent actionable mutations would provide insight into outcomes of treating multiple clonal populations simultaneously.
Nearly 20,000 patients are diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the US annually.1 Despite the use of aggressive chemotherapeutic agents, the prognosis remains poor, with a mean 5-year survival of 28.3%.2 Fortunately, with the refinement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematology panels and development of systemic targeted therapies, the treatment landscape for eligible patients has improved, both in frontline and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients.
Specifically, investigations into alterations within the FMS-like tyrosine kinase (FLT3) and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes have led to the discovery of a number of targeted treatments. Midostaurin is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for use in combination with induction chemotherapy for patients with internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) gene or mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain (FLT3-TKD).3 Ivosidenib is indicated for frontline treatment for those who are poor candidates for induction chemotherapy, and R/R patients who have an R132H mutation in IDH1.4,5 Enasidenib is FDA-approved for R/R patients with R140Q, R172S, and R172K mutations in IDH2.6
The optimal treatment for patients with AML with ≥ 2 clinically actionable mutations has not been established. In this article we describe a geriatric patient who initially was diagnosed with AML with concurrent FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations and received targeted, sequential management. We detail changes in disease phenotype and mutational status by repeating an NGS hematology panel and cytogenetic studies after each stage of therapy. Lastly, we discuss the clonal evolution apparent within leukemic cells with use of ≥ 1 or more targeted agents.
Case Presentation
A 68-year-old man presented to the Emergency Department at The Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in North Carolina with fatigue and light-headedness. Because of his symptoms and pancytopenia, a bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed, which showed 57% myeloblasts, 12% promyelocytes/myelocytes, and 2% metamyelocytes in 20 to 30% cellular bone marrow. Flow cytometry confirmed a blast population consistent with AML. A LeukoVantage (Quest Diagnostics) hematologic NGS panel revealed the presence of FLT3-TKD, IDH1, RUNX1, BCOR-E1477, and SF3B1 mutations (Table). Initial fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results showed a normal pattern of hybridization with no translocations. His disease was deemed to be intermediate-high risk because of the presence of FLT3-TKD and RUNX1 mutations, despite the normal cytogenetic profile and absence of additional clinical features.
Induction chemotherapy was started with idarubicin, 12 mg/m2, on days 1 to 3 and cytarabine, 200 mg/m2, on days 1 to 7. Because of the presence of a FLT3-TKD mutation, midostaurin was planned for days 8 to 21. After induction chemotherapy, a bone marrow biopsy on day 14 revealed an acellular marrow with no observed myeloblasts. A bone marrow biopsy conducted before initiating consolidation therapy, revealed 30% cellularity with morphologic remission. However, flow cytometry found 5% myeloblasts expressing CD34, CD117, CD13, CD38, and HLA-DR, consistent with measurable residual disease. He received 2 cycles of consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine combined with midostaurin. After the patient's second cycle of consolidation, he continued to experience transfusion-dependent cytopenias. Another bone marrow evaluation demonstrated 10% cellularity with nearly all cells appearing to be myeloblasts. A repeat LeukoVantage NGS panel demonstrated undetectable FLT3-TKD mutation and persistent IDH1-R123C mutation. FISH studies revealed a complex karyotype with monosomy of chromosomes 5 and 7 and trisomy of chromosome 8.
We discussed with the patient and his family the options available, which included initiating targeted therapy for his IDH1 mutation, administering hypomethylation therapy with or without venetoclax, or pursuing palliative measures. We collectively decided to pursue therapy with single-agent oral ivosidenib, 500 mg daily. After 1 month of treatment, our patient developed worsening fatigue. His white blood cell count had increased to > 43 k/cm2, raising concern for differentiation syndrome.
A review of the peripheral smear showed a wide-spectrum of maturing granulocytes, with a large percentage of blasts. Peripheral flow cytometry confirmed a blast population of 15%. After a short period of symptom improvement with steroids, the patient developed worsening confusion. Brain imaging identified 2 subdural hemorrhages. Because of a significant peripheral blast population and the development of these hemorrhages, palliative measures were pursued, and the patient was discharged to an inpatient hospice facility. A final NGS panel performed from peripheral blood detected mutations in IDH1, RUNX1, PTPN11, NRAS, BCOR-E1443, and SF3B1 genes.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a patient who sequentially received targeted treatments directed against both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations. Initial management with midostaurin and cytarabine resulted in sustained remission of his FLT3-TKD mutation. However, despite receiving prompt standard of care with combination induction chemotherapy and targeted therapy, the patient experienced unfavorable clonal evolution based upon his molecular and cytogenetic testing. Addition of ivosidenib as a second targeting agent for his IDH1 mutation did not achieve a second remission.
Clonal evolution is a well-described phenomenon in hematology. Indolent conditions, such as clonal hematopoiesis of intermediate potential, or malignancies, such as myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms, could transform into acute leukemia through the accumulation of driver mutations and/or cytogenetic abnormalities. Clonal evolution often is viewed as the culprit in patients with AML whose disease relapses after remission with initial chemotherapy.7-10 With the increasing availability of commercial NGS panels designed to assess mutations among patients experiencing hematologic malignancies, patterns of relapse, and, models of clonal evolution could be observed closely in patients with AML.
We were able to monitor molecular changes within our patient’s predominant clonal populations by repeating peripheral comprehensive NGS panels after lines of targeted therapies. The repeated sequencing revealed that clones with FLT3-TKD mutations responded to midostaurin with first-line chemotherapy whereas it was unclear whether clones with IDH1 mutation responded to ivosidenib. Development of complex cytogenetic findings along with the clonal expansion of BCOR mutation-harboring cells likely contributed to our patient’s acutely worsening condition. Several studies have found that the presence of a BCOR mutation in adults with AML leads to lower overall survival and relapse-free survival.11,12 As of now, there are no treatments specifically targeting BCOR mutations.
Although there are novel targeting agents with proven efficacy for both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations (Figure), it is difficult to determine which pathogenic mutation drives disease onset. No evidence suggests that these drugs could be administered in tandem. At the present time, interest is directed towards targeting all AML subclones simultaneously, which could reduce the likelihood of evolution among founder clones.7,10,13 In their comparison between molecular profiles and outcomes of patients with AML, Papaemmanuil and colleagues observed that > 80% of patients with AML harbor ≥ 2 driver mutations concurrently.14 Moreover, FLT3-ITD and IDH1 mutations tend to co-occur in approximately 9 to 27% of AML cases.15-18 Available targeted agents for AML are relatively new and hematologists’ familiarity with these drugs is continuing to grow. As the number of novel agents increases, investigations directed toward assessing the safety profile and efficacy of combining targeted agents will be beneficial for patients with AML with ≥ 1 driver mutation.
Conclusions
For our patient with AML, sequential targeted management of FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations was not beneficial. Higher-risk disease features, such as the development of a complex karyotype, likely contributed to our patient’s poor response to second-line ivosidenib. The sequential NGS malignant hematology panels allowed us to closely monitor changes to the molecular structure of our patient’s AML after each line of targeted therapy. Future investigations of combining targeted agents for patients with AML with concurrent actionable mutations would provide insight into outcomes of treating multiple clonal populations simultaneously.
1. De Kouchkovsky I, Abdul-Hay M. Acute myeloid leukemia: a comprehensive review and 2016 update. Blood Cancer J. 2016;6(7):e441. doi:10.1038/bcj.2016.50.
2. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Leukemia — acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Accessed November 4, 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/amyl.html
3. Stone RM, Mandrekar SJ, Sanford BL, et al. Midostaurin plus chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia with a FLT3 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):454-464. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614359.
4. DiNardo CD, Stein EM, de Botton S, et al. Durable remissions with ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated relapsed or refractory AML. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):2386-2398. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716984.
5. Roboz, GJ, DiNardo, CD, Stein, EM, et al. Ivosidenib induces deep durable remissions in patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2019;135(7), 463-471. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019002140
6. Stein EM, DiNardo CD, Pollyea DA, et al. Enasidenib in mutant IDH2 relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2017;130(6):722-731. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-04-779405.
7. Jan M, Majeti R. Clonal evolution of acute leukemia genomes. Oncogene. 2013;32(2):135-140. doi:10.1038/onc.2012.48.
8. Grove CS, Vassiliou GS. Acute myeloid leukaemia: a paradigm for the clonal evolution of cancer? Dis Model Mech. 2014;7(8):941-951. doi:10.1242/dmm.015974.
9. Anderson K, Lutz C, van Delft FW, et al. Genetic variegation of clonal architecture and propagating cells in leukaemia. Nature. 2011;469(7330):356-561. doi: 10.1038/nature09650.
10. Ding L, Ley TJ, Larson DE, et al. Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nature. 2012;481(7382):506-510. doi:10.1038/nature10738.
11. Terada K, Yamaguchi H, Ueki T, et al. Usefulness of BCOR gene mutation as a prognostic factor in acute myeloid leukemia with intermediate cytogenetic prognosis. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2018;57(8):401-408. doi:10.1002/gcc.22542.
12. Grossmann V, Tiacci E, Holmes AB, et al. Whole-exome sequencing identifies somatic mutations of BCOR in acute myeloid leukemia with normal karyotype. Blood. 2011;118(23):6153-6163. doi:10.1182/blood-2011-07-365320.
13. Parkin B, Ouillette P, Li Y, et al. Clonal evolution and devolution after chemotherapy in adult acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2013;121(2):369-377. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-04-427039.
14. Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, et al. Genomic classification and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2209-2221. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1516192.
15. DiNardo CD, Ravandi F, Agresta S, et al. Characteristics, clinical outcome, and prognostic significance of IDH mutations in AML. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(8):732-736. doi:10.1002/ajh.24072.
16. Rakheja D, Konoplev S, Medeiros LJ, Chen W. IDH mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Hum Pathol. 2012;43 (10):1541-1551. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2012.05.003.
17. Lai C, Doucette K, Norsworthy K. Recent drug approvals for acute myeloid leukemia. J H Oncol. 2019;12(1):100. doi:10.1186/s13045-019-0774-x.
18. Boddu P, Takahashi K, Pemmaraju N, et al. Influence of IDH on FLT3-ITD status in newly diagnosed AML. Leukemia. 2017;31(11):2526-2529. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.244.
1. De Kouchkovsky I, Abdul-Hay M. Acute myeloid leukemia: a comprehensive review and 2016 update. Blood Cancer J. 2016;6(7):e441. doi:10.1038/bcj.2016.50.
2. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Leukemia — acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Accessed November 4, 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/amyl.html
3. Stone RM, Mandrekar SJ, Sanford BL, et al. Midostaurin plus chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia with a FLT3 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):454-464. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614359.
4. DiNardo CD, Stein EM, de Botton S, et al. Durable remissions with ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated relapsed or refractory AML. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):2386-2398. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716984.
5. Roboz, GJ, DiNardo, CD, Stein, EM, et al. Ivosidenib induces deep durable remissions in patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2019;135(7), 463-471. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019002140
6. Stein EM, DiNardo CD, Pollyea DA, et al. Enasidenib in mutant IDH2 relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2017;130(6):722-731. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-04-779405.
7. Jan M, Majeti R. Clonal evolution of acute leukemia genomes. Oncogene. 2013;32(2):135-140. doi:10.1038/onc.2012.48.
8. Grove CS, Vassiliou GS. Acute myeloid leukaemia: a paradigm for the clonal evolution of cancer? Dis Model Mech. 2014;7(8):941-951. doi:10.1242/dmm.015974.
9. Anderson K, Lutz C, van Delft FW, et al. Genetic variegation of clonal architecture and propagating cells in leukaemia. Nature. 2011;469(7330):356-561. doi: 10.1038/nature09650.
10. Ding L, Ley TJ, Larson DE, et al. Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nature. 2012;481(7382):506-510. doi:10.1038/nature10738.
11. Terada K, Yamaguchi H, Ueki T, et al. Usefulness of BCOR gene mutation as a prognostic factor in acute myeloid leukemia with intermediate cytogenetic prognosis. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2018;57(8):401-408. doi:10.1002/gcc.22542.
12. Grossmann V, Tiacci E, Holmes AB, et al. Whole-exome sequencing identifies somatic mutations of BCOR in acute myeloid leukemia with normal karyotype. Blood. 2011;118(23):6153-6163. doi:10.1182/blood-2011-07-365320.
13. Parkin B, Ouillette P, Li Y, et al. Clonal evolution and devolution after chemotherapy in adult acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2013;121(2):369-377. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-04-427039.
14. Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, et al. Genomic classification and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2209-2221. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1516192.
15. DiNardo CD, Ravandi F, Agresta S, et al. Characteristics, clinical outcome, and prognostic significance of IDH mutations in AML. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(8):732-736. doi:10.1002/ajh.24072.
16. Rakheja D, Konoplev S, Medeiros LJ, Chen W. IDH mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Hum Pathol. 2012;43 (10):1541-1551. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2012.05.003.
17. Lai C, Doucette K, Norsworthy K. Recent drug approvals for acute myeloid leukemia. J H Oncol. 2019;12(1):100. doi:10.1186/s13045-019-0774-x.
18. Boddu P, Takahashi K, Pemmaraju N, et al. Influence of IDH on FLT3-ITD status in newly diagnosed AML. Leukemia. 2017;31(11):2526-2529. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.244.
Experts offer roadmap for treating CLL during the pandemic
COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.
In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.
Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?
Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?
At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).
These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?
Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.
In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.
When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.
But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.
It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.
When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.
Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.
What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?
For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?
If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?
When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.
With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?
The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?
There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?
Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.
At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.
Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.
In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.
Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?
Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?
At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).
These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?
Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.
In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.
When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.
But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.
It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.
When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.
Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.
What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?
For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?
If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?
When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.
With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?
The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?
There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?
Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.
At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.
Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.
In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.
Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?
Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?
At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).
These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?
Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.
In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.
When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.
But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.
It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.
When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.
Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.
What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?
For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?
If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?
When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.
With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?
The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?
There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?
Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.
At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.
Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study found dual-targeted CAR T highly active against relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
An investigational chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct targeting two antigens on multiple myeloma cells showed promise in a first-in-humans trial, investigators said.
Among 16 patients with relapsed/refractory, heavily pretreated multiple myeloma who received the dual-targeting construct GC012F, the overall response rate was 93.8%, and all of six patients who received the cells at the highest of three dose levels had stringent complete responses (sCR) and were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at 6 months follow-up, reported Weijun Fu, MD, PhD, from Shanghai (China) Changzheng Hospital in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
GC012F is a novel CAR-T cell platform targeting both the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is universally expressed on malignant plasma cells, and CD19, which is expressed on both multiple myeloma cells and progenitors, Dr. Fu said.
“Targeting CD19 can trigger elimination of malignant cells by CAR T. Our preclinical work demonstrated more effective elimination of multiple myeloma clone-forming cells by BCMA and CD19 dual CAR T, so targeting both BCMA and CD19 antigens could improve efficacy and reduce relapse,” he said.
The construct is created using the FasTCAR platform that, according to manufacturer Gracell Biotechnologies (Shanghai), allows for cell culturing and expansion within 24-36 hours, rather than 2-3 weeks required for other CAR T-cell products.
Investigator-initiated trial
In a phase 1 investigator-initiated trial, 16 patients with a median age of 56 (range 27-71) years were enrolled. The patients all had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to 2016 International Myeloma Working Group criteria, with a life expectancy of at least 3 months and adequate organ function.
The median time since diagnosis was 3 years (range 1-10). All but one of the 16 patients had high-risk disease, 3 had double-hit disease (the presence of two deletions, gain of function, or p53 mutation), and 5 patients had one or more extramedullary plasmacytomas. Four of the patients had received therapy with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
Following lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, the patients received the CAR T cells in a single infusion at dose levels of either 1, 2, or 3 times 105 cells/kg.
As of the cutoff date in July 2020, 15 of the 16 patients had a clinical response, including 9 with a CR or sCR, and 6 with a very good partial response (VGPR). As noted before, all of the six patients treated at the highest dose level had a sCR. At the median follow-up of 7.3 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.
Among all patients evaluable for response at month 1 (14 patients), 11 were MRD negative by flow cytometry. At month 3 all 11 evaluable patients were MRD negative, and all of 10 patients evaluable at 6 months were also MRD negative.
As with other CAR T-cell constructs, all patients developed the cytokine-release syndrome (CRS), with grade 1 or 2 severity in 14 patients, and grade 3 in 2 patients. The median time to onset of CRS was 6 days (range 2-10), and the median duration was 4 days (range 1-8 days).
No cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were observed.
One patient treated at the middle dose level presented with fever and died shortly after day 78 of an unknown cause during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients died of extramedullary disease; each had achieved MRD negativity.
Investigators continue to follow the patients and are enrolling new patients in the ongoing study.
‘Interesting approach’
Sandy W. Wong, MD, from the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California San Francisco, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the dual-targeted approach is interesting, in light of a case report presented at ASH 2020 of a patient with multiple myeloma who had a partial response to CAR T-cell therapy with a different construct and who developed a subsequent biallelic loss of BCMA that resulted in resistance to CAR T-cell therapy.
“This raises the idea that, if we perhaps had a dual-targeted CAR T, perhaps we will prolong progression-free survival, in order to avoid antigen escape. So I do think the concept is very interesting and does deserve further study,” she said.
CD19 is thought to be expressed on myeloma stem cells, “so the question is: Are patients not being cured because there is a reservoir of myeloma cells, and targeting CD19 is thought to get at this putative myeloma stem cell? but that remains to be seen,” she added.
Dr. Wong comoderated the session where Dr. Fu presented the data.
The study was supported by participating medical centers and Gracell Biotechnologies. Dr. Fu and Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Jiang H et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 178.
An investigational chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct targeting two antigens on multiple myeloma cells showed promise in a first-in-humans trial, investigators said.
Among 16 patients with relapsed/refractory, heavily pretreated multiple myeloma who received the dual-targeting construct GC012F, the overall response rate was 93.8%, and all of six patients who received the cells at the highest of three dose levels had stringent complete responses (sCR) and were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at 6 months follow-up, reported Weijun Fu, MD, PhD, from Shanghai (China) Changzheng Hospital in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
GC012F is a novel CAR-T cell platform targeting both the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is universally expressed on malignant plasma cells, and CD19, which is expressed on both multiple myeloma cells and progenitors, Dr. Fu said.
“Targeting CD19 can trigger elimination of malignant cells by CAR T. Our preclinical work demonstrated more effective elimination of multiple myeloma clone-forming cells by BCMA and CD19 dual CAR T, so targeting both BCMA and CD19 antigens could improve efficacy and reduce relapse,” he said.
The construct is created using the FasTCAR platform that, according to manufacturer Gracell Biotechnologies (Shanghai), allows for cell culturing and expansion within 24-36 hours, rather than 2-3 weeks required for other CAR T-cell products.
Investigator-initiated trial
In a phase 1 investigator-initiated trial, 16 patients with a median age of 56 (range 27-71) years were enrolled. The patients all had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to 2016 International Myeloma Working Group criteria, with a life expectancy of at least 3 months and adequate organ function.
The median time since diagnosis was 3 years (range 1-10). All but one of the 16 patients had high-risk disease, 3 had double-hit disease (the presence of two deletions, gain of function, or p53 mutation), and 5 patients had one or more extramedullary plasmacytomas. Four of the patients had received therapy with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
Following lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, the patients received the CAR T cells in a single infusion at dose levels of either 1, 2, or 3 times 105 cells/kg.
As of the cutoff date in July 2020, 15 of the 16 patients had a clinical response, including 9 with a CR or sCR, and 6 with a very good partial response (VGPR). As noted before, all of the six patients treated at the highest dose level had a sCR. At the median follow-up of 7.3 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.
Among all patients evaluable for response at month 1 (14 patients), 11 were MRD negative by flow cytometry. At month 3 all 11 evaluable patients were MRD negative, and all of 10 patients evaluable at 6 months were also MRD negative.
As with other CAR T-cell constructs, all patients developed the cytokine-release syndrome (CRS), with grade 1 or 2 severity in 14 patients, and grade 3 in 2 patients. The median time to onset of CRS was 6 days (range 2-10), and the median duration was 4 days (range 1-8 days).
No cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were observed.
One patient treated at the middle dose level presented with fever and died shortly after day 78 of an unknown cause during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients died of extramedullary disease; each had achieved MRD negativity.
Investigators continue to follow the patients and are enrolling new patients in the ongoing study.
‘Interesting approach’
Sandy W. Wong, MD, from the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California San Francisco, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the dual-targeted approach is interesting, in light of a case report presented at ASH 2020 of a patient with multiple myeloma who had a partial response to CAR T-cell therapy with a different construct and who developed a subsequent biallelic loss of BCMA that resulted in resistance to CAR T-cell therapy.
“This raises the idea that, if we perhaps had a dual-targeted CAR T, perhaps we will prolong progression-free survival, in order to avoid antigen escape. So I do think the concept is very interesting and does deserve further study,” she said.
CD19 is thought to be expressed on myeloma stem cells, “so the question is: Are patients not being cured because there is a reservoir of myeloma cells, and targeting CD19 is thought to get at this putative myeloma stem cell? but that remains to be seen,” she added.
Dr. Wong comoderated the session where Dr. Fu presented the data.
The study was supported by participating medical centers and Gracell Biotechnologies. Dr. Fu and Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Jiang H et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 178.
An investigational chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct targeting two antigens on multiple myeloma cells showed promise in a first-in-humans trial, investigators said.
Among 16 patients with relapsed/refractory, heavily pretreated multiple myeloma who received the dual-targeting construct GC012F, the overall response rate was 93.8%, and all of six patients who received the cells at the highest of three dose levels had stringent complete responses (sCR) and were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at 6 months follow-up, reported Weijun Fu, MD, PhD, from Shanghai (China) Changzheng Hospital in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
GC012F is a novel CAR-T cell platform targeting both the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is universally expressed on malignant plasma cells, and CD19, which is expressed on both multiple myeloma cells and progenitors, Dr. Fu said.
“Targeting CD19 can trigger elimination of malignant cells by CAR T. Our preclinical work demonstrated more effective elimination of multiple myeloma clone-forming cells by BCMA and CD19 dual CAR T, so targeting both BCMA and CD19 antigens could improve efficacy and reduce relapse,” he said.
The construct is created using the FasTCAR platform that, according to manufacturer Gracell Biotechnologies (Shanghai), allows for cell culturing and expansion within 24-36 hours, rather than 2-3 weeks required for other CAR T-cell products.
Investigator-initiated trial
In a phase 1 investigator-initiated trial, 16 patients with a median age of 56 (range 27-71) years were enrolled. The patients all had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to 2016 International Myeloma Working Group criteria, with a life expectancy of at least 3 months and adequate organ function.
The median time since diagnosis was 3 years (range 1-10). All but one of the 16 patients had high-risk disease, 3 had double-hit disease (the presence of two deletions, gain of function, or p53 mutation), and 5 patients had one or more extramedullary plasmacytomas. Four of the patients had received therapy with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
Following lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, the patients received the CAR T cells in a single infusion at dose levels of either 1, 2, or 3 times 105 cells/kg.
As of the cutoff date in July 2020, 15 of the 16 patients had a clinical response, including 9 with a CR or sCR, and 6 with a very good partial response (VGPR). As noted before, all of the six patients treated at the highest dose level had a sCR. At the median follow-up of 7.3 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.
Among all patients evaluable for response at month 1 (14 patients), 11 were MRD negative by flow cytometry. At month 3 all 11 evaluable patients were MRD negative, and all of 10 patients evaluable at 6 months were also MRD negative.
As with other CAR T-cell constructs, all patients developed the cytokine-release syndrome (CRS), with grade 1 or 2 severity in 14 patients, and grade 3 in 2 patients. The median time to onset of CRS was 6 days (range 2-10), and the median duration was 4 days (range 1-8 days).
No cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were observed.
One patient treated at the middle dose level presented with fever and died shortly after day 78 of an unknown cause during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients died of extramedullary disease; each had achieved MRD negativity.
Investigators continue to follow the patients and are enrolling new patients in the ongoing study.
‘Interesting approach’
Sandy W. Wong, MD, from the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California San Francisco, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the dual-targeted approach is interesting, in light of a case report presented at ASH 2020 of a patient with multiple myeloma who had a partial response to CAR T-cell therapy with a different construct and who developed a subsequent biallelic loss of BCMA that resulted in resistance to CAR T-cell therapy.
“This raises the idea that, if we perhaps had a dual-targeted CAR T, perhaps we will prolong progression-free survival, in order to avoid antigen escape. So I do think the concept is very interesting and does deserve further study,” she said.
CD19 is thought to be expressed on myeloma stem cells, “so the question is: Are patients not being cured because there is a reservoir of myeloma cells, and targeting CD19 is thought to get at this putative myeloma stem cell? but that remains to be seen,” she added.
Dr. Wong comoderated the session where Dr. Fu presented the data.
The study was supported by participating medical centers and Gracell Biotechnologies. Dr. Fu and Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Jiang H et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 178.
FROM ASH 2020