NCCN Hematologic Malignancies

SAN FRANCISCO – Novel targeted agents offer more options for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and if properly leveraged, may be able to shorten the time on treatment, improving acceptability to patients and possibly reducing treatment costs, according to Dr. William G. Wierda.

BTK inhibitors

Agents that inhibit Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) block signaling through the B-cell receptor in CLL, triggering apoptosis, said Dr. Wierda, professor and medical director, department of leukemia, division of cancer medicine, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. One such agent, ibrutinib (Imbruvica), is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of relapsed CLL and for treatment of newly diagnosed CLL having 17p deletion, a high-risk factor.

Results from RESONATE-2, a randomized trial comparing ibrutinib with chlorambucil as frontline therapy in older adults with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, will be reported later this year. “We don’t know the details of that publicly yet, but we do know from a press release that it is a positive trial and showed improvement in outcomes for ibrutinib-treated patients. With that data, we will likely have an expanded label for ibrutinib into the frontline setting, at least for the elderly population,” he said at the NCCN Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Longer-term data, collected 3 years after patients started ibrutinib monotherapy, have been very good, with overall response rates of 90% in those with relapsed or refractory disease and 87% in those with treatment-naive disease (ASCO 2014. Abstract 7014). “The last time I saw these data updated, the complete remission portions have increased. So as patients remain on the treatment, responses do improve,” Dr. Wierda noted. Complete remission rates now are about 14% and 24%, respectively. Median progression-free survival has not been reached in either group.

Data from the randomized RESONATE trial, which led to ibrutinib’s approval in relapsed CLL, showed benefit relative to ofatumumab across subgroups, including patients who had disease that was refractory to purine analogs, who had the 17p deletion and who had received at least three prior regimens (ASCO 2014. Abstract LBA7008).

The main grade 3 or 4 toxicity of ibrutinib in patients with CLL is infections, but atrial fibrillation and bleeding/hemorrhage are each seen in about 5% of patients. “The trials all excluded patients on warfarin, so we do not recommend treating patients with ibrutinib who are on warfarin,” Dr. Wierda commented. “If patients are anticoagulated on warfarin and we want to put them on ibrutinib, I will usually switch them over to something like Xarelto [rivaroxaban],” he said. Toxicity generally declines with longer treatment.

Discontinuations because of toxicity or Richter transformation usually occur within the first 18 months (JAMA Oncol. 2015;1[1]:80-7). “The concerning [point] for me though is the patients who develop refractory disease. … The incidence starts to go up significantly as you go out beyond 30 or 36 months,” he said. “We are reviewing our data right now to see if we make a similar observation. But that suggests to me that the longer the patients stay on treatment, the more at risk they are for progressing and developing refractory disease.”

The HELIOS trial tested addition of ibrutinib to bendamustine (Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan) (ASCO 2015. Abstract LBA7005). Results showed superior progression-free survival with the three-drug combination. “But the question that always comes up when this data is presented is, well, how would it compare with ibrutinib monotherapy? Until that question for me is adequately addressed … I would probably be inclined to give patients ibrutinib monotherapy over the combination,” Dr. Wierda said.

Trials are testing a wide range of other combinations. “To me, this suggests that we really don’t have a direction or a rational strategy for combinations with these agents. … Right now, I’m excited about combining ibrutinib with venetoclax. … They seem clinically complementary, and there is some laboratory data that suggests as well that there will be a complementary mechanism of action.”

PI3 kinase inhibitors

Inhibitors of PI3 kinase also block signaling through the B-cell receptor. In this drug class, idelalisib (Zydelig) is approved for treating relapsed CLL in combination with rituximab.

The phase III trial establishing efficacy of this combination showed that it improved both progression-free and overall survival over rituximab alone (ASH 2014. Abstract 330). Median progression-free survival was 19.4 months. There was similar benefit across various subgroups, including patients with 17p deletion or an unmutated IGHV gene, another high-risk factor.

One of the main toxicities of idelalisib, elevation of liver function test results, typically occurs early and is usually not treatment limiting. Colitis occurs with two predominant patterns: early onset and late onset. “The early colitis in my experience hasn’t necessarily been treatment limiting. We can usually get those patients through their diarrhea [by] withholding the drug; sometimes we’ll give budesonide, and can restart the drug at a lower dose,” Dr. Wierda said. “It’s the late colitis that we have difficulty with – colitis that occurs after patients have been on 3 months, 6 months. And in my experience, those patients have had more severe colitis, and it’s been more treatment limiting.”

Ongoing trials are testing idelalisib in combinations for CLL as well. “Certainly, there’s a number of strategies, and as with ibrutinib, it’s difficult for me to identify a rational combination or a clear combination that I think is going to be superior or a significant advance,” he said. Trials are also testing other PI3 kinase inhibitors, such as duvelisib (IPI-145), now in a phase III registration trial in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

BCL-2 inhibitors

The investigational agent venetoclax (formerly ABT-199/GDC-199) inhibits BCL-2, which is overexpressed in CLL and renders the cells resistant to apoptosis. It has advanced to a pair of phase III trials, one testing it when combined with rituximab and the other when combined with obinutuzumab (Gazyva).

When used as monotherapy for patients with relapsed disease, venetoclax achieved an overall response rate of 77% and a complete response rate of 23% (EHA 2014. Abstract S702). Benefit was similar among high-risk groups, including patients with the 17p deletion or fludarabine-refractory disease. With a median follow-up of 5.3 months, median progression-free survival for patients treated at the full dose has not been reached.

In earlier trials, venetoclax was associated with a problematic tumor lysis syndrome, according to Dr. Wierda. But that issue has largely been resolved by starting at a low dose and escalating gradually to a full dose; in the trial, it was seen in 7% of patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 33% of patients; however, this toxicity can usually be managed with growth factors and dose reduction, he said.

The combination of venetoclax with rituximab in relapsed CLL yields an 88% overall response rate and a 31% complete response rate (ASH 2014. Abstract 325). Respective values were 78% and 22% in patients with 17p deletion. Moreover, some patients were found to have become negative for minimal residual disease on the combination, although it was not systematically assessed, Dr. Wierda noted.

“Venetoclax is a drug we will hear more about. … It has activity. I think it has a future in treating CLL, and it will be approved in time,” he said.

Leveraging targeted therapies

These new targeted agents, and others in the pipeline, could potentially be leveraged in several ways to improve CLL treatment strategies, according to Dr. Wierda.

Importantly, if ibrutinib becomes approved for universal frontline therapy, a large share of patients are likely to achieve partial remission. “We know if patients are in partial remission, you can’t really stop their treatment on ibrutinib; they will progress. And there was some data reported at ASH [American Society of Hematology] this past year that patients who were on a lower dose or patients who had dose interruption did poorer,” he said. Furthermore, most patients don’t like to be on treatment indefinitely.

“So we’re working on trials to expand our options for consolidation strategies in patients who have been on ibrutinib. We are trying to push them over into a complete remission by adding additional agents,” he explained.

For example, an ongoing trial is testing addition of nivolumab (Opdivo), an immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients who have been on ibrutinib for at least 9 months and still have a partial remission. “The strategy with that is to try to consolidate them and to get them into a deep remission, where we can have a discussion about holding their treatment or stopping their treatment, or at least to the point where we are comfortable doing that,” he said.

Dr. Wierda disclosed that he has various relationships with AbbVie, Ascerta, Celgene, Emergent BioSolutions, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm, Kite Pharma, Merck, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, Roche Laboratories, and Sanofi-Aventis U.S.

SAN FRANCISCO – Novel targeted agents offer more options for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and if properly leveraged, may be able to shorten the time on treatment, improving acceptability to patients and possibly reducing treatment costs, according to Dr. William G. Wierda.

BTK inhibitors

Agents that inhibit Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) block signaling through the B-cell receptor in CLL, triggering apoptosis, said Dr. Wierda, professor and medical director, department of leukemia, division of cancer medicine, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. One such agent, ibrutinib (Imbruvica), is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of relapsed CLL and for treatment of newly diagnosed CLL having 17p deletion, a high-risk factor.

Results from RESONATE-2, a randomized trial comparing ibrutinib with chlorambucil as frontline therapy in older adults with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, will be reported later this year. “We don’t know the details of that publicly yet, but we do know from a press release that it is a positive trial and showed improvement in outcomes for ibrutinib-treated patients. With that data, we will likely have an expanded label for ibrutinib into the frontline setting, at least for the elderly population,” he said at the NCCN Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Longer-term data, collected 3 years after patients started ibrutinib monotherapy, have been very good, with overall response rates of 90% in those with relapsed or refractory disease and 87% in those with treatment-naive disease (ASCO 2014. Abstract 7014). “The last time I saw these data updated, the complete remission portions have increased. So as patients remain on the treatment, responses do improve,” Dr. Wierda noted. Complete remission rates now are about 14% and 24%, respectively. Median progression-free survival has not been reached in either group.

Data from the randomized RESONATE trial, which led to ibrutinib’s approval in relapsed CLL, showed benefit relative to ofatumumab across subgroups, including patients who had disease that was refractory to purine analogs, who had the 17p deletion and who had received at least three prior regimens (ASCO 2014. Abstract LBA7008).

The main grade 3 or 4 toxicity of ibrutinib in patients with CLL is infections, but atrial fibrillation and bleeding/hemorrhage are each seen in about 5% of patients. “The trials all excluded patients on warfarin, so we do not recommend treating patients with ibrutinib who are on warfarin,” Dr. Wierda commented. “If patients are anticoagulated on warfarin and we want to put them on ibrutinib, I will usually switch them over to something like Xarelto [rivaroxaban],” he said. Toxicity generally declines with longer treatment.

Discontinuations because of toxicity or Richter transformation usually occur within the first 18 months (JAMA Oncol. 2015;1[1]:80-7). “The concerning [point] for me though is the patients who develop refractory disease. … The incidence starts to go up significantly as you go out beyond 30 or 36 months,” he said. “We are reviewing our data right now to see if we make a similar observation. But that suggests to me that the longer the patients stay on treatment, the more at risk they are for progressing and developing refractory disease.”

The HELIOS trial tested addition of ibrutinib to bendamustine (Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan) (ASCO 2015. Abstract LBA7005). Results showed superior progression-free survival with the three-drug combination. “But the question that always comes up when this data is presented is, well, how would it compare with ibrutinib monotherapy? Until that question for me is adequately addressed … I would probably be inclined to give patients ibrutinib monotherapy over the combination,” Dr. Wierda said.

Trials are testing a wide range of other combinations. “To me, this suggests that we really don’t have a direction or a rational strategy for combinations with these agents. … Right now, I’m excited about combining ibrutinib with venetoclax. … They seem clinically complementary, and there is some laboratory data that suggests as well that there will be a complementary mechanism of action.”

PI3 kinase inhibitors

Inhibitors of PI3 kinase also block signaling through the B-cell receptor. In this drug class, idelalisib (Zydelig) is approved for treating relapsed CLL in combination with rituximab.

The phase III trial establishing efficacy of this combination showed that it improved both progression-free and overall survival over rituximab alone (ASH 2014. Abstract 330). Median progression-free survival was 19.4 months. There was similar benefit across various subgroups, including patients with 17p deletion or an unmutated IGHV gene, another high-risk factor.

One of the main toxicities of idelalisib, elevation of liver function test results, typically occurs early and is usually not treatment limiting. Colitis occurs with two predominant patterns: early onset and late onset. “The early colitis in my experience hasn’t necessarily been treatment limiting. We can usually get those patients through their diarrhea [by] withholding the drug; sometimes we’ll give budesonide, and can restart the drug at a lower dose,” Dr. Wierda said. “It’s the late colitis that we have difficulty with – colitis that occurs after patients have been on 3 months, 6 months. And in my experience, those patients have had more severe colitis, and it’s been more treatment limiting.”

Ongoing trials are testing idelalisib in combinations for CLL as well. “Certainly, there’s a number of strategies, and as with ibrutinib, it’s difficult for me to identify a rational combination or a clear combination that I think is going to be superior or a significant advance,” he said. Trials are also testing other PI3 kinase inhibitors, such as duvelisib (IPI-145), now in a phase III registration trial in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

BCL-2 inhibitors

The investigational agent venetoclax (formerly ABT-199/GDC-199) inhibits BCL-2, which is overexpressed in CLL and renders the cells resistant to apoptosis. It has advanced to a pair of phase III trials, one testing it when combined with rituximab and the other when combined with obinutuzumab (Gazyva).

When used as monotherapy for patients with relapsed disease, venetoclax achieved an overall response rate of 77% and a complete response rate of 23% (EHA 2014. Abstract S702). Benefit was similar among high-risk groups, including patients with the 17p deletion or fludarabine-refractory disease. With a median follow-up of 5.3 months, median progression-free survival for patients treated at the full dose has not been reached.

In earlier trials, venetoclax was associated with a problematic tumor lysis syndrome, according to Dr. Wierda. But that issue has largely been resolved by starting at a low dose and escalating gradually to a full dose; in the trial, it was seen in 7% of patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 33% of patients; however, this toxicity can usually be managed with growth factors and dose reduction, he said.

The combination of venetoclax with rituximab in relapsed CLL yields an 88% overall response rate and a 31% complete response rate (ASH 2014. Abstract 325). Respective values were 78% and 22% in patients with 17p deletion. Moreover, some patients were found to have become negative for minimal residual disease on the combination, although it was not systematically assessed, Dr. Wierda noted.

“Venetoclax is a drug we will hear more about. … It has activity. I think it has a future in treating CLL, and it will be approved in time,” he said.

Leveraging targeted therapies

These new targeted agents, and others in the pipeline, could potentially be leveraged in several ways to improve CLL treatment strategies, according to Dr. Wierda.

Importantly, if ibrutinib becomes approved for universal frontline therapy, a large share of patients are likely to achieve partial remission. “We know if patients are in partial remission, you can’t really stop their treatment on ibrutinib; they will progress. And there was some data reported at ASH [American Society of Hematology] this past year that patients who were on a lower dose or patients who had dose interruption did poorer,” he said. Furthermore, most patients don’t like to be on treatment indefinitely.

“So we’re working on trials to expand our options for consolidation strategies in patients who have been on ibrutinib. We are trying to push them over into a complete remission by adding additional agents,” he explained.

For example, an ongoing trial is testing addition of nivolumab (Opdivo), an immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients who have been on ibrutinib for at least 9 months and still have a partial remission. “The strategy with that is to try to consolidate them and to get them into a deep remission, where we can have a discussion about holding their treatment or stopping their treatment, or at least to the point where we are comfortable doing that,” he said.

Dr. Wierda disclosed that he has various relationships with AbbVie, Ascerta, Celgene, Emergent BioSolutions, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm, Kite Pharma, Merck, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, Roche Laboratories, and Sanofi-Aventis U.S.

SAN FRANCISCO – Novel targeted agents offer more options for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and if properly leveraged, may be able to shorten the time on treatment, improving acceptability to patients and possibly reducing treatment costs, according to Dr. William G. Wierda.

BTK inhibitors

Agents that inhibit Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) block signaling through the B-cell receptor in CLL, triggering apoptosis, said Dr. Wierda, professor and medical director, department of leukemia, division of cancer medicine, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. One such agent, ibrutinib (Imbruvica), is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of relapsed CLL and for treatment of newly diagnosed CLL having 17p deletion, a high-risk factor.

Results from RESONATE-2, a randomized trial comparing ibrutinib with chlorambucil as frontline therapy in older adults with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, will be reported later this year. “We don’t know the details of that publicly yet, but we do know from a press release that it is a positive trial and showed improvement in outcomes for ibrutinib-treated patients. With that data, we will likely have an expanded label for ibrutinib into the frontline setting, at least for the elderly population,” he said at the NCCN Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Longer-term data, collected 3 years after patients started ibrutinib monotherapy, have been very good, with overall response rates of 90% in those with relapsed or refractory disease and 87% in those with treatment-naive disease (ASCO 2014. Abstract 7014). “The last time I saw these data updated, the complete remission portions have increased. So as patients remain on the treatment, responses do improve,” Dr. Wierda noted. Complete remission rates now are about 14% and 24%, respectively. Median progression-free survival has not been reached in either group.

Data from the randomized RESONATE trial, which led to ibrutinib’s approval in relapsed CLL, showed benefit relative to ofatumumab across subgroups, including patients who had disease that was refractory to purine analogs, who had the 17p deletion and who had received at least three prior regimens (ASCO 2014. Abstract LBA7008).

The main grade 3 or 4 toxicity of ibrutinib in patients with CLL is infections, but atrial fibrillation and bleeding/hemorrhage are each seen in about 5% of patients. “The trials all excluded patients on warfarin, so we do not recommend treating patients with ibrutinib who are on warfarin,” Dr. Wierda commented. “If patients are anticoagulated on warfarin and we want to put them on ibrutinib, I will usually switch them over to something like Xarelto [rivaroxaban],” he said. Toxicity generally declines with longer treatment.

Discontinuations because of toxicity or Richter transformation usually occur within the first 18 months (JAMA Oncol. 2015;1[1]:80-7). “The concerning [point] for me though is the patients who develop refractory disease. … The incidence starts to go up significantly as you go out beyond 30 or 36 months,” he said. “We are reviewing our data right now to see if we make a similar observation. But that suggests to me that the longer the patients stay on treatment, the more at risk they are for progressing and developing refractory disease.”

The HELIOS trial tested addition of ibrutinib to bendamustine (Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan) (ASCO 2015. Abstract LBA7005). Results showed superior progression-free survival with the three-drug combination. “But the question that always comes up when this data is presented is, well, how would it compare with ibrutinib monotherapy? Until that question for me is adequately addressed … I would probably be inclined to give patients ibrutinib monotherapy over the combination,” Dr. Wierda said.

Trials are testing a wide range of other combinations. “To me, this suggests that we really don’t have a direction or a rational strategy for combinations with these agents. … Right now, I’m excited about combining ibrutinib with venetoclax. … They seem clinically complementary, and there is some laboratory data that suggests as well that there will be a complementary mechanism of action.”

PI3 kinase inhibitors

Inhibitors of PI3 kinase also block signaling through the B-cell receptor. In this drug class, idelalisib (Zydelig) is approved for treating relapsed CLL in combination with rituximab.

The phase III trial establishing efficacy of this combination showed that it improved both progression-free and overall survival over rituximab alone (ASH 2014. Abstract 330). Median progression-free survival was 19.4 months. There was similar benefit across various subgroups, including patients with 17p deletion or an unmutated IGHV gene, another high-risk factor.

One of the main toxicities of idelalisib, elevation of liver function test results, typically occurs early and is usually not treatment limiting. Colitis occurs with two predominant patterns: early onset and late onset. “The early colitis in my experience hasn’t necessarily been treatment limiting. We can usually get those patients through their diarrhea [by] withholding the drug; sometimes we’ll give budesonide, and can restart the drug at a lower dose,” Dr. Wierda said. “It’s the late colitis that we have difficulty with – colitis that occurs after patients have been on 3 months, 6 months. And in my experience, those patients have had more severe colitis, and it’s been more treatment limiting.”

Ongoing trials are testing idelalisib in combinations for CLL as well. “Certainly, there’s a number of strategies, and as with ibrutinib, it’s difficult for me to identify a rational combination or a clear combination that I think is going to be superior or a significant advance,” he said. Trials are also testing other PI3 kinase inhibitors, such as duvelisib (IPI-145), now in a phase III registration trial in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

BCL-2 inhibitors

The investigational agent venetoclax (formerly ABT-199/GDC-199) inhibits BCL-2, which is overexpressed in CLL and renders the cells resistant to apoptosis. It has advanced to a pair of phase III trials, one testing it when combined with rituximab and the other when combined with obinutuzumab (Gazyva).

When used as monotherapy for patients with relapsed disease, venetoclax achieved an overall response rate of 77% and a complete response rate of 23% (EHA 2014. Abstract S702). Benefit was similar among high-risk groups, including patients with the 17p deletion or fludarabine-refractory disease. With a median follow-up of 5.3 months, median progression-free survival for patients treated at the full dose has not been reached.

In earlier trials, venetoclax was associated with a problematic tumor lysis syndrome, according to Dr. Wierda. But that issue has largely been resolved by starting at a low dose and escalating gradually to a full dose; in the trial, it was seen in 7% of patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 33% of patients; however, this toxicity can usually be managed with growth factors and dose reduction, he said.

The combination of venetoclax with rituximab in relapsed CLL yields an 88% overall response rate and a 31% complete response rate (ASH 2014. Abstract 325). Respective values were 78% and 22% in patients with 17p deletion. Moreover, some patients were found to have become negative for minimal residual disease on the combination, although it was not systematically assessed, Dr. Wierda noted.

“Venetoclax is a drug we will hear more about. … It has activity. I think it has a future in treating CLL, and it will be approved in time,” he said.

Leveraging targeted therapies

These new targeted agents, and others in the pipeline, could potentially be leveraged in several ways to improve CLL treatment strategies, according to Dr. Wierda.

Importantly, if ibrutinib becomes approved for universal frontline therapy, a large share of patients are likely to achieve partial remission. “We know if patients are in partial remission, you can’t really stop their treatment on ibrutinib; they will progress. And there was some data reported at ASH [American Society of Hematology] this past year that patients who were on a lower dose or patients who had dose interruption did poorer,” he said. Furthermore, most patients don’t like to be on treatment indefinitely.

“So we’re working on trials to expand our options for consolidation strategies in patients who have been on ibrutinib. We are trying to push them over into a complete remission by adding additional agents,” he explained.

For example, an ongoing trial is testing addition of nivolumab (Opdivo), an immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients who have been on ibrutinib for at least 9 months and still have a partial remission. “The strategy with that is to try to consolidate them and to get them into a deep remission, where we can have a discussion about holding their treatment or stopping their treatment, or at least to the point where we are comfortable doing that,” he said.

Dr. Wierda disclosed that he has various relationships with AbbVie, Ascerta, Celgene, Emergent BioSolutions, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm, Kite Pharma, Merck, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, Roche Laboratories, and Sanofi-Aventis U.S.

SAN FRANCISCO – A variety of emerging therapies are being incorporated into the management of follicular lymphoma, which is typically a long-term endeavor requiring strategic use of multiple treatments, Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz said at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

“Follicular lymphoma is a disease of paradox. The reality is that overall survival is excellent, but patients are not going to be able to do that with one treatment; they are going to get a series of treatments,” he said. “Survival is the sum of your exposures to treatment, time on active therapy, time in remission, and actually time with relapse not needing treatment.”

Risk stratification

Overall survival for patients with follicular lymphoma diagnosed today and treated with modern therapy is only slightly inferior to that for age-matched controls, noted Dr. Zelenetz of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and professor of medicine at Cornell University, both in New York.

But patients who are faring poorly at 12 months (American Society of Hematology [ASH] 2014, Abstract 1664) or at 24 months (J Clin Oncol. 2015;33[23]:2516-22) into care have a much worse prognosis. “This shows the importance of identifying those patients with poor biology, and [the question of] whether we can identify them without treating them first and having them progress,” he said.

Hematologists have historically looked to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) to estimate outcome. “The FLIPI clearly works; it’s an important clinical tool. But the FLIPI high-risk patients are still identifying more than those very high-risk patients,” he said.

Therefore, a clinicogenomic risk model was developed that incorporates seven mutations having poor prognostic impact, the m7-FLIPI (Lancet Oncol. 2015;16[9]:1111-22). Adding the mutations split the previously defined high-risk patients into a group with a prognosis similar to that of low-risk patients and a small group with a very poor prognosis.

“This actually represents something very close to the 20% of patients that we think have bad biology,” Dr. Zelenetz noted. “There will be some additional data at ASH looking at this exact question, because the holy grail is to know when you diagnose someone if they are in that bad-risk group because those are the patients you want to do novel clinical trials on. If your overall survival is equivalent to the general population, it’s going to be hard to ever prove an overall survival advantage for an intervention in an unselected group of patients.”

Advanced-stage disease with low tumor bulk

For patients who have advanced-stage follicular lymphoma but with low tumor bulk, the NCCN endorses a modification of criteria developed by the Follicular Lymphoma Study Group (GELF) in deciding when to start treatment (J Clin Oncol. 1998;16[7]:2332-8).

Roughly a fifth of patients who are eligible for and managed with a watch-and-wait approach will not need chemotherapy or die of their disease in the next 10 years (Lancet. 2003;362[9383]:516-22). Furthermore, this strategy nets a median delay in the need for chemotherapy of 2.6 years.

Compared with observation, treatment with the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab (Rituxan) improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in this setting (ASH 2010, Abstract 6). “Though in selected patients, rituximab may be appropriate as initial treatment for the observable patient, I would argue for the observable patient with no survival disadvantage, the standard of care remains observation,” Dr. Zelenetz said.

Advanced-stage disease requiring treatment

A meta-analysis has shown a clear survival benefit from adding rituximab to chemotherapy (R-chemo) in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who need treatment (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99[9]:706-14). “Based on the results, it is the standard of care to add rituximab to a chemotherapy backbone, but the optimum R-chemo actually remains undefined and would be customized to the individual clinical situation,” he commented.

A variety of emerging agents are being tested in this setting. Among the subset of patients with untreated follicular lymphoma in a single-center trial, the combination of rituximab with the immunomodulator lenalidomide (Revlimid) yielded an overall response rate of 98% and a complete response rate of 87%, as well as excellent progression-free and overall survival (Lancet Oncol. 2014;15[12]:1311-8). The main grade 3 or 4 toxicity was neutropenia, seen in 35% of all patients studied. Efficacy results were much the same in a multicenter trial (International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma [ICML] 2013, Abstract 63).

This combination is now being tested as front-line therapy for follicular lymphoma in the RELEVANCE (Rituximab and Lenalidomide Versus Any Chemotherapy) phase III trial. “The trial is now done, but we don’t have results, and we won’t have results until 2019, so don’t hold your breath,” Dr. Zelenetz commented. “That’s because this was an unselected trial; we took all patients, all comers. And if you don’t try to identify bad-risk patients, you actually have to do very large trials, and the effect size is relatively small.”

Relapsed and refractory disease

“Many times when patients with follicular lymphoma relapse, they are immediately started on treatment. It’s not necessary and probably in most cases not appropriate. If patients are asymptomatic and have a low tumor burden, they can have a second and a third and even a fourth period of observation, where they don’t need active treatment,” he said. “So I would encourage you to …wait until they actually meet GELF criteria again.”

A key question in this setting is whether patients previously given rituximab can derive benefit from an alternative anti-CD20 antibody. Taking on this question, the GADOLIN trial tested the addition of obinutuzumab (induction plus maintenance) to bendamustine among patients with rituximab-refractory disease (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] 2015, Abstract LBA8502; ICML 2015, Abstract 123).

Toxicities were generally similar by arm, except for a higher rate of infusion-related reactions with obinutuzumab. The overall response rates were comparable for the two arms, but progression-free survival was better with the combination (median event-free survival, not reached, vs. 14.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.55), and there was a trend for overall survival.

“These curves start separating after 6 months, and 6 months is the time of chemotherapy,” Dr. Zelenetz noted. “So I would argue from these data that the obinutuzumab didn’t add very much to the bendamustine backbone, but actually the obinutuzumab maintenance was effective even in rituximab-refractory patients.”

The combination of lenalidomide and rituximab has been compared with lenalidomide alone in patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma (ASCO 2012, Abstract 8000). The results showed a trend toward better median event-free survival with the combination (2.0 vs. 1.2 years; hazard ratio, 1.9; P = .061) but not overall survival.

In a phase II trial, idelalisib (Zydelig) was tested among patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (60% with follicular lymphoma) that were refractory to both rituximab and an alkylator (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1008-18). Noteworthy grade 3 or worse toxicities included pneumonia and transaminase elevations. The overall response rate was 57%, and the complete response rate was 6%; median progression-free survival was 11 months.

“Idelalisib can be safely combined with other agents including rituximab and bendamustine,” Dr. Zelenetz added (ASH 2014, Abstract 3063). “Interestingly, the overall response seems to be a little higher when you combine it, but it doesn’t seem to matter which drug you combine it with – rituximab, bendamustine, or [both] – you get good overall responses,” ranging from 71% to 85%.

The BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (formerly ABT-199/GDC-199) has been tested in non-Hodgkin lymphomas, where it has not been associated with the life-threatening tumor lysis syndrome seen in some other hematologic malignancies (European Hematology Association [EHA] 2015, Davis et al). It yielded an overall response rate of 31% in patients with relatively refractory follicular lymphoma. “This will lead to additional studies in this area,” he predicted.

Finally, nivolumab (Opdivo), a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, has been evaluated in a phase I study in relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies, where it was well tolerated (ASH 2014, Abstract 291). Among the small subset of patients with follicular lymphoma, the overall response rate was 40%, prompting initiation of more trials.

Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is showing promise in various malignancies, Dr. Zelenetz said that other options are probably better avenues for research in follicular lymphoma at present.

“I’m much more interested in the tools that we have now, between the checkpoint inhibitors, the T-cell activators, and the bispecific monoclonal antibodies. I think I can [apply these therapies] with less money for probably less toxicity without the complexity of having to make a customized drug for the patient,” he said. “So I’m not very enthusiastic about CAR T cells in follicular lymphoma.”

SAN FRANCISCO – A variety of emerging therapies are being incorporated into the management of follicular lymphoma, which is typically a long-term endeavor requiring strategic use of multiple treatments, Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz said at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

“Follicular lymphoma is a disease of paradox. The reality is that overall survival is excellent, but patients are not going to be able to do that with one treatment; they are going to get a series of treatments,” he said. “Survival is the sum of your exposures to treatment, time on active therapy, time in remission, and actually time with relapse not needing treatment.”

Risk stratification

Overall survival for patients with follicular lymphoma diagnosed today and treated with modern therapy is only slightly inferior to that for age-matched controls, noted Dr. Zelenetz of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and professor of medicine at Cornell University, both in New York.

But patients who are faring poorly at 12 months (American Society of Hematology [ASH] 2014, Abstract 1664) or at 24 months (J Clin Oncol. 2015;33[23]:2516-22) into care have a much worse prognosis. “This shows the importance of identifying those patients with poor biology, and [the question of] whether we can identify them without treating them first and having them progress,” he said.

Hematologists have historically looked to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) to estimate outcome. “The FLIPI clearly works; it’s an important clinical tool. But the FLIPI high-risk patients are still identifying more than those very high-risk patients,” he said.

Therefore, a clinicogenomic risk model was developed that incorporates seven mutations having poor prognostic impact, the m7-FLIPI (Lancet Oncol. 2015;16[9]:1111-22). Adding the mutations split the previously defined high-risk patients into a group with a prognosis similar to that of low-risk patients and a small group with a very poor prognosis.

“This actually represents something very close to the 20% of patients that we think have bad biology,” Dr. Zelenetz noted. “There will be some additional data at ASH looking at this exact question, because the holy grail is to know when you diagnose someone if they are in that bad-risk group because those are the patients you want to do novel clinical trials on. If your overall survival is equivalent to the general population, it’s going to be hard to ever prove an overall survival advantage for an intervention in an unselected group of patients.”

Advanced-stage disease with low tumor bulk

For patients who have advanced-stage follicular lymphoma but with low tumor bulk, the NCCN endorses a modification of criteria developed by the Follicular Lymphoma Study Group (GELF) in deciding when to start treatment (J Clin Oncol. 1998;16[7]:2332-8).

Roughly a fifth of patients who are eligible for and managed with a watch-and-wait approach will not need chemotherapy or die of their disease in the next 10 years (Lancet. 2003;362[9383]:516-22). Furthermore, this strategy nets a median delay in the need for chemotherapy of 2.6 years.

Compared with observation, treatment with the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab (Rituxan) improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in this setting (ASH 2010, Abstract 6). “Though in selected patients, rituximab may be appropriate as initial treatment for the observable patient, I would argue for the observable patient with no survival disadvantage, the standard of care remains observation,” Dr. Zelenetz said.

Advanced-stage disease requiring treatment

A meta-analysis has shown a clear survival benefit from adding rituximab to chemotherapy (R-chemo) in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who need treatment (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99[9]:706-14). “Based on the results, it is the standard of care to add rituximab to a chemotherapy backbone, but the optimum R-chemo actually remains undefined and would be customized to the individual clinical situation,” he commented.

A variety of emerging agents are being tested in this setting. Among the subset of patients with untreated follicular lymphoma in a single-center trial, the combination of rituximab with the immunomodulator lenalidomide (Revlimid) yielded an overall response rate of 98% and a complete response rate of 87%, as well as excellent progression-free and overall survival (Lancet Oncol. 2014;15[12]:1311-8). The main grade 3 or 4 toxicity was neutropenia, seen in 35% of all patients studied. Efficacy results were much the same in a multicenter trial (International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma [ICML] 2013, Abstract 63).

This combination is now being tested as front-line therapy for follicular lymphoma in the RELEVANCE (Rituximab and Lenalidomide Versus Any Chemotherapy) phase III trial. “The trial is now done, but we don’t have results, and we won’t have results until 2019, so don’t hold your breath,” Dr. Zelenetz commented. “That’s because this was an unselected trial; we took all patients, all comers. And if you don’t try to identify bad-risk patients, you actually have to do very large trials, and the effect size is relatively small.”

Relapsed and refractory disease

“Many times when patients with follicular lymphoma relapse, they are immediately started on treatment. It’s not necessary and probably in most cases not appropriate. If patients are asymptomatic and have a low tumor burden, they can have a second and a third and even a fourth period of observation, where they don’t need active treatment,” he said. “So I would encourage you to …wait until they actually meet GELF criteria again.”

A key question in this setting is whether patients previously given rituximab can derive benefit from an alternative anti-CD20 antibody. Taking on this question, the GADOLIN trial tested the addition of obinutuzumab (induction plus maintenance) to bendamustine among patients with rituximab-refractory disease (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] 2015, Abstract LBA8502; ICML 2015, Abstract 123).

Toxicities were generally similar by arm, except for a higher rate of infusion-related reactions with obinutuzumab. The overall response rates were comparable for the two arms, but progression-free survival was better with the combination (median event-free survival, not reached, vs. 14.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.55), and there was a trend for overall survival.

“These curves start separating after 6 months, and 6 months is the time of chemotherapy,” Dr. Zelenetz noted. “So I would argue from these data that the obinutuzumab didn’t add very much to the bendamustine backbone, but actually the obinutuzumab maintenance was effective even in rituximab-refractory patients.”

The combination of lenalidomide and rituximab has been compared with lenalidomide alone in patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma (ASCO 2012, Abstract 8000). The results showed a trend toward better median event-free survival with the combination (2.0 vs. 1.2 years; hazard ratio, 1.9; P = .061) but not overall survival.

In a phase II trial, idelalisib (Zydelig) was tested among patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (60% with follicular lymphoma) that were refractory to both rituximab and an alkylator (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1008-18). Noteworthy grade 3 or worse toxicities included pneumonia and transaminase elevations. The overall response rate was 57%, and the complete response rate was 6%; median progression-free survival was 11 months.

“Idelalisib can be safely combined with other agents including rituximab and bendamustine,” Dr. Zelenetz added (ASH 2014, Abstract 3063). “Interestingly, the overall response seems to be a little higher when you combine it, but it doesn’t seem to matter which drug you combine it with – rituximab, bendamustine, or [both] – you get good overall responses,” ranging from 71% to 85%.

The BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (formerly ABT-199/GDC-199) has been tested in non-Hodgkin lymphomas, where it has not been associated with the life-threatening tumor lysis syndrome seen in some other hematologic malignancies (European Hematology Association [EHA] 2015, Davis et al). It yielded an overall response rate of 31% in patients with relatively refractory follicular lymphoma. “This will lead to additional studies in this area,” he predicted.

Finally, nivolumab (Opdivo), a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, has been evaluated in a phase I study in relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies, where it was well tolerated (ASH 2014, Abstract 291). Among the small subset of patients with follicular lymphoma, the overall response rate was 40%, prompting initiation of more trials.

Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is showing promise in various malignancies, Dr. Zelenetz said that other options are probably better avenues for research in follicular lymphoma at present.

“I’m much more interested in the tools that we have now, between the checkpoint inhibitors, the T-cell activators, and the bispecific monoclonal antibodies. I think I can [apply these therapies] with less money for probably less toxicity without the complexity of having to make a customized drug for the patient,” he said. “So I’m not very enthusiastic about CAR T cells in follicular lymphoma.”

SAN FRANCISCO – A variety of emerging therapies are being incorporated into the management of follicular lymphoma, which is typically a long-term endeavor requiring strategic use of multiple treatments, Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz said at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

“Follicular lymphoma is a disease of paradox. The reality is that overall survival is excellent, but patients are not going to be able to do that with one treatment; they are going to get a series of treatments,” he said. “Survival is the sum of your exposures to treatment, time on active therapy, time in remission, and actually time with relapse not needing treatment.”

Risk stratification

Overall survival for patients with follicular lymphoma diagnosed today and treated with modern therapy is only slightly inferior to that for age-matched controls, noted Dr. Zelenetz of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and professor of medicine at Cornell University, both in New York.

But patients who are faring poorly at 12 months (American Society of Hematology [ASH] 2014, Abstract 1664) or at 24 months (J Clin Oncol. 2015;33[23]:2516-22) into care have a much worse prognosis. “This shows the importance of identifying those patients with poor biology, and [the question of] whether we can identify them without treating them first and having them progress,” he said.

Hematologists have historically looked to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) to estimate outcome. “The FLIPI clearly works; it’s an important clinical tool. But the FLIPI high-risk patients are still identifying more than those very high-risk patients,” he said.

Therefore, a clinicogenomic risk model was developed that incorporates seven mutations having poor prognostic impact, the m7-FLIPI (Lancet Oncol. 2015;16[9]:1111-22). Adding the mutations split the previously defined high-risk patients into a group with a prognosis similar to that of low-risk patients and a small group with a very poor prognosis.

“This actually represents something very close to the 20% of patients that we think have bad biology,” Dr. Zelenetz noted. “There will be some additional data at ASH looking at this exact question, because the holy grail is to know when you diagnose someone if they are in that bad-risk group because those are the patients you want to do novel clinical trials on. If your overall survival is equivalent to the general population, it’s going to be hard to ever prove an overall survival advantage for an intervention in an unselected group of patients.”

Advanced-stage disease with low tumor bulk

For patients who have advanced-stage follicular lymphoma but with low tumor bulk, the NCCN endorses a modification of criteria developed by the Follicular Lymphoma Study Group (GELF) in deciding when to start treatment (J Clin Oncol. 1998;16[7]:2332-8).

Roughly a fifth of patients who are eligible for and managed with a watch-and-wait approach will not need chemotherapy or die of their disease in the next 10 years (Lancet. 2003;362[9383]:516-22). Furthermore, this strategy nets a median delay in the need for chemotherapy of 2.6 years.

Compared with observation, treatment with the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab (Rituxan) improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in this setting (ASH 2010, Abstract 6). “Though in selected patients, rituximab may be appropriate as initial treatment for the observable patient, I would argue for the observable patient with no survival disadvantage, the standard of care remains observation,” Dr. Zelenetz said.

Advanced-stage disease requiring treatment

A meta-analysis has shown a clear survival benefit from adding rituximab to chemotherapy (R-chemo) in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who need treatment (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99[9]:706-14). “Based on the results, it is the standard of care to add rituximab to a chemotherapy backbone, but the optimum R-chemo actually remains undefined and would be customized to the individual clinical situation,” he commented.

A variety of emerging agents are being tested in this setting. Among the subset of patients with untreated follicular lymphoma in a single-center trial, the combination of rituximab with the immunomodulator lenalidomide (Revlimid) yielded an overall response rate of 98% and a complete response rate of 87%, as well as excellent progression-free and overall survival (Lancet Oncol. 2014;15[12]:1311-8). The main grade 3 or 4 toxicity was neutropenia, seen in 35% of all patients studied. Efficacy results were much the same in a multicenter trial (International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma [ICML] 2013, Abstract 63).

This combination is now being tested as front-line therapy for follicular lymphoma in the RELEVANCE (Rituximab and Lenalidomide Versus Any Chemotherapy) phase III trial. “The trial is now done, but we don’t have results, and we won’t have results until 2019, so don’t hold your breath,” Dr. Zelenetz commented. “That’s because this was an unselected trial; we took all patients, all comers. And if you don’t try to identify bad-risk patients, you actually have to do very large trials, and the effect size is relatively small.”

Relapsed and refractory disease

“Many times when patients with follicular lymphoma relapse, they are immediately started on treatment. It’s not necessary and probably in most cases not appropriate. If patients are asymptomatic and have a low tumor burden, they can have a second and a third and even a fourth period of observation, where they don’t need active treatment,” he said. “So I would encourage you to …wait until they actually meet GELF criteria again.”

A key question in this setting is whether patients previously given rituximab can derive benefit from an alternative anti-CD20 antibody. Taking on this question, the GADOLIN trial tested the addition of obinutuzumab (induction plus maintenance) to bendamustine among patients with rituximab-refractory disease (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] 2015, Abstract LBA8502; ICML 2015, Abstract 123).

Toxicities were generally similar by arm, except for a higher rate of infusion-related reactions with obinutuzumab. The overall response rates were comparable for the two arms, but progression-free survival was better with the combination (median event-free survival, not reached, vs. 14.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.55), and there was a trend for overall survival.

“These curves start separating after 6 months, and 6 months is the time of chemotherapy,” Dr. Zelenetz noted. “So I would argue from these data that the obinutuzumab didn’t add very much to the bendamustine backbone, but actually the obinutuzumab maintenance was effective even in rituximab-refractory patients.”

The combination of lenalidomide and rituximab has been compared with lenalidomide alone in patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma (ASCO 2012, Abstract 8000). The results showed a trend toward better median event-free survival with the combination (2.0 vs. 1.2 years; hazard ratio, 1.9; P = .061) but not overall survival.

In a phase II trial, idelalisib (Zydelig) was tested among patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (60% with follicular lymphoma) that were refractory to both rituximab and an alkylator (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1008-18). Noteworthy grade 3 or worse toxicities included pneumonia and transaminase elevations. The overall response rate was 57%, and the complete response rate was 6%; median progression-free survival was 11 months.

“Idelalisib can be safely combined with other agents including rituximab and bendamustine,” Dr. Zelenetz added (ASH 2014, Abstract 3063). “Interestingly, the overall response seems to be a little higher when you combine it, but it doesn’t seem to matter which drug you combine it with – rituximab, bendamustine, or [both] – you get good overall responses,” ranging from 71% to 85%.

The BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (formerly ABT-199/GDC-199) has been tested in non-Hodgkin lymphomas, where it has not been associated with the life-threatening tumor lysis syndrome seen in some other hematologic malignancies (European Hematology Association [EHA] 2015, Davis et al). It yielded an overall response rate of 31% in patients with relatively refractory follicular lymphoma. “This will lead to additional studies in this area,” he predicted.

Finally, nivolumab (Opdivo), a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, has been evaluated in a phase I study in relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies, where it was well tolerated (ASH 2014, Abstract 291). Among the small subset of patients with follicular lymphoma, the overall response rate was 40%, prompting initiation of more trials.

Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is showing promise in various malignancies, Dr. Zelenetz said that other options are probably better avenues for research in follicular lymphoma at present.

“I’m much more interested in the tools that we have now, between the checkpoint inhibitors, the T-cell activators, and the bispecific monoclonal antibodies. I think I can [apply these therapies] with less money for probably less toxicity without the complexity of having to make a customized drug for the patient,” he said. “So I’m not very enthusiastic about CAR T cells in follicular lymphoma.”

SAN FRANCISCO – The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has introduced an easy-to-use visual tool called Evidence Blocks to help physicians and patients compare various treatment options and individualize the selection among them.

“This information can serve as a starting point for shared decision making between the patient and health care team based on individual patients’ value systems,” chief executive officer Dr. Robert W. Carlson said at the NCCN Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, where the tool was unveiled in a session and related press conference.

The first two NCCN guidelines to incorporate the Evidence Blocks – those for multiple myeloma and chronic myelogenous leukemia – were released at the same time. The organization hopes to incorporate them into all of its guidelines by early 2017, he said.

Development of the Evidence Blocks

The NCCN developed the Evidence Blocks to address requests from various stakeholders, according to Dr. Carlson. Guideline users wanted to know more about the rationale behind recommended therapies, asked for inclusion of information on costs, and sought an aid that would allow patients to make decisions based on their individual values.

“The patient perception of value is what should be most important to us,” he commented. “But even among patients, the concept of value differs greatly from patient to patient,” based on factors such as age, comorbidities, treatment goals, and health insurance coverage.

Each Evidence Block graphically displays five measures of information on a recommended therapy: efficacy, safety, quality of the evidence supporting the recommendation, consistency of the evidence supporting the recommendation, and affordability. Each column in the block represents one measure.

Blue shading indicates panelists’ average numeric score for the therapy on that measure rounded to the nearest integer, ranging from 1 (least favorable) to 5 (most favorable). Therefore, the more shading a therapy has, the more favorable its score.

The Evidence Blocks are added to the guidelines and aligned vertically on pages. “This display of the information graphically allows for very efficient scanning of multiple options for therapy. Comparisons across several regimens can be done very quickly and intuitively,” Dr. Carlson noted.

“We believe that the presentation of this type of information allows the health care provider and patient to make their own judgments of the value of specific interventions,” he added.

The affordability measure has generated the most discussion among panelists and stakeholders, according to Dr. Carlson. For this measure, panelists estimated the total cost of care for a therapy, including the costs of drugs, administration, required supportive care, toxicity monitoring, and care associated with management of toxicity. Scores range from very expensive to very inexpensive.

“We don’t use a dollar amount. Rather, it’s sort of what’s the total cost to society, if you will, of the medical intervention part of this,” he explained. “It’s important to understand that these estimates are not necessarily what a patient would pay because many patients have insurance programs that cover all of this cost.… However, we felt it was important to give patients as well as providers an estimate of what the overall magnitude of expense is because there are patients who have huge deductibles, there’s the doughnut hole within Medicare, and there are patients who have no insurance.”

The Evidence Blocks may help address a “conspiracy of silence” between physicians and patients when it comes to discussing treatment costs, whereby neither party wants to bring up this thorny issue, according to Dr. Carlson. “The Evidence Blocks demystify the discussion of cost because the affordability issue is there in front of you. So it gives people permission to talk about cost and affordability.”

It should be relatively easy to teach patients to use the Evidence Blocks. “I think you’ll find your patients will actually be interested in this and that they will not have as much difficulty interpreting this as you think they will, because the patient advocacy groups and the patient advocates that we have spoken with about this, they get this almost instantly,” he said.

Oncologist perspective

There is a critical need for tools such as the Evidence Blocks in making treatment decisions today, according to Dr. George Somlo, professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and also a member of the NCCN multiple myeloma and breast cancer guideline panels.

Treatment options for multiple myeloma, as for many cancers, have exploded in the past few decades, he noted. “How do you go from making sense of having two drugs with a very poor outcome predicted to having literally dozens of agents approved and used in combination, and in essence being at the verge of curing patients with multiple myeloma?”

Dr. Somlo agreed that inclusion of costs in the Evidence Blocks would likely be beneficial as a conversation starter, recalling, “I’ve had patients who did not fill their prescription for a potentially curative medication because they were worried about the $2,500 or $3,500 copay.”

Patient-physician discussion will be important when it comes to using information from the new tool, he said. For example, in the NCCN guideline for multiple myeloma, some of the first-line regimens have identical Evidence Blocks; thus, consideration of factors such as comorbidities will become important.

“This kind of evidence-based scoring system can guide that kind of discussion with the patient and can tailor the individual therapeutic regimens,” he concluded.

Patient perspective

Breast cancer survivor Marta Nichols, who is vice president of investor relations at GoDaddy and a member of the California Breast Cancer Research Council based in San Francisco, welcomed the Evidence Blocks as a tool that will allow patients to make more informed decisions according to what matters most to them.

Only 33 years old at diagnosis, she and her husband had just begun to think about starting a family. “So my primary concern coming into my physician’s office was my fertility and what impact the treatment would have on my fertility. Certainly most physicians are concerned with efficacy – they want to see you survive. My concern was not just surviving, but also thriving and being able to give birth to children down the line,” she explained.

Patients today are overwhelmed not only by their cancer diagnosis, but also by the many treatment options and the new emphasis on shared decision making, Ms. Nichols noted. And that’s where the Evidence Blocks can make a difference.

“When I was diagnosed, it would have been hugely helpful for me to have information laid out in this very clear and systematic way… It would have given us the ability to make a much more informed decision,” she commented.

Multiple myeloma survivor Donald B. Orosco, who is president and chief financial officer of Orosco & Associates and owner of Monterey (Calif.) Speed and Sport, agreed, noting that his priorities when given the diagnosis more than two decades ago at age 47 differed somewhat.

“I adopted the feeling early on that I probably wasn’t going to see a cure for the disease in my lifetime, but I could accept that,” he elaborated. “I just said ‘Really, I’m interested in quality-of-life issues. I’d like to see my kids go into high school or possibly college.’ So I adopted [an approach of] trying to find something for me that would keep me alive and give me a relatively comfortable quality of life, that would allow me to continue to race cars or do whatever I had to do.”

Dr. Carlson, Dr. Somlo, Ms. Nichols, and Mr. Orosco disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SAN FRANCISCO – The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has introduced an easy-to-use visual tool called Evidence Blocks to help physicians and patients compare various treatment options and individualize the selection among them.

“This information can serve as a starting point for shared decision making between the patient and health care team based on individual patients’ value systems,” chief executive officer Dr. Robert W. Carlson said at the NCCN Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, where the tool was unveiled in a session and related press conference.

The first two NCCN guidelines to incorporate the Evidence Blocks – those for multiple myeloma and chronic myelogenous leukemia – were released at the same time. The organization hopes to incorporate them into all of its guidelines by early 2017, he said.

Development of the Evidence Blocks

The NCCN developed the Evidence Blocks to address requests from various stakeholders, according to Dr. Carlson. Guideline users wanted to know more about the rationale behind recommended therapies, asked for inclusion of information on costs, and sought an aid that would allow patients to make decisions based on their individual values.

“The patient perception of value is what should be most important to us,” he commented. “But even among patients, the concept of value differs greatly from patient to patient,” based on factors such as age, comorbidities, treatment goals, and health insurance coverage.

Each Evidence Block graphically displays five measures of information on a recommended therapy: efficacy, safety, quality of the evidence supporting the recommendation, consistency of the evidence supporting the recommendation, and affordability. Each column in the block represents one measure.

Blue shading indicates panelists’ average numeric score for the therapy on that measure rounded to the nearest integer, ranging from 1 (least favorable) to 5 (most favorable). Therefore, the more shading a therapy has, the more favorable its score.

The Evidence Blocks are added to the guidelines and aligned vertically on pages. “This display of the information graphically allows for very efficient scanning of multiple options for therapy. Comparisons across several regimens can be done very quickly and intuitively,” Dr. Carlson noted.

“We believe that the presentation of this type of information allows the health care provider and patient to make their own judgments of the value of specific interventions,” he added.

The affordability measure has generated the most discussion among panelists and stakeholders, according to Dr. Carlson. For this measure, panelists estimated the total cost of care for a therapy, including the costs of drugs, administration, required supportive care, toxicity monitoring, and care associated with management of toxicity. Scores range from very expensive to very inexpensive.

“We don’t use a dollar amount. Rather, it’s sort of what’s the total cost to society, if you will, of the medical intervention part of this,” he explained. “It’s important to understand that these estimates are not necessarily what a patient would pay because many patients have insurance programs that cover all of this cost.… However, we felt it was important to give patients as well as providers an estimate of what the overall magnitude of expense is because there are patients who have huge deductibles, there’s the doughnut hole within Medicare, and there are patients who have no insurance.”

The Evidence Blocks may help address a “conspiracy of silence” between physicians and patients when it comes to discussing treatment costs, whereby neither party wants to bring up this thorny issue, according to Dr. Carlson. “The Evidence Blocks demystify the discussion of cost because the affordability issue is there in front of you. So it gives people permission to talk about cost and affordability.”

It should be relatively easy to teach patients to use the Evidence Blocks. “I think you’ll find your patients will actually be interested in this and that they will not have as much difficulty interpreting this as you think they will, because the patient advocacy groups and the patient advocates that we have spoken with about this, they get this almost instantly,” he said.

Oncologist perspective

There is a critical need for tools such as the Evidence Blocks in making treatment decisions today, according to Dr. George Somlo, professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and also a member of the NCCN multiple myeloma and breast cancer guideline panels.

Treatment options for multiple myeloma, as for many cancers, have exploded in the past few decades, he noted. “How do you go from making sense of having two drugs with a very poor outcome predicted to having literally dozens of agents approved and used in combination, and in essence being at the verge of curing patients with multiple myeloma?”

Dr. Somlo agreed that inclusion of costs in the Evidence Blocks would likely be beneficial as a conversation starter, recalling, “I’ve had patients who did not fill their prescription for a potentially curative medication because they were worried about the $2,500 or $3,500 copay.”

Patient-physician discussion will be important when it comes to using information from the new tool, he said. For example, in the NCCN guideline for multiple myeloma, some of the first-line regimens have identical Evidence Blocks; thus, consideration of factors such as comorbidities will become important.

“This kind of evidence-based scoring system can guide that kind of discussion with the patient and can tailor the individual therapeutic regimens,” he concluded.

Patient perspective

Breast cancer survivor Marta Nichols, who is vice president of investor relations at GoDaddy and a member of the California Breast Cancer Research Council based in San Francisco, welcomed the Evidence Blocks as a tool that will allow patients to make more informed decisions according to what matters most to them.

Only 33 years old at diagnosis, she and her husband had just begun to think about starting a family. “So my primary concern coming into my physician’s office was my fertility and what impact the treatment would have on my fertility. Certainly most physicians are concerned with efficacy – they want to see you survive. My concern was not just surviving, but also thriving and being able to give birth to children down the line,” she explained.

Patients today are overwhelmed not only by their cancer diagnosis, but also by the many treatment options and the new emphasis on shared decision making, Ms. Nichols noted. And that’s where the Evidence Blocks can make a difference.

“When I was diagnosed, it would have been hugely helpful for me to have information laid out in this very clear and systematic way… It would have given us the ability to make a much more informed decision,” she commented.

Multiple myeloma survivor Donald B. Orosco, who is president and chief financial officer of Orosco & Associates and owner of Monterey (Calif.) Speed and Sport, agreed, noting that his priorities when given the diagnosis more than two decades ago at age 47 differed somewhat.

“I adopted the feeling early on that I probably wasn’t going to see a cure for the disease in my lifetime, but I could accept that,” he elaborated. “I just said ‘Really, I’m interested in quality-of-life issues. I’d like to see my kids go into high school or possibly college.’ So I adopted [an approach of] trying to find something for me that would keep me alive and give me a relatively comfortable quality of life, that would allow me to continue to race cars or do whatever I had to do.”

Dr. Carlson, Dr. Somlo, Ms. Nichols, and Mr. Orosco disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SAN FRANCISCO – The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has introduced an easy-to-use visual tool called Evidence Blocks to help physicians and patients compare various treatment options and individualize the selection among them.

“This information can serve as a starting point for shared decision making between the patient and health care team based on individual patients’ value systems,” chief executive officer Dr. Robert W. Carlson said at the NCCN Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, where the tool was unveiled in a session and related press conference.

The first two NCCN guidelines to incorporate the Evidence Blocks – those for multiple myeloma and chronic myelogenous leukemia – were released at the same time. The organization hopes to incorporate them into all of its guidelines by early 2017, he said.

Development of the Evidence Blocks

The NCCN developed the Evidence Blocks to address requests from various stakeholders, according to Dr. Carlson. Guideline users wanted to know more about the rationale behind recommended therapies, asked for inclusion of information on costs, and sought an aid that would allow patients to make decisions based on their individual values.

“The patient perception of value is what should be most important to us,” he commented. “But even among patients, the concept of value differs greatly from patient to patient,” based on factors such as age, comorbidities, treatment goals, and health insurance coverage.

Each Evidence Block graphically displays five measures of information on a recommended therapy: efficacy, safety, quality of the evidence supporting the recommendation, consistency of the evidence supporting the recommendation, and affordability. Each column in the block represents one measure.

Blue shading indicates panelists’ average numeric score for the therapy on that measure rounded to the nearest integer, ranging from 1 (least favorable) to 5 (most favorable). Therefore, the more shading a therapy has, the more favorable its score.

The Evidence Blocks are added to the guidelines and aligned vertically on pages. “This display of the information graphically allows for very efficient scanning of multiple options for therapy. Comparisons across several regimens can be done very quickly and intuitively,” Dr. Carlson noted.

“We believe that the presentation of this type of information allows the health care provider and patient to make their own judgments of the value of specific interventions,” he added.

The affordability measure has generated the most discussion among panelists and stakeholders, according to Dr. Carlson. For this measure, panelists estimated the total cost of care for a therapy, including the costs of drugs, administration, required supportive care, toxicity monitoring, and care associated with management of toxicity. Scores range from very expensive to very inexpensive.

“We don’t use a dollar amount. Rather, it’s sort of what’s the total cost to society, if you will, of the medical intervention part of this,” he explained. “It’s important to understand that these estimates are not necessarily what a patient would pay because many patients have insurance programs that cover all of this cost.… However, we felt it was important to give patients as well as providers an estimate of what the overall magnitude of expense is because there are patients who have huge deductibles, there’s the doughnut hole within Medicare, and there are patients who have no insurance.”

The Evidence Blocks may help address a “conspiracy of silence” between physicians and patients when it comes to discussing treatment costs, whereby neither party wants to bring up this thorny issue, according to Dr. Carlson. “The Evidence Blocks demystify the discussion of cost because the affordability issue is there in front of you. So it gives people permission to talk about cost and affordability.”

It should be relatively easy to teach patients to use the Evidence Blocks. “I think you’ll find your patients will actually be interested in this and that they will not have as much difficulty interpreting this as you think they will, because the patient advocacy groups and the patient advocates that we have spoken with about this, they get this almost instantly,” he said.

Oncologist perspective

There is a critical need for tools such as the Evidence Blocks in making treatment decisions today, according to Dr. George Somlo, professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and also a member of the NCCN multiple myeloma and breast cancer guideline panels.

Treatment options for multiple myeloma, as for many cancers, have exploded in the past few decades, he noted. “How do you go from making sense of having two drugs with a very poor outcome predicted to having literally dozens of agents approved and used in combination, and in essence being at the verge of curing patients with multiple myeloma?”

Dr. Somlo agreed that inclusion of costs in the Evidence Blocks would likely be beneficial as a conversation starter, recalling, “I’ve had patients who did not fill their prescription for a potentially curative medication because they were worried about the $2,500 or $3,500 copay.”

Patient-physician discussion will be important when it comes to using information from the new tool, he said. For example, in the NCCN guideline for multiple myeloma, some of the first-line regimens have identical Evidence Blocks; thus, consideration of factors such as comorbidities will become important.

“This kind of evidence-based scoring system can guide that kind of discussion with the patient and can tailor the individual therapeutic regimens,” he concluded.

Patient perspective

Breast cancer survivor Marta Nichols, who is vice president of investor relations at GoDaddy and a member of the California Breast Cancer Research Council based in San Francisco, welcomed the Evidence Blocks as a tool that will allow patients to make more informed decisions according to what matters most to them.

Only 33 years old at diagnosis, she and her husband had just begun to think about starting a family. “So my primary concern coming into my physician’s office was my fertility and what impact the treatment would have on my fertility. Certainly most physicians are concerned with efficacy – they want to see you survive. My concern was not just surviving, but also thriving and being able to give birth to children down the line,” she explained.

Patients today are overwhelmed not only by their cancer diagnosis, but also by the many treatment options and the new emphasis on shared decision making, Ms. Nichols noted. And that’s where the Evidence Blocks can make a difference.

“When I was diagnosed, it would have been hugely helpful for me to have information laid out in this very clear and systematic way… It would have given us the ability to make a much more informed decision,” she commented.

Multiple myeloma survivor Donald B. Orosco, who is president and chief financial officer of Orosco & Associates and owner of Monterey (Calif.) Speed and Sport, agreed, noting that his priorities when given the diagnosis more than two decades ago at age 47 differed somewhat.

“I adopted the feeling early on that I probably wasn’t going to see a cure for the disease in my lifetime, but I could accept that,” he elaborated. “I just said ‘Really, I’m interested in quality-of-life issues. I’d like to see my kids go into high school or possibly college.’ So I adopted [an approach of] trying to find something for me that would keep me alive and give me a relatively comfortable quality of life, that would allow me to continue to race cars or do whatever I had to do.”

Dr. Carlson, Dr. Somlo, Ms. Nichols, and Mr. Orosco disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SAN FRANCISCO – “We really have an embarrassment of riches in chronic myelogenous leukemia, and the question is, which patients get which drugs? That’s really the major question that drives clinical care right now,” Dr. Jerald P. Radich, chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), told attendees of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

He discussed a variety of setting-specific quandaries in disease management and recent evidence from trials that is helping to provide some answers. He also reviewed some of the finer points of the NCCN’s CML guidelines, a new version of which was released at the congress.

How do you choose front-line therapy?

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have dramatically improved the prognosis of CML, according to Dr. Radich, who is a member of the clinical research division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and an associate professor in the medical oncology division, University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Today, three TKIs—imatinib (Gleevec) and the second-generation agents nilotinib (Tasigna) and dasatinib (Sprycel)—are approved by the Food and Drug Administration as front-line therapy.

The 8-year data from the IRIS trial (International Randomized Study of Interferon Vs STI571), which tested imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML, showed that event-free survival was 81% and overall survival was 85% (Blood. 2009;114:462. Abstract 1126). “No matter how you slice it, these patients have done fantastically well,” Dr. Radich said.

The two other, newer therapies, nilotinib and dasatinib, have yielded significantly better short-term cytogenetic response and major molecular response rates in numerous trials. “But curiously enough, if you look at overall survival, there is no difference,” he commented. “We don’t know why the short-term efficacy of the second generations hasn’t translated into long-term efficacy yet.”

In the guidelines, the three front-line TKIs are nearly identical with respect to their Evidence Blocks, a new tool added to facilitate treatment comparisons and decision making.

But specific toxicities differ across the agents, which may tilt the decision one way or another. “If somebody has a history of really bad atherosclerotic events previously, then imatinib is probably not the best drug for them. If somebody has a history of pulmonary issues, then dasatinib may not be the best drug for them. And if somebody has diabetes, nilotinib probably isn’t the best drug for them,” Dr. Radich elaborated.

Costs for the three drugs are the same at present, he said. But imatinib will likely become available as a generic next year, which may make that drug the most attractive from the financial perspective.

When do you switch therapies?

There is some debate about how long to persevere with a front-line therapy when monitoring suggests the response is suboptimal, according to Dr. Radich.

Data have identified the BCR-ABL1 transcript level at 3 months to be a good predictor of long-term survival (J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:232-8). “We in the NCCN have said at 3 months or 6 months, you should consider changing [if the response is suboptimal]. You don’t have to, but you should consider changing because there are some other [therapies] that get rid of that,” he said.

However, he cautioned, a true assessment of response hinges critically on patients’ compliance with therapy. Studies using electronic monitors hidden in the caps of pill bottles suggest that even though the majority of patients say they take their TKI daily, only about 15% actually do.

Studies out of Europe and Australia have shown that some patients with a suboptimal response will have progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis in the interim between 3 months and 6 months, Dr. Radich noted. “So if you think that your patient is really, really religiously taking their drug, and if they still have not responded very well at 3 months, that might be an indication that you can consider changing therapy.”

Which second-line TKI should patients get?

The options for second-line TKI therapy include nilotinib and dasatinib, as well as bosutinib (Bosulif) and ponatinib (Iclusig).

About half of patients who experience progression on or become resistant to their first-line TKI have mutations, according to Dr. Radich. Here, a mutational analysis is warranted as the second-line agents differ somewhat with respect to the mutations they act against, which may guide the choice of agent. And toxicity profile may again dictate drugs that can and can’t be used for a specific patient.

Patients who have genuine resistance are unlikely to achieve a cure although they may have a cytogenetic response. “Most of us think that resistance might be forever and if we have a patient who has genuinely become resistant, you don’t need to transplant them necessarily [right away]. But that’s the time you have to have a conversation about doing transplantation and start doing HLA typing and the like,” he said.

Data suggest that the cytogenetic response to second-line therapy at 3 months predicts how patients will fare longer term (ASH 2008. Abstract 332).

“That ends up being a pretty good time point because if you have a patient who’s resistant and you start the search for a donor, for an HLA match, the median time to finding a donor is about 4 months,” Dr. Radich commented. “So a practical point is if you have to switch to a second-generation drug, you start a search. You find a donor, you evaluate again. If the patient had a great response, you say fine, we’re going to follow you; if they don’t, that’s a good time to move to transplant.”

In the guidelines, the Evidence Blocks for second-line (and later-line) therapies generally show what one might expect from clinical practice, Dr. Radich said. “As you march from primary therapy to secondary therapy to tertiary therapy, what happens? You all know, toxicity increases in those settings, efficacy goes down. And that’s exactly what happens here. And if you match up all these drugs, we say there is no difference in which one you pick.”

Can you discontinue therapy?

“The other issue that is really driving a lot of CML strategy these days is the issue of discontinuation,” Dr. Radich commented. Conventional belief has been that TKIs do not eliminate CML stem cells; therefore, patients will need to be on therapy lifelong.

“Turns out, like many things, we were wrong,” he said. “There have been a number of studies now showing that if you are PCR negative for a number of years and get off therapy, about 60% of patients will relapse usually within the first 3 months, but about 40% of patients will actually remain negative for BCR-ABL up to 2-3 years.”

“Now the good part is that all the patients pretty much who have relapse and get put back on drug go back to getting a response; they don’t go into complete molecular remission, however. And the reason that we worry that all these patients should still be [discontinued] on a clinical trial as opposed to doing it at home is we don’t know the long-term consequences of this,” Dr. Radich said.

A period of unopposed BCR-ABL activity may allow emergence of resistant clones that take years to become clinically evident, he noted. In fact, data from Hiroshima survivors show that CML can have “an amazing dormancy,” possibly 70 years.

“So I think you have to approach any discontinuation with some caution. The risk is probably very low, but it’s actually probably a number,” he said. The guidelines therefore recommend that in patients whose disease is responding to TKIs, discontinuation should be undertaken only in a clinical trial.

“How this weighs in, I think, is if you look at CMR [complete molecular response] rates, they are higher with second-generations than with imatinib. So if you have a patient who you some day want to get to a discontinuation trial, a younger person who wants to have children and the like, then second-generations might be your best option for getting them there,” Dr. Radich proposed.

Take-home message

The guidelines, with all of their algorithms and the new Evidence Blocks, are helpful but do not replace clinical wisdom and experience, Dr. Radich asserted in closing.

“You have to kind of use your clinical judgment, and that trumps everything else,” he said. “The other thing that’s important is all of you have different experiences with using these drugs, and nothing replaces that. If you are someone who uses drug A all the time, you know how to anticipate the complications, you know what to look for. It’s a lot better [to use that drug] than just jumping to drug C when you have never used it or have little experience, because really experience is the main thing.”

Dr. Radich disclosed that he has consulting and/or research funding relationships with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis.

SAN FRANCISCO – “We really have an embarrassment of riches in chronic myelogenous leukemia, and the question is, which patients get which drugs? That’s really the major question that drives clinical care right now,” Dr. Jerald P. Radich, chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), told attendees of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

He discussed a variety of setting-specific quandaries in disease management and recent evidence from trials that is helping to provide some answers. He also reviewed some of the finer points of the NCCN’s CML guidelines, a new version of which was released at the congress.

How do you choose front-line therapy?

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have dramatically improved the prognosis of CML, according to Dr. Radich, who is a member of the clinical research division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and an associate professor in the medical oncology division, University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Today, three TKIs—imatinib (Gleevec) and the second-generation agents nilotinib (Tasigna) and dasatinib (Sprycel)—are approved by the Food and Drug Administration as front-line therapy.

The 8-year data from the IRIS trial (International Randomized Study of Interferon Vs STI571), which tested imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML, showed that event-free survival was 81% and overall survival was 85% (Blood. 2009;114:462. Abstract 1126). “No matter how you slice it, these patients have done fantastically well,” Dr. Radich said.

The two other, newer therapies, nilotinib and dasatinib, have yielded significantly better short-term cytogenetic response and major molecular response rates in numerous trials. “But curiously enough, if you look at overall survival, there is no difference,” he commented. “We don’t know why the short-term efficacy of the second generations hasn’t translated into long-term efficacy yet.”

In the guidelines, the three front-line TKIs are nearly identical with respect to their Evidence Blocks, a new tool added to facilitate treatment comparisons and decision making.

But specific toxicities differ across the agents, which may tilt the decision one way or another. “If somebody has a history of really bad atherosclerotic events previously, then imatinib is probably not the best drug for them. If somebody has a history of pulmonary issues, then dasatinib may not be the best drug for them. And if somebody has diabetes, nilotinib probably isn’t the best drug for them,” Dr. Radich elaborated.

Costs for the three drugs are the same at present, he said. But imatinib will likely become available as a generic next year, which may make that drug the most attractive from the financial perspective.

When do you switch therapies?

There is some debate about how long to persevere with a front-line therapy when monitoring suggests the response is suboptimal, according to Dr. Radich.

Data have identified the BCR-ABL1 transcript level at 3 months to be a good predictor of long-term survival (J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:232-8). “We in the NCCN have said at 3 months or 6 months, you should consider changing [if the response is suboptimal]. You don’t have to, but you should consider changing because there are some other [therapies] that get rid of that,” he said.

However, he cautioned, a true assessment of response hinges critically on patients’ compliance with therapy. Studies using electronic monitors hidden in the caps of pill bottles suggest that even though the majority of patients say they take their TKI daily, only about 15% actually do.

Studies out of Europe and Australia have shown that some patients with a suboptimal response will have progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis in the interim between 3 months and 6 months, Dr. Radich noted. “So if you think that your patient is really, really religiously taking their drug, and if they still have not responded very well at 3 months, that might be an indication that you can consider changing therapy.”

Which second-line TKI should patients get?

The options for second-line TKI therapy include nilotinib and dasatinib, as well as bosutinib (Bosulif) and ponatinib (Iclusig).

About half of patients who experience progression on or become resistant to their first-line TKI have mutations, according to Dr. Radich. Here, a mutational analysis is warranted as the second-line agents differ somewhat with respect to the mutations they act against, which may guide the choice of agent. And toxicity profile may again dictate drugs that can and can’t be used for a specific patient.

Patients who have genuine resistance are unlikely to achieve a cure although they may have a cytogenetic response. “Most of us think that resistance might be forever and if we have a patient who has genuinely become resistant, you don’t need to transplant them necessarily [right away]. But that’s the time you have to have a conversation about doing transplantation and start doing HLA typing and the like,” he said.

Data suggest that the cytogenetic response to second-line therapy at 3 months predicts how patients will fare longer term (ASH 2008. Abstract 332).

“That ends up being a pretty good time point because if you have a patient who’s resistant and you start the search for a donor, for an HLA match, the median time to finding a donor is about 4 months,” Dr. Radich commented. “So a practical point is if you have to switch to a second-generation drug, you start a search. You find a donor, you evaluate again. If the patient had a great response, you say fine, we’re going to follow you; if they don’t, that’s a good time to move to transplant.”

In the guidelines, the Evidence Blocks for second-line (and later-line) therapies generally show what one might expect from clinical practice, Dr. Radich said. “As you march from primary therapy to secondary therapy to tertiary therapy, what happens? You all know, toxicity increases in those settings, efficacy goes down. And that’s exactly what happens here. And if you match up all these drugs, we say there is no difference in which one you pick.”

Can you discontinue therapy?

“The other issue that is really driving a lot of CML strategy these days is the issue of discontinuation,” Dr. Radich commented. Conventional belief has been that TKIs do not eliminate CML stem cells; therefore, patients will need to be on therapy lifelong.

“Turns out, like many things, we were wrong,” he said. “There have been a number of studies now showing that if you are PCR negative for a number of years and get off therapy, about 60% of patients will relapse usually within the first 3 months, but about 40% of patients will actually remain negative for BCR-ABL up to 2-3 years.”

“Now the good part is that all the patients pretty much who have relapse and get put back on drug go back to getting a response; they don’t go into complete molecular remission, however. And the reason that we worry that all these patients should still be [discontinued] on a clinical trial as opposed to doing it at home is we don’t know the long-term consequences of this,” Dr. Radich said.

A period of unopposed BCR-ABL activity may allow emergence of resistant clones that take years to become clinically evident, he noted. In fact, data from Hiroshima survivors show that CML can have “an amazing dormancy,” possibly 70 years.

“So I think you have to approach any discontinuation with some caution. The risk is probably very low, but it’s actually probably a number,” he said. The guidelines therefore recommend that in patients whose disease is responding to TKIs, discontinuation should be undertaken only in a clinical trial.

“How this weighs in, I think, is if you look at CMR [complete molecular response] rates, they are higher with second-generations than with imatinib. So if you have a patient who you some day want to get to a discontinuation trial, a younger person who wants to have children and the like, then second-generations might be your best option for getting them there,” Dr. Radich proposed.

Take-home message

The guidelines, with all of their algorithms and the new Evidence Blocks, are helpful but do not replace clinical wisdom and experience, Dr. Radich asserted in closing.

“You have to kind of use your clinical judgment, and that trumps everything else,” he said. “The other thing that’s important is all of you have different experiences with using these drugs, and nothing replaces that. If you are someone who uses drug A all the time, you know how to anticipate the complications, you know what to look for. It’s a lot better [to use that drug] than just jumping to drug C when you have never used it or have little experience, because really experience is the main thing.”

Dr. Radich disclosed that he has consulting and/or research funding relationships with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis.

SAN FRANCISCO – “We really have an embarrassment of riches in chronic myelogenous leukemia, and the question is, which patients get which drugs? That’s really the major question that drives clinical care right now,” Dr. Jerald P. Radich, chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), told attendees of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

He discussed a variety of setting-specific quandaries in disease management and recent evidence from trials that is helping to provide some answers. He also reviewed some of the finer points of the NCCN’s CML guidelines, a new version of which was released at the congress.

How do you choose front-line therapy?

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have dramatically improved the prognosis of CML, according to Dr. Radich, who is a member of the clinical research division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and an associate professor in the medical oncology division, University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Today, three TKIs—imatinib (Gleevec) and the second-generation agents nilotinib (Tasigna) and dasatinib (Sprycel)—are approved by the Food and Drug Administration as front-line therapy.

The 8-year data from the IRIS trial (International Randomized Study of Interferon Vs STI571), which tested imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML, showed that event-free survival was 81% and overall survival was 85% (Blood. 2009;114:462. Abstract 1126). “No matter how you slice it, these patients have done fantastically well,” Dr. Radich said.

The two other, newer therapies, nilotinib and dasatinib, have yielded significantly better short-term cytogenetic response and major molecular response rates in numerous trials. “But curiously enough, if you look at overall survival, there is no difference,” he commented. “We don’t know why the short-term efficacy of the second generations hasn’t translated into long-term efficacy yet.”

In the guidelines, the three front-line TKIs are nearly identical with respect to their Evidence Blocks, a new tool added to facilitate treatment comparisons and decision making.

But specific toxicities differ across the agents, which may tilt the decision one way or another. “If somebody has a history of really bad atherosclerotic events previously, then imatinib is probably not the best drug for them. If somebody has a history of pulmonary issues, then dasatinib may not be the best drug for them. And if somebody has diabetes, nilotinib probably isn’t the best drug for them,” Dr. Radich elaborated.

Costs for the three drugs are the same at present, he said. But imatinib will likely become available as a generic next year, which may make that drug the most attractive from the financial perspective.

When do you switch therapies?

There is some debate about how long to persevere with a front-line therapy when monitoring suggests the response is suboptimal, according to Dr. Radich.

Data have identified the BCR-ABL1 transcript level at 3 months to be a good predictor of long-term survival (J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:232-8). “We in the NCCN have said at 3 months or 6 months, you should consider changing [if the response is suboptimal]. You don’t have to, but you should consider changing because there are some other [therapies] that get rid of that,” he said.

However, he cautioned, a true assessment of response hinges critically on patients’ compliance with therapy. Studies using electronic monitors hidden in the caps of pill bottles suggest that even though the majority of patients say they take their TKI daily, only about 15% actually do.

Studies out of Europe and Australia have shown that some patients with a suboptimal response will have progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis in the interim between 3 months and 6 months, Dr. Radich noted. “So if you think that your patient is really, really religiously taking their drug, and if they still have not responded very well at 3 months, that might be an indication that you can consider changing therapy.”

Which second-line TKI should patients get?

The options for second-line TKI therapy include nilotinib and dasatinib, as well as bosutinib (Bosulif) and ponatinib (Iclusig).

About half of patients who experience progression on or become resistant to their first-line TKI have mutations, according to Dr. Radich. Here, a mutational analysis is warranted as the second-line agents differ somewhat with respect to the mutations they act against, which may guide the choice of agent. And toxicity profile may again dictate drugs that can and can’t be used for a specific patient.

Patients who have genuine resistance are unlikely to achieve a cure although they may have a cytogenetic response. “Most of us think that resistance might be forever and if we have a patient who has genuinely become resistant, you don’t need to transplant them necessarily [right away]. But that’s the time you have to have a conversation about doing transplantation and start doing HLA typing and the like,” he said.

Data suggest that the cytogenetic response to second-line therapy at 3 months predicts how patients will fare longer term (ASH 2008. Abstract 332).

“That ends up being a pretty good time point because if you have a patient who’s resistant and you start the search for a donor, for an HLA match, the median time to finding a donor is about 4 months,” Dr. Radich commented. “So a practical point is if you have to switch to a second-generation drug, you start a search. You find a donor, you evaluate again. If the patient had a great response, you say fine, we’re going to follow you; if they don’t, that’s a good time to move to transplant.”

In the guidelines, the Evidence Blocks for second-line (and later-line) therapies generally show what one might expect from clinical practice, Dr. Radich said. “As you march from primary therapy to secondary therapy to tertiary therapy, what happens? You all know, toxicity increases in those settings, efficacy goes down. And that’s exactly what happens here. And if you match up all these drugs, we say there is no difference in which one you pick.”

Can you discontinue therapy?

“The other issue that is really driving a lot of CML strategy these days is the issue of discontinuation,” Dr. Radich commented. Conventional belief has been that TKIs do not eliminate CML stem cells; therefore, patients will need to be on therapy lifelong.

“Turns out, like many things, we were wrong,” he said. “There have been a number of studies now showing that if you are PCR negative for a number of years and get off therapy, about 60% of patients will relapse usually within the first 3 months, but about 40% of patients will actually remain negative for BCR-ABL up to 2-3 years.”

“Now the good part is that all the patients pretty much who have relapse and get put back on drug go back to getting a response; they don’t go into complete molecular remission, however. And the reason that we worry that all these patients should still be [discontinued] on a clinical trial as opposed to doing it at home is we don’t know the long-term consequences of this,” Dr. Radich said.

A period of unopposed BCR-ABL activity may allow emergence of resistant clones that take years to become clinically evident, he noted. In fact, data from Hiroshima survivors show that CML can have “an amazing dormancy,” possibly 70 years.

“So I think you have to approach any discontinuation with some caution. The risk is probably very low, but it’s actually probably a number,” he said. The guidelines therefore recommend that in patients whose disease is responding to TKIs, discontinuation should be undertaken only in a clinical trial.

“How this weighs in, I think, is if you look at CMR [complete molecular response] rates, they are higher with second-generations than with imatinib. So if you have a patient who you some day want to get to a discontinuation trial, a younger person who wants to have children and the like, then second-generations might be your best option for getting them there,” Dr. Radich proposed.

Take-home message

The guidelines, with all of their algorithms and the new Evidence Blocks, are helpful but do not replace clinical wisdom and experience, Dr. Radich asserted in closing.

“You have to kind of use your clinical judgment, and that trumps everything else,” he said. “The other thing that’s important is all of you have different experiences with using these drugs, and nothing replaces that. If you are someone who uses drug A all the time, you know how to anticipate the complications, you know what to look for. It’s a lot better [to use that drug] than just jumping to drug C when you have never used it or have little experience, because really experience is the main thing.”

Dr. Radich disclosed that he has consulting and/or research funding relationships with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis.

SAN FRANCISCO – “The best opportunity to improve acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) outcomes is to make the best evidence-based choices early at the time of diagnosis or early at the time of relapse. This is a disease where early choices are irrevocable, and if you make the wrong choices, patients suffer,” Dr. Joseph C. Alvarnas asserted at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Hematologists must also stay up on novel agents being added to the ALL treatment armamentarium, he stressed. “The state of the art is one that evolves over the course of months, not over the course of years. So maintaining current [knowledge] in this is essential. And many of these patients benefit from being referred quickly to an expert institution,” he said.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

Cytogenetics and genomics help risk-adapt therapy

“Cytogenetic, molecular, and genomic data are essential to making great early choices,” maintained Dr. Alvarnas, who is an associate clinical professor in the department of hematology & hematopoietic cell transplantation, and director of Value Based Analytics, at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California.

Patients with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive ALL should receive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) concomitantly with age-adapted induction and consolidation therapy, he recommended. In those with a poor response, a mutational analysis is key to guiding next steps.

“While in the young pediatric population – we are talking ages 5-10 years – there is a trend away from offering transplant to patients with Ph-positive disease because some of them are actually cured through the combination of induction pediatric regimens followed by TKI-based therapy, for adults, the standard of care until demonstrated otherwise is prompt referral for transplant,” he said.

Indeed, long-term survival is nearly doubled for Ph-positive patients if they have a transplant in a first complete remission versus later (54% vs 29%) (Blood. 2008;112;903-9).

Patients with the high-risk MLL rearrangement are likely to fare poorly and should also be considered for early transplant in first complete remission, according to Dr. Alvarnas.

A novel genetic subtype of ALL identified by looking at networks of genes – Ph-like ALL – has a poor prognosis, especially when affected patients are young adults as compared with children or adolescents (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1005-15). Analyses have identified the presence of a cluster of genetic abnormalities involving ABL, JAK2, and RAS, among others.

“If you think strategically about how we might be able to better treat these patients … targeted agents like ruxolitinib (Jakafi), dasatinib (Sprycel), and crizotinib (Xalkori) may all play a role,” he said. “Now this is not ready for prime time yet – I’m not ready to advocate that you begin treating patients with targeted therapies. I think in fact this patient population should be referred to an academic cancer center for treatment on protocol. But as we look at what’s likely to change over the next year to 5 years, genomic alterations may make these patients better candidates for treatment with TKIs.”

Demographics can guide treatment choices as well

Patient demographics, especially age, should also be used to risk-adapt ALL therapy, according to Dr. Alvarnas. The adolescent and young adult (AYA) subset of patients – aged 15-39 – tend to be fitter and can therefore benefit from pediatric or pediatric-inspired regimens.

“These regimens don’t use novel therapeutics, for the most part; they increase the dose density or dose intensity of existing agents, particularly L-asparaginase. And a lot of adult doctors used to treating older patients don’t like L-asparaginase because of the significant morbidities, particularly pancreatitis, that can arise with this agent,” he said. “But when you get a younger, fitter group of patients, you can use very intensive doses of L-asparaginase not only with impunity, but with greater cure rates.”

AYA patients have superior event-free and overall survival when treated with a pediatric or pediatric-inspired regimen than when treated with an adult regimen (Blood. 2008;112:1646-54).

“So think of it this way: patients 15-39 years of age are receiving inferior therapy if they are receiving adult regimens,” Dr. Alvarnas said. “Now the caveat there is they have to be … physiologically fit, and there may be specific contraindications to these pediatric regimens. But this should be an opt out, not an opt in. The pediatric-inspired regimens are, I would say, the standard care for this population.”

At the other end of the age spectrum, patients 65 years and older with ALL have poorer outcomes, which may be due to both biology of disease and physiology. “We need to be very mindful and think carefully of how best to treat these patients in a patient-centric fashion,” he said.

He recommended consideration of comorbidities and use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment when contemplating care options for this age group. “We want to make sure that the therapy used matches the patient before us,” he added, pointing to an algorithm that is helpful in this setting (Blood. 2013;122:1366-75).

“Where it’s possible, I would encourage the use of clinical trials, particularly geared to the older age population. And that said, in the older, fitter patient with a good initial response to therapy, do not discount the appropriateness of allogeneic stem cell transplant,” Dr. Alvarnas advised.

At the same time, hematologists should have a frank discussion with these older patients about the goals of care and advanced directives, and should involve supportive care early.

“NCCN has an absolutely beautiful document on the care of older oncology patients as well as a beautiful set of guidelines regarding supportive care,” he added. “Please look at those. I think are an invaluable resource.”

Immunotherapy shows promise in the salvage setting

“At the time of salvage, immunotherapy-based approaches are very powerful, so don’t overtreat the patient with modalities that aren’t going to work,” Dr. Alvarnas recommended.

“Immunotherapeutic approaches are going to play an increasingly important role in patients with ALL, and we see these novel therapeutics completely upending what we knew about this disease even a year or two ago,” he said. A variety of monoclonal antibodies against CD20, CD19, CD22, and CD52 have shown promise when tested in various patient populations (Blood. 2015;125:4010-6).

This concept has been taken a step further with blinatumomab (Blincyto), an antibody having two antigen recognition sites that brings CD19-positive tumor cells in contact with T lymphocytes. It is the first such agent to be approved by the FDA for an ALL indication (currently for refractory or relapsed Ph-negative B-cell ALL). “It has nonoverlapping activity with cytotoxic chemotherapy, which makes it an ideal agent,” Dr. Alvarnas noted.

The main risk with blinatumomab is a cytokine release syndrome, which is most common in patients with a high disease burden and requires drug discontinuation and treatment with high-dose dexamethasone. Neurotoxicity is also noteworthy as it can be fatal.

Responses to blinatumomab tend to be dramatic and deep, but brief, according to Dr. Alvarnas. “Even though it’s profoundly powerful, it’s not a curative agent. It really provides a bridge towards cure, with that cure coming through the use of allogeneic stem cell transplant,” he elaborated. “So if someone relapses and you begin blinatumomab, get them referred very quickly to a transplant center.”

Another promising immunotherapy is inotuzumab ozagamicin, an antibody-drug conjugate that targets CD22-expressing cells. It has been associated with a complete response rate of 19%, although veno-occlusive toxicity has been problematic (Cancer. 2013;119:2728-36). “This agent has not yet received FDA approval, but it’s one that we are awaiting expectantly,” he said.

Finally, phase 1 trials from various academic centers have shown that chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy achieves complete response rates of 67%-90% in patients with high-risk refractory disease, according to Dr. Alvarnas, who disclosed that he had no relevant financial relationships.

“This has lead to culmination in phase 2 trials, and I really do see this as an important component in the management of patients with relapsed and refractory ALL,” he concluded. “It’s not something that is available at every center. Right now it’s restricted largely to academic centers capable of producing these therapeutics in their own GLP [Good Laboratory Practice] facility.”

SAN FRANCISCO – “The best opportunity to improve acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) outcomes is to make the best evidence-based choices early at the time of diagnosis or early at the time of relapse. This is a disease where early choices are irrevocable, and if you make the wrong choices, patients suffer,” Dr. Joseph C. Alvarnas asserted at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Hematologists must also stay up on novel agents being added to the ALL treatment armamentarium, he stressed. “The state of the art is one that evolves over the course of months, not over the course of years. So maintaining current [knowledge] in this is essential. And many of these patients benefit from being referred quickly to an expert institution,” he said.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

Cytogenetics and genomics help risk-adapt therapy

“Cytogenetic, molecular, and genomic data are essential to making great early choices,” maintained Dr. Alvarnas, who is an associate clinical professor in the department of hematology & hematopoietic cell transplantation, and director of Value Based Analytics, at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California.

Patients with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive ALL should receive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) concomitantly with age-adapted induction and consolidation therapy, he recommended. In those with a poor response, a mutational analysis is key to guiding next steps.

“While in the young pediatric population – we are talking ages 5-10 years – there is a trend away from offering transplant to patients with Ph-positive disease because some of them are actually cured through the combination of induction pediatric regimens followed by TKI-based therapy, for adults, the standard of care until demonstrated otherwise is prompt referral for transplant,” he said.

Indeed, long-term survival is nearly doubled for Ph-positive patients if they have a transplant in a first complete remission versus later (54% vs 29%) (Blood. 2008;112;903-9).

Patients with the high-risk MLL rearrangement are likely to fare poorly and should also be considered for early transplant in first complete remission, according to Dr. Alvarnas.

A novel genetic subtype of ALL identified by looking at networks of genes – Ph-like ALL – has a poor prognosis, especially when affected patients are young adults as compared with children or adolescents (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1005-15). Analyses have identified the presence of a cluster of genetic abnormalities involving ABL, JAK2, and RAS, among others.

“If you think strategically about how we might be able to better treat these patients … targeted agents like ruxolitinib (Jakafi), dasatinib (Sprycel), and crizotinib (Xalkori) may all play a role,” he said. “Now this is not ready for prime time yet – I’m not ready to advocate that you begin treating patients with targeted therapies. I think in fact this patient population should be referred to an academic cancer center for treatment on protocol. But as we look at what’s likely to change over the next year to 5 years, genomic alterations may make these patients better candidates for treatment with TKIs.”

Demographics can guide treatment choices as well

Patient demographics, especially age, should also be used to risk-adapt ALL therapy, according to Dr. Alvarnas. The adolescent and young adult (AYA) subset of patients – aged 15-39 – tend to be fitter and can therefore benefit from pediatric or pediatric-inspired regimens.

“These regimens don’t use novel therapeutics, for the most part; they increase the dose density or dose intensity of existing agents, particularly L-asparaginase. And a lot of adult doctors used to treating older patients don’t like L-asparaginase because of the significant morbidities, particularly pancreatitis, that can arise with this agent,” he said. “But when you get a younger, fitter group of patients, you can use very intensive doses of L-asparaginase not only with impunity, but with greater cure rates.”

AYA patients have superior event-free and overall survival when treated with a pediatric or pediatric-inspired regimen than when treated with an adult regimen (Blood. 2008;112:1646-54).

“So think of it this way: patients 15-39 years of age are receiving inferior therapy if they are receiving adult regimens,” Dr. Alvarnas said. “Now the caveat there is they have to be … physiologically fit, and there may be specific contraindications to these pediatric regimens. But this should be an opt out, not an opt in. The pediatric-inspired regimens are, I would say, the standard care for this population.”

At the other end of the age spectrum, patients 65 years and older with ALL have poorer outcomes, which may be due to both biology of disease and physiology. “We need to be very mindful and think carefully of how best to treat these patients in a patient-centric fashion,” he said.

He recommended consideration of comorbidities and use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment when contemplating care options for this age group. “We want to make sure that the therapy used matches the patient before us,” he added, pointing to an algorithm that is helpful in this setting (Blood. 2013;122:1366-75).

“Where it’s possible, I would encourage the use of clinical trials, particularly geared to the older age population. And that said, in the older, fitter patient with a good initial response to therapy, do not discount the appropriateness of allogeneic stem cell transplant,” Dr. Alvarnas advised.

At the same time, hematologists should have a frank discussion with these older patients about the goals of care and advanced directives, and should involve supportive care early.

“NCCN has an absolutely beautiful document on the care of older oncology patients as well as a beautiful set of guidelines regarding supportive care,” he added. “Please look at those. I think are an invaluable resource.”

Immunotherapy shows promise in the salvage setting

“At the time of salvage, immunotherapy-based approaches are very powerful, so don’t overtreat the patient with modalities that aren’t going to work,” Dr. Alvarnas recommended.

“Immunotherapeutic approaches are going to play an increasingly important role in patients with ALL, and we see these novel therapeutics completely upending what we knew about this disease even a year or two ago,” he said. A variety of monoclonal antibodies against CD20, CD19, CD22, and CD52 have shown promise when tested in various patient populations (Blood. 2015;125:4010-6).

This concept has been taken a step further with blinatumomab (Blincyto), an antibody having two antigen recognition sites that brings CD19-positive tumor cells in contact with T lymphocytes. It is the first such agent to be approved by the FDA for an ALL indication (currently for refractory or relapsed Ph-negative B-cell ALL). “It has nonoverlapping activity with cytotoxic chemotherapy, which makes it an ideal agent,” Dr. Alvarnas noted.

The main risk with blinatumomab is a cytokine release syndrome, which is most common in patients with a high disease burden and requires drug discontinuation and treatment with high-dose dexamethasone. Neurotoxicity is also noteworthy as it can be fatal.

Responses to blinatumomab tend to be dramatic and deep, but brief, according to Dr. Alvarnas. “Even though it’s profoundly powerful, it’s not a curative agent. It really provides a bridge towards cure, with that cure coming through the use of allogeneic stem cell transplant,” he elaborated. “So if someone relapses and you begin blinatumomab, get them referred very quickly to a transplant center.”

Another promising immunotherapy is inotuzumab ozagamicin, an antibody-drug conjugate that targets CD22-expressing cells. It has been associated with a complete response rate of 19%, although veno-occlusive toxicity has been problematic (Cancer. 2013;119:2728-36). “This agent has not yet received FDA approval, but it’s one that we are awaiting expectantly,” he said.

Finally, phase 1 trials from various academic centers have shown that chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy achieves complete response rates of 67%-90% in patients with high-risk refractory disease, according to Dr. Alvarnas, who disclosed that he had no relevant financial relationships.

“This has lead to culmination in phase 2 trials, and I really do see this as an important component in the management of patients with relapsed and refractory ALL,” he concluded. “It’s not something that is available at every center. Right now it’s restricted largely to academic centers capable of producing these therapeutics in their own GLP [Good Laboratory Practice] facility.”

SAN FRANCISCO – “The best opportunity to improve acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) outcomes is to make the best evidence-based choices early at the time of diagnosis or early at the time of relapse. This is a disease where early choices are irrevocable, and if you make the wrong choices, patients suffer,” Dr. Joseph C. Alvarnas asserted at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 10th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Hematologists must also stay up on novel agents being added to the ALL treatment armamentarium, he stressed. “The state of the art is one that evolves over the course of months, not over the course of years. So maintaining current [knowledge] in this is essential. And many of these patients benefit from being referred quickly to an expert institution,” he said.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

Cytogenetics and genomics help risk-adapt therapy

“Cytogenetic, molecular, and genomic data are essential to making great early choices,” maintained Dr. Alvarnas, who is an associate clinical professor in the department of hematology & hematopoietic cell transplantation, and director of Value Based Analytics, at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California.

Patients with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive ALL should receive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) concomitantly with age-adapted induction and consolidation therapy, he recommended. In those with a poor response, a mutational analysis is key to guiding next steps.

“While in the young pediatric population – we are talking ages 5-10 years – there is a trend away from offering transplant to patients with Ph-positive disease because some of them are actually cured through the combination of induction pediatric regimens followed by TKI-based therapy, for adults, the standard of care until demonstrated otherwise is prompt referral for transplant,” he said.

Indeed, long-term survival is nearly doubled for Ph-positive patients if they have a transplant in a first complete remission versus later (54% vs 29%) (Blood. 2008;112;903-9).

Patients with the high-risk MLL rearrangement are likely to fare poorly and should also be considered for early transplant in first complete remission, according to Dr. Alvarnas.

A novel genetic subtype of ALL identified by looking at networks of genes – Ph-like ALL – has a poor prognosis, especially when affected patients are young adults as compared with children or adolescents (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1005-15). Analyses have identified the presence of a cluster of genetic abnormalities involving ABL, JAK2, and RAS, among others.

“If you think strategically about how we might be able to better treat these patients … targeted agents like ruxolitinib (Jakafi), dasatinib (Sprycel), and crizotinib (Xalkori) may all play a role,” he said. “Now this is not ready for prime time yet – I’m not ready to advocate that you begin treating patients with targeted therapies. I think in fact this patient population should be referred to an academic cancer center for treatment on protocol. But as we look at what’s likely to change over the next year to 5 years, genomic alterations may make these patients better candidates for treatment with TKIs.”

Demographics can guide treatment choices as well

Patient demographics, especially age, should also be used to risk-adapt ALL therapy, according to Dr. Alvarnas. The adolescent and young adult (AYA) subset of patients – aged 15-39 – tend to be fitter and can therefore benefit from pediatric or pediatric-inspired regimens.

“These regimens don’t use novel therapeutics, for the most part; they increase the dose density or dose intensity of existing agents, particularly L-asparaginase. And a lot of adult doctors used to treating older patients don’t like L-asparaginase because of the significant morbidities, particularly pancreatitis, that can arise with this agent,” he said. “But when you get a younger, fitter group of patients, you can use very intensive doses of L-asparaginase not only with impunity, but with greater cure rates.”

AYA patients have superior event-free and overall survival when treated with a pediatric or pediatric-inspired regimen than when treated with an adult regimen (Blood. 2008;112:1646-54).

“So think of it this way: patients 15-39 years of age are receiving inferior therapy if they are receiving adult regimens,” Dr. Alvarnas said. “Now the caveat there is they have to be … physiologically fit, and there may be specific contraindications to these pediatric regimens. But this should be an opt out, not an opt in. The pediatric-inspired regimens are, I would say, the standard care for this population.”

At the other end of the age spectrum, patients 65 years and older with ALL have poorer outcomes, which may be due to both biology of disease and physiology. “We need to be very mindful and think carefully of how best to treat these patients in a patient-centric fashion,” he said.

He recommended consideration of comorbidities and use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment when contemplating care options for this age group. “We want to make sure that the therapy used matches the patient before us,” he added, pointing to an algorithm that is helpful in this setting (Blood. 2013;122:1366-75).

“Where it’s possible, I would encourage the use of clinical trials, particularly geared to the older age population. And that said, in the older, fitter patient with a good initial response to therapy, do not discount the appropriateness of allogeneic stem cell transplant,” Dr. Alvarnas advised.

At the same time, hematologists should have a frank discussion with these older patients about the goals of care and advanced directives, and should involve supportive care early.

“NCCN has an absolutely beautiful document on the care of older oncology patients as well as a beautiful set of guidelines regarding supportive care,” he added. “Please look at those. I think are an invaluable resource.”

Immunotherapy shows promise in the salvage setting

“At the time of salvage, immunotherapy-based approaches are very powerful, so don’t overtreat the patient with modalities that aren’t going to work,” Dr. Alvarnas recommended.

“Immunotherapeutic approaches are going to play an increasingly important role in patients with ALL, and we see these novel therapeutics completely upending what we knew about this disease even a year or two ago,” he said. A variety of monoclonal antibodies against CD20, CD19, CD22, and CD52 have shown promise when tested in various patient populations (Blood. 2015;125:4010-6).

This concept has been taken a step further with blinatumomab (Blincyto), an antibody having two antigen recognition sites that brings CD19-positive tumor cells in contact with T lymphocytes. It is the first such agent to be approved by the FDA for an ALL indication (currently for refractory or relapsed Ph-negative B-cell ALL). “It has nonoverlapping activity with cytotoxic chemotherapy, which makes it an ideal agent,” Dr. Alvarnas noted.

The main risk with blinatumomab is a cytokine release syndrome, which is most common in patients with a high disease burden and requires drug discontinuation and treatment with high-dose dexamethasone. Neurotoxicity is also noteworthy as it can be fatal.

Responses to blinatumomab tend to be dramatic and deep, but brief, according to Dr. Alvarnas. “Even though it’s profoundly powerful, it’s not a curative agent. It really provides a bridge towards cure, with that cure coming through the use of allogeneic stem cell transplant,” he elaborated. “So if someone relapses and you begin blinatumomab, get them referred very quickly to a transplant center.”

Another promising immunotherapy is inotuzumab ozagamicin, an antibody-drug conjugate that targets CD22-expressing cells. It has been associated with a complete response rate of 19%, although veno-occlusive toxicity has been problematic (Cancer. 2013;119:2728-36). “This agent has not yet received FDA approval, but it’s one that we are awaiting expectantly,” he said.

Finally, phase 1 trials from various academic centers have shown that chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy achieves complete response rates of 67%-90% in patients with high-risk refractory disease, according to Dr. Alvarnas, who disclosed that he had no relevant financial relationships.

“This has lead to culmination in phase 2 trials, and I really do see this as an important component in the management of patients with relapsed and refractory ALL,” he concluded. “It’s not something that is available at every center. Right now it’s restricted largely to academic centers capable of producing these therapeutics in their own GLP [Good Laboratory Practice] facility.”