User login
‘Surprising’ lack of benefit to adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy in early HR+/HER2– breast cancer
Two years of adjuvant palbociclib added to endocrine therapy failed to improve invasive disease-free survival or any other efficacy endpoint in patients with stage II-III HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
“These definitive findings from the PALLAS trial, already indicated by an interim analysis, are surprising given the established efficacy of palbociclib and other CDK4/6i [inhibitors] in advanced breast cancer,” according to lead author Michael Gnant, MD, professor in the department of surgery, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues.
The results from the PALLAS trial were presented Dec. 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
At a median follow-up of 31 months and at the final protocol-defined analysis, invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 253 (8.8%) of 2,884 patients who received the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor plus endocrine therapy and in 263 (9.1%) of 2,877 patients who received endocrine therapy alone. At 4 years, invasive disease-free survival rates were similar in the palbociclib group (84.2%) and standard treatment group (84.5%).
Caught by surprise
Studies have shown that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, with good tolerability.
“CDK4/6 inhibitors have markedly changed outcomes in the metastatic setting and are now standard of care,” said Dr. Gnant, who presented the recent findings at SABCS. “It seem[ed] only logical to try to transfer these benefits to the curative setting of early breast cancer.”
But in 2020, palbociclib manufacturer Pfizer issued a press release noting that the PALLAS trial was unlikely to show a statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival.
The results “caught many of us by surprise,” Kathy D. Miller, MD, codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in response to this announcement.
The trial was based on strong science and incredibly positive results in the metastatic setting but did not meet its primary endpoint when incorporated into the adjuvant setting, Dr. Miller noted in a Medscape blog. “That is certainly not the result we had hoped for, and it’s not the result many of us were expecting.”
Dr. Miller emphasized that “more than anything else, this trial reminds us of the absolute necessity of putting our ideas to the test and doing appropriately powered, appropriately controlled, and well-conducted randomized trials.”
The PALLAS trial enrolled 5,796 patients from 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over a 3-year period, with 5,761 included in the intention-to-treat population.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for at least 5 years.
Dr. Gnant and colleagues found that the primary endpoint – invasive disease-free survival – did not differ significantly different between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .65). Secondary endpoints in the palbociclib versus no-palbociclib groups were also similar: 4-year survival rates for invasive breast cancer-free survival were 85.4% versus 86%, distant recurrence-free survival was 86.2% versus 87.8%, locoregional recurrence-free survival was 96.8% versus 95.4%, and overall survival was 93.8% versus 95.2%.
The main side effect of palbociclib was neutropenia, but there were no new safety signals, Dr. Gnant explained. He noted, however, that the rates of palbociclib discontinuation were monitored closely and were substantial. At 1 year, 30% of patients discontinued palbociclib and by 24 months, 45% had stopped.
Not the final word?
An interim analysis of the phase 3 monarchE trial did not align with the PALLAS trial.
The monarchE trial found that adding the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of early recurrence, compared with endocrine therapy alone in the same patient populations – those with early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The researchers reported the combination was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction of invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.75; P =.0096).
The research was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Miller speculated how about how these two drugs that look so similar in the metastatic setting have given such different results in the adjuvant setting. One potential reason is pure chance.
“Any study, no matter how many zeros in the P value, could be simply the play of chance,” she said in an interview. “And that is true for negative and positive studies.”
The fault could also lie in the study design. “Remember, these are agents that we think of as reversing endocrine resistance and extending the benefit of hormone therapy,” she pointed out. “And yet we looked at very early results. Perhaps the study design was just wrong for palbociclib.”
Yet another possibility: The relative potency of those two CDK4/6 inhibitors could differ. “In a metastatic setting, that did not seem to affect effectiveness, but it clearly affected the toxicity profile. Perhaps in the adjuvant setting, those differences really do drive differences in efficacy,” she said.
Dr. Gnant also speculated that differences in the treatment schedules for the two drugs, as abemaciclib is taken continuously without a break, could potentially explain the different efficacies in the early breast cancer setting.
He called for long-term follow up, saying it’s essential for comprehensively examining outcomes in HR-positive luminal breast cancers.
“Ongoing analyses in the Trans-PALLAS translational and clinical science program, with almost 6,000 tumor blocks and tens of thousands of blood samples, will improve understanding of CD4/6 inhibition as well as contemporary management of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Gnant said.
The trial was funded by Pfizer, who provided study drug and financial support. In addition, the academic organizations ABCSG and AFT supported the trial by providing human resources. Dr. Gnant reported employment at Sandoz; receiving honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly; and consulting or advisory roles at Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, and Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two years of adjuvant palbociclib added to endocrine therapy failed to improve invasive disease-free survival or any other efficacy endpoint in patients with stage II-III HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
“These definitive findings from the PALLAS trial, already indicated by an interim analysis, are surprising given the established efficacy of palbociclib and other CDK4/6i [inhibitors] in advanced breast cancer,” according to lead author Michael Gnant, MD, professor in the department of surgery, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues.
The results from the PALLAS trial were presented Dec. 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
At a median follow-up of 31 months and at the final protocol-defined analysis, invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 253 (8.8%) of 2,884 patients who received the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor plus endocrine therapy and in 263 (9.1%) of 2,877 patients who received endocrine therapy alone. At 4 years, invasive disease-free survival rates were similar in the palbociclib group (84.2%) and standard treatment group (84.5%).
Caught by surprise
Studies have shown that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, with good tolerability.
“CDK4/6 inhibitors have markedly changed outcomes in the metastatic setting and are now standard of care,” said Dr. Gnant, who presented the recent findings at SABCS. “It seem[ed] only logical to try to transfer these benefits to the curative setting of early breast cancer.”
But in 2020, palbociclib manufacturer Pfizer issued a press release noting that the PALLAS trial was unlikely to show a statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival.
The results “caught many of us by surprise,” Kathy D. Miller, MD, codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in response to this announcement.
The trial was based on strong science and incredibly positive results in the metastatic setting but did not meet its primary endpoint when incorporated into the adjuvant setting, Dr. Miller noted in a Medscape blog. “That is certainly not the result we had hoped for, and it’s not the result many of us were expecting.”
Dr. Miller emphasized that “more than anything else, this trial reminds us of the absolute necessity of putting our ideas to the test and doing appropriately powered, appropriately controlled, and well-conducted randomized trials.”
The PALLAS trial enrolled 5,796 patients from 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over a 3-year period, with 5,761 included in the intention-to-treat population.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for at least 5 years.
Dr. Gnant and colleagues found that the primary endpoint – invasive disease-free survival – did not differ significantly different between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .65). Secondary endpoints in the palbociclib versus no-palbociclib groups were also similar: 4-year survival rates for invasive breast cancer-free survival were 85.4% versus 86%, distant recurrence-free survival was 86.2% versus 87.8%, locoregional recurrence-free survival was 96.8% versus 95.4%, and overall survival was 93.8% versus 95.2%.
The main side effect of palbociclib was neutropenia, but there were no new safety signals, Dr. Gnant explained. He noted, however, that the rates of palbociclib discontinuation were monitored closely and were substantial. At 1 year, 30% of patients discontinued palbociclib and by 24 months, 45% had stopped.
Not the final word?
An interim analysis of the phase 3 monarchE trial did not align with the PALLAS trial.
The monarchE trial found that adding the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of early recurrence, compared with endocrine therapy alone in the same patient populations – those with early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The researchers reported the combination was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction of invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.75; P =.0096).
The research was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Miller speculated how about how these two drugs that look so similar in the metastatic setting have given such different results in the adjuvant setting. One potential reason is pure chance.
“Any study, no matter how many zeros in the P value, could be simply the play of chance,” she said in an interview. “And that is true for negative and positive studies.”
The fault could also lie in the study design. “Remember, these are agents that we think of as reversing endocrine resistance and extending the benefit of hormone therapy,” she pointed out. “And yet we looked at very early results. Perhaps the study design was just wrong for palbociclib.”
Yet another possibility: The relative potency of those two CDK4/6 inhibitors could differ. “In a metastatic setting, that did not seem to affect effectiveness, but it clearly affected the toxicity profile. Perhaps in the adjuvant setting, those differences really do drive differences in efficacy,” she said.
Dr. Gnant also speculated that differences in the treatment schedules for the two drugs, as abemaciclib is taken continuously without a break, could potentially explain the different efficacies in the early breast cancer setting.
He called for long-term follow up, saying it’s essential for comprehensively examining outcomes in HR-positive luminal breast cancers.
“Ongoing analyses in the Trans-PALLAS translational and clinical science program, with almost 6,000 tumor blocks and tens of thousands of blood samples, will improve understanding of CD4/6 inhibition as well as contemporary management of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Gnant said.
The trial was funded by Pfizer, who provided study drug and financial support. In addition, the academic organizations ABCSG and AFT supported the trial by providing human resources. Dr. Gnant reported employment at Sandoz; receiving honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly; and consulting or advisory roles at Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, and Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two years of adjuvant palbociclib added to endocrine therapy failed to improve invasive disease-free survival or any other efficacy endpoint in patients with stage II-III HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
“These definitive findings from the PALLAS trial, already indicated by an interim analysis, are surprising given the established efficacy of palbociclib and other CDK4/6i [inhibitors] in advanced breast cancer,” according to lead author Michael Gnant, MD, professor in the department of surgery, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues.
The results from the PALLAS trial were presented Dec. 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
At a median follow-up of 31 months and at the final protocol-defined analysis, invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 253 (8.8%) of 2,884 patients who received the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor plus endocrine therapy and in 263 (9.1%) of 2,877 patients who received endocrine therapy alone. At 4 years, invasive disease-free survival rates were similar in the palbociclib group (84.2%) and standard treatment group (84.5%).
Caught by surprise
Studies have shown that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, with good tolerability.
“CDK4/6 inhibitors have markedly changed outcomes in the metastatic setting and are now standard of care,” said Dr. Gnant, who presented the recent findings at SABCS. “It seem[ed] only logical to try to transfer these benefits to the curative setting of early breast cancer.”
But in 2020, palbociclib manufacturer Pfizer issued a press release noting that the PALLAS trial was unlikely to show a statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival.
The results “caught many of us by surprise,” Kathy D. Miller, MD, codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in response to this announcement.
The trial was based on strong science and incredibly positive results in the metastatic setting but did not meet its primary endpoint when incorporated into the adjuvant setting, Dr. Miller noted in a Medscape blog. “That is certainly not the result we had hoped for, and it’s not the result many of us were expecting.”
Dr. Miller emphasized that “more than anything else, this trial reminds us of the absolute necessity of putting our ideas to the test and doing appropriately powered, appropriately controlled, and well-conducted randomized trials.”
The PALLAS trial enrolled 5,796 patients from 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over a 3-year period, with 5,761 included in the intention-to-treat population.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for at least 5 years.
Dr. Gnant and colleagues found that the primary endpoint – invasive disease-free survival – did not differ significantly different between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .65). Secondary endpoints in the palbociclib versus no-palbociclib groups were also similar: 4-year survival rates for invasive breast cancer-free survival were 85.4% versus 86%, distant recurrence-free survival was 86.2% versus 87.8%, locoregional recurrence-free survival was 96.8% versus 95.4%, and overall survival was 93.8% versus 95.2%.
The main side effect of palbociclib was neutropenia, but there were no new safety signals, Dr. Gnant explained. He noted, however, that the rates of palbociclib discontinuation were monitored closely and were substantial. At 1 year, 30% of patients discontinued palbociclib and by 24 months, 45% had stopped.
Not the final word?
An interim analysis of the phase 3 monarchE trial did not align with the PALLAS trial.
The monarchE trial found that adding the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of early recurrence, compared with endocrine therapy alone in the same patient populations – those with early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The researchers reported the combination was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction of invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.75; P =.0096).
The research was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Miller speculated how about how these two drugs that look so similar in the metastatic setting have given such different results in the adjuvant setting. One potential reason is pure chance.
“Any study, no matter how many zeros in the P value, could be simply the play of chance,” she said in an interview. “And that is true for negative and positive studies.”
The fault could also lie in the study design. “Remember, these are agents that we think of as reversing endocrine resistance and extending the benefit of hormone therapy,” she pointed out. “And yet we looked at very early results. Perhaps the study design was just wrong for palbociclib.”
Yet another possibility: The relative potency of those two CDK4/6 inhibitors could differ. “In a metastatic setting, that did not seem to affect effectiveness, but it clearly affected the toxicity profile. Perhaps in the adjuvant setting, those differences really do drive differences in efficacy,” she said.
Dr. Gnant also speculated that differences in the treatment schedules for the two drugs, as abemaciclib is taken continuously without a break, could potentially explain the different efficacies in the early breast cancer setting.
He called for long-term follow up, saying it’s essential for comprehensively examining outcomes in HR-positive luminal breast cancers.
“Ongoing analyses in the Trans-PALLAS translational and clinical science program, with almost 6,000 tumor blocks and tens of thousands of blood samples, will improve understanding of CD4/6 inhibition as well as contemporary management of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Gnant said.
The trial was funded by Pfizer, who provided study drug and financial support. In addition, the academic organizations ABCSG and AFT supported the trial by providing human resources. Dr. Gnant reported employment at Sandoz; receiving honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly; and consulting or advisory roles at Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, and Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2021
Improving Heart Failure Outcomes Must Begin With Addressing Disparities in Care
In this supplement to Cardiology News, Ashkan Hayatdavoudi, MD, JD, discusses the importance of improving heart failure outcomes and how it must begin with addressing disparities in health care.
12/21 172428
In this supplement to Cardiology News, Ashkan Hayatdavoudi, MD, JD, discusses the importance of improving heart failure outcomes and how it must begin with addressing disparities in health care.
12/21 172428
In this supplement to Cardiology News, Ashkan Hayatdavoudi, MD, JD, discusses the importance of improving heart failure outcomes and how it must begin with addressing disparities in health care.
12/21 172428
Talk early to patients with high-risk AML about end-of-life decisions
The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.
Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.
Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.
When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.
He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.
Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.
“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”
Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.
As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”
“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.
Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.
Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.
The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.
There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.
[email protected]
The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.
Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.
Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.
When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.
He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.
Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.
“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”
Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.
As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”
“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.
Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.
Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.
The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.
There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.
[email protected]
The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.
Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.
Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.
When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.
He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.
Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.
“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”
Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.
As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”
“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.
Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.
Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.
The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.
There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.
[email protected]
FROM ASH 2021
Coping with a shattered immune system: COVID and beyond
The co-opting and weakening of the immune system by hematologic malignancies and many of their treatments – and the blunting of the immune system’s response to vaccines – may be more salient during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before.
Hematologic malignancies have been associated in large cancer-and-COVID-19 registries with more severe COVID-19 outcomes than solid tumors, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have yielded suboptimal responses across multiple studies. Clinicians and researchers have no shortage of questions, like what is the optimal timing of vaccines relative to cancer-directed therapy? What is the durability and impact of the immune response? What is the status of the immune system in patients who do not produce antispike antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination?
Moreover, will there be novel nonvaccine strategies – such as antibody cocktails or convalescent plasma – to ensure protection against COVID-19 and other future viral threats? And what really defines immunocompromise today and moving forward?
“We don’t know what we don’t know,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, associate professor of medicine (hematology/oncology) and biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cofounder of the international COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. “The immune system is incredibly complex and there are numerous defenses, in addition to the humoral response that we routinely measure.”
Another of the pressing pandemic-time questions for infectious disease specialists working in cancer centers concerns a different infectious threat: measles. “There is a lot of concern in this space about the reported drop in childhood vaccinations and the possibility of measles outbreaks as a follow-up to COVID-19,” said Steven A. Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division and the clinical research division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Whether recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy should be revaccinated earlier than 2 years post treatment is a question worthy of preemptive discussion, he said.
What about timing?
“A silver lining of the pandemic is that it’s improving our understanding of response to vaccinations and outcomes with respiratory viruses in patients with hematologic malignancies,” said Samuel Rubinstein, MD, of the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re going to learn a lot more about how to ensure that our patients are optimally protected from respiratory viruses.”
Dr. Rubinstein focuses on plasma cell disorders, mostly multiple myeloma, and routinely explains to patients consenting to use daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, or a BCMA-directed therapy, that these therapies “in particular probably do impair vaccine immune response.”
He has handled the timing of the COVID-19 vaccines – currently boosters, in most cases – as he has with influenza and other immunizations such as the pneumococcal vaccine, administering the vaccines agnostic to therapy unless the patient is about to start daratumumab or a BCMA-directed therapy. In this case, he considers vaccinating and waiting 2 weeks (for an immune response to occur) before starting therapy.
However, “if I have any concern that a delay will result in suboptimal cancer control, then I don’t wait,” Dr. Rubinstein said. Poor control of a primary malignancy has been consistently associated with worse COVID-19–specific outcomes in cancer–COVID-19 studies, he said, including an analysis of almost 5,000 patients recorded to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium .1
(The analysis also documented that patients with a hematologic malignancy had an odds ratio of higher COVID-19 severity of 1.7, compared with patients with a solid tumor, and an odds ratio of 30-day mortality of 1.44.)
Ideally, said Dr. Warner, patients will get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines or others, “before starting on any cytotoxic chemotherapy and when they do not have low blood counts or perhaps autoimmune complications of immunotherapy.” However, “perfect being the enemy of good, it’s better to get vaccinated than to wait for the exact ideal time.”
Peter Paul Yu, MD, physician-in-chief at Hartford (Conn.) Healthcare Cancer Institute, said that for most patients, there’s no evidence to support an optimal timing of vaccine administration during the chemotherapy cycle. “We looked into that [to guide administration of the COVID-19 vaccines], thinking there might be some data about influenza vaccination,” he said. “But there isn’t much. … And if we make things more complicated than the evidence suggests, we may have fewer people getting vaccinations.”
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network offered several timing recommendations in its August 2021 COVID-19 vaccination guidance – mainly that patients receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy (such as those on cytarabine/anthracycline-based induction regimens for acute myeloid leukemia) delay COVID-19 vaccination until absolute neutrophil count recovery, and that patients on long-term maintenance therapy (for instance, targeted agents for chronic lymphocytic leukemia or myeloproliferative neoplasms) be vaccinated as soon as possible.
Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months, the NCCN noted, following HCT or engineered cell therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T cells) “in order to maximize vaccine efficacy.”
More known unknowns
The tempered efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies “has been shown in multiple studies of multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and other malignancies, and we know it’s true in transplant,” said Dr. Pergam.
In a study of 67 patients with hematologic malignancies at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, for instance, 46.3% did not generate IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor–binding domain after completing their two-dose mRNA vaccine series. Patients with B-cell CLL were especially unlikely to develop antibodies.2A much larger study of more than 1,400 patients from investigators at the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minn., and Jacksonville, Fla., found that approximately 25% of all patients with hematologic malignancies did not produce antispike IgG antibodies, and that those with the most common B-cell malignancies had the lowest rate of seropositivity (44%-79%).3There’s a clear but challenging delineation between antibody testing in the research space and in clinical practice, however. Various national and cancer societies recommended earlier this year against routine postvaccine serological monitoring outside of clinical trials, and the sources interviewed for this story all emphasized that antibody titer measurements should not guide decisions about boosters or about the precautions advised for patients.
Titers checked at a single point in time do not capture the kinetics, multidimensional nature, or durability of an immune response, Dr. Warner said. “There are papers out there that say zero patients with CCL seroconverted … but they do still have some immunity, and maybe even a lot of immunity.”
Antibody testing can create a false sense of security, or a false sense of dread, he said. Yet in practice, the use of serological monitoring “has been all over the place [with] no consistency … and decisions probably being made at the individual clinic level or health system level,” he said.
To a lesser degree, so have definitions of what composes significant immunocompromise in the context of COVID-19 vaccine eligibility. “The question comes up, what does immunocompromised really mean?” said Dr. Yu, whose institution is a member of the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance.
As of September, the MSK Cancer Center had taken a more granular approach to describing moderate to severe immunocompromise than did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC said this level of immunocompromise includes people receiving active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood, and those who’ve received a stem cell transplant within the past 2 years. MSK extended the recommendation, as it concerns hematologic malignancies, to patients who are within 12 months after treatment with B-cell depleting drugs, patients who have been treated for blood cancers within the last 6 months, and patients who received CAR T therapy within the past 2 years.
Dr. Yu, who was not involved in creating the MSK recommendations for third COVID-19 vaccines, said that he has been thinking more broadly during the pandemic about the notion of immunocompetence. “It’s my opinion that patients with hematologic malignancies, even if they’re not on treatment, are not fully immune competent,” he said. This includes patients with CLL stage 0 and patients with plasma cell dyscrasias who don’t yet meet the criteria for multiple myeloma but have a monoclonal gammopathy, and those with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, he said.
“We’re seeing [variable] recommendations based on expert opinion, and I think that’s justifiable in such a dynamic situation,” Dr. Yu said. “I would [even] argue it’s desirable so we can learn from different approaches” and collect more rigorous observational data.
Immunocompetence needs to be “viewed in the context of the threat,” he added. “COVID changes the equation. … What’s immunocompromised in my mind has changed [from prepandemic times].”
Preparing for measles
Measles lit up on Dr. Pergam’s radar screen in 2019, when an outbreak occurred in nearby Clark County, Wash. This and other outbreaks in New York, California, and other states highlighted declines in measles herd immunity in the United States and prompted him to investigate the seroprevalence of measles antibodies in the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s outpatient population.
Of 959 consecutive patients seen at the center, they found, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. For patients with hematologic malignancies and those with a history of HCT, seroprevalence was worse: 37% and 54%, respectively, were without the IgG antibodies.4 Measles “is the most contagious human virus we have at the moment,” he said, and “revaccinating people is hard when it comes to cancer because it is a live virus vaccine.”
Vaccine hesitancy, a rise in nonmedical exemptions, and other factors were threatening herd immunity before the pandemic began. Now, with declines in routine childhood medical visits and other vaccination opportunities and resources here and in other countries – and declining immunization rates documented by the CDC in May 2021 – the pandemic has made measles outbreaks more likely, he said. (Measles outbreaks in West Africa on the tail end of the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 caused more deaths in children than Ebola, he noted.)
The first priority is vaccination “cocooning,” a strategy that has long been important for patients with hematologic malignancies. But it also possible, Dr. Pergam said, that in the setting of any future community transmission, revaccination for HCT recipients could occur earlier than the standard 2-year post-transplantation recommendation.
In a 2019 position statement endorsed by the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Pergam and other infectious disease physicians and oncologists provide criteria for considering early revaccination on a case-by-case basis for patients on minimal immunosuppressive therapy who are at least 1-year post transplantation.5
“Our thinking was that there may be lower-risk patients to whom we could offer the vaccine” – patients for whom the risk of developing measles might outweigh the risk of potential vaccine-related complications, he said.
And if there were community cases, he added, there might be a place for testing antibody levels in post-transplant patients, however imperfect the window to immunity may be. “We’re thinking through potential scenarios,” he said. “Oncologists should think about measles again and have it on their back burner.”
References
1. Grivas P et al. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jun;32(6):787-800.
2. Agha ME et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 July;8(7):ofab353.
3. Greenberger LM et al. Cancer Cell. 2021 Aug 9;39(8):1031-3.
4. Marquis SR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 July;4(7):e2118508.
5. Pergam SA et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Nov;25:e321-30.
The co-opting and weakening of the immune system by hematologic malignancies and many of their treatments – and the blunting of the immune system’s response to vaccines – may be more salient during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before.
Hematologic malignancies have been associated in large cancer-and-COVID-19 registries with more severe COVID-19 outcomes than solid tumors, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have yielded suboptimal responses across multiple studies. Clinicians and researchers have no shortage of questions, like what is the optimal timing of vaccines relative to cancer-directed therapy? What is the durability and impact of the immune response? What is the status of the immune system in patients who do not produce antispike antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination?
Moreover, will there be novel nonvaccine strategies – such as antibody cocktails or convalescent plasma – to ensure protection against COVID-19 and other future viral threats? And what really defines immunocompromise today and moving forward?
“We don’t know what we don’t know,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, associate professor of medicine (hematology/oncology) and biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cofounder of the international COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. “The immune system is incredibly complex and there are numerous defenses, in addition to the humoral response that we routinely measure.”
Another of the pressing pandemic-time questions for infectious disease specialists working in cancer centers concerns a different infectious threat: measles. “There is a lot of concern in this space about the reported drop in childhood vaccinations and the possibility of measles outbreaks as a follow-up to COVID-19,” said Steven A. Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division and the clinical research division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Whether recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy should be revaccinated earlier than 2 years post treatment is a question worthy of preemptive discussion, he said.
What about timing?
“A silver lining of the pandemic is that it’s improving our understanding of response to vaccinations and outcomes with respiratory viruses in patients with hematologic malignancies,” said Samuel Rubinstein, MD, of the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re going to learn a lot more about how to ensure that our patients are optimally protected from respiratory viruses.”
Dr. Rubinstein focuses on plasma cell disorders, mostly multiple myeloma, and routinely explains to patients consenting to use daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, or a BCMA-directed therapy, that these therapies “in particular probably do impair vaccine immune response.”
He has handled the timing of the COVID-19 vaccines – currently boosters, in most cases – as he has with influenza and other immunizations such as the pneumococcal vaccine, administering the vaccines agnostic to therapy unless the patient is about to start daratumumab or a BCMA-directed therapy. In this case, he considers vaccinating and waiting 2 weeks (for an immune response to occur) before starting therapy.
However, “if I have any concern that a delay will result in suboptimal cancer control, then I don’t wait,” Dr. Rubinstein said. Poor control of a primary malignancy has been consistently associated with worse COVID-19–specific outcomes in cancer–COVID-19 studies, he said, including an analysis of almost 5,000 patients recorded to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium .1
(The analysis also documented that patients with a hematologic malignancy had an odds ratio of higher COVID-19 severity of 1.7, compared with patients with a solid tumor, and an odds ratio of 30-day mortality of 1.44.)
Ideally, said Dr. Warner, patients will get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines or others, “before starting on any cytotoxic chemotherapy and when they do not have low blood counts or perhaps autoimmune complications of immunotherapy.” However, “perfect being the enemy of good, it’s better to get vaccinated than to wait for the exact ideal time.”
Peter Paul Yu, MD, physician-in-chief at Hartford (Conn.) Healthcare Cancer Institute, said that for most patients, there’s no evidence to support an optimal timing of vaccine administration during the chemotherapy cycle. “We looked into that [to guide administration of the COVID-19 vaccines], thinking there might be some data about influenza vaccination,” he said. “But there isn’t much. … And if we make things more complicated than the evidence suggests, we may have fewer people getting vaccinations.”
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network offered several timing recommendations in its August 2021 COVID-19 vaccination guidance – mainly that patients receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy (such as those on cytarabine/anthracycline-based induction regimens for acute myeloid leukemia) delay COVID-19 vaccination until absolute neutrophil count recovery, and that patients on long-term maintenance therapy (for instance, targeted agents for chronic lymphocytic leukemia or myeloproliferative neoplasms) be vaccinated as soon as possible.
Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months, the NCCN noted, following HCT or engineered cell therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T cells) “in order to maximize vaccine efficacy.”
More known unknowns
The tempered efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies “has been shown in multiple studies of multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and other malignancies, and we know it’s true in transplant,” said Dr. Pergam.
In a study of 67 patients with hematologic malignancies at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, for instance, 46.3% did not generate IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor–binding domain after completing their two-dose mRNA vaccine series. Patients with B-cell CLL were especially unlikely to develop antibodies.2A much larger study of more than 1,400 patients from investigators at the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minn., and Jacksonville, Fla., found that approximately 25% of all patients with hematologic malignancies did not produce antispike IgG antibodies, and that those with the most common B-cell malignancies had the lowest rate of seropositivity (44%-79%).3There’s a clear but challenging delineation between antibody testing in the research space and in clinical practice, however. Various national and cancer societies recommended earlier this year against routine postvaccine serological monitoring outside of clinical trials, and the sources interviewed for this story all emphasized that antibody titer measurements should not guide decisions about boosters or about the precautions advised for patients.
Titers checked at a single point in time do not capture the kinetics, multidimensional nature, or durability of an immune response, Dr. Warner said. “There are papers out there that say zero patients with CCL seroconverted … but they do still have some immunity, and maybe even a lot of immunity.”
Antibody testing can create a false sense of security, or a false sense of dread, he said. Yet in practice, the use of serological monitoring “has been all over the place [with] no consistency … and decisions probably being made at the individual clinic level or health system level,” he said.
To a lesser degree, so have definitions of what composes significant immunocompromise in the context of COVID-19 vaccine eligibility. “The question comes up, what does immunocompromised really mean?” said Dr. Yu, whose institution is a member of the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance.
As of September, the MSK Cancer Center had taken a more granular approach to describing moderate to severe immunocompromise than did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC said this level of immunocompromise includes people receiving active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood, and those who’ve received a stem cell transplant within the past 2 years. MSK extended the recommendation, as it concerns hematologic malignancies, to patients who are within 12 months after treatment with B-cell depleting drugs, patients who have been treated for blood cancers within the last 6 months, and patients who received CAR T therapy within the past 2 years.
Dr. Yu, who was not involved in creating the MSK recommendations for third COVID-19 vaccines, said that he has been thinking more broadly during the pandemic about the notion of immunocompetence. “It’s my opinion that patients with hematologic malignancies, even if they’re not on treatment, are not fully immune competent,” he said. This includes patients with CLL stage 0 and patients with plasma cell dyscrasias who don’t yet meet the criteria for multiple myeloma but have a monoclonal gammopathy, and those with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, he said.
“We’re seeing [variable] recommendations based on expert opinion, and I think that’s justifiable in such a dynamic situation,” Dr. Yu said. “I would [even] argue it’s desirable so we can learn from different approaches” and collect more rigorous observational data.
Immunocompetence needs to be “viewed in the context of the threat,” he added. “COVID changes the equation. … What’s immunocompromised in my mind has changed [from prepandemic times].”
Preparing for measles
Measles lit up on Dr. Pergam’s radar screen in 2019, when an outbreak occurred in nearby Clark County, Wash. This and other outbreaks in New York, California, and other states highlighted declines in measles herd immunity in the United States and prompted him to investigate the seroprevalence of measles antibodies in the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s outpatient population.
Of 959 consecutive patients seen at the center, they found, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. For patients with hematologic malignancies and those with a history of HCT, seroprevalence was worse: 37% and 54%, respectively, were without the IgG antibodies.4 Measles “is the most contagious human virus we have at the moment,” he said, and “revaccinating people is hard when it comes to cancer because it is a live virus vaccine.”
Vaccine hesitancy, a rise in nonmedical exemptions, and other factors were threatening herd immunity before the pandemic began. Now, with declines in routine childhood medical visits and other vaccination opportunities and resources here and in other countries – and declining immunization rates documented by the CDC in May 2021 – the pandemic has made measles outbreaks more likely, he said. (Measles outbreaks in West Africa on the tail end of the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 caused more deaths in children than Ebola, he noted.)
The first priority is vaccination “cocooning,” a strategy that has long been important for patients with hematologic malignancies. But it also possible, Dr. Pergam said, that in the setting of any future community transmission, revaccination for HCT recipients could occur earlier than the standard 2-year post-transplantation recommendation.
In a 2019 position statement endorsed by the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Pergam and other infectious disease physicians and oncologists provide criteria for considering early revaccination on a case-by-case basis for patients on minimal immunosuppressive therapy who are at least 1-year post transplantation.5
“Our thinking was that there may be lower-risk patients to whom we could offer the vaccine” – patients for whom the risk of developing measles might outweigh the risk of potential vaccine-related complications, he said.
And if there were community cases, he added, there might be a place for testing antibody levels in post-transplant patients, however imperfect the window to immunity may be. “We’re thinking through potential scenarios,” he said. “Oncologists should think about measles again and have it on their back burner.”
References
1. Grivas P et al. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jun;32(6):787-800.
2. Agha ME et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 July;8(7):ofab353.
3. Greenberger LM et al. Cancer Cell. 2021 Aug 9;39(8):1031-3.
4. Marquis SR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 July;4(7):e2118508.
5. Pergam SA et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Nov;25:e321-30.
The co-opting and weakening of the immune system by hematologic malignancies and many of their treatments – and the blunting of the immune system’s response to vaccines – may be more salient during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before.
Hematologic malignancies have been associated in large cancer-and-COVID-19 registries with more severe COVID-19 outcomes than solid tumors, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have yielded suboptimal responses across multiple studies. Clinicians and researchers have no shortage of questions, like what is the optimal timing of vaccines relative to cancer-directed therapy? What is the durability and impact of the immune response? What is the status of the immune system in patients who do not produce antispike antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination?
Moreover, will there be novel nonvaccine strategies – such as antibody cocktails or convalescent plasma – to ensure protection against COVID-19 and other future viral threats? And what really defines immunocompromise today and moving forward?
“We don’t know what we don’t know,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, associate professor of medicine (hematology/oncology) and biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cofounder of the international COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. “The immune system is incredibly complex and there are numerous defenses, in addition to the humoral response that we routinely measure.”
Another of the pressing pandemic-time questions for infectious disease specialists working in cancer centers concerns a different infectious threat: measles. “There is a lot of concern in this space about the reported drop in childhood vaccinations and the possibility of measles outbreaks as a follow-up to COVID-19,” said Steven A. Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division and the clinical research division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Whether recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy should be revaccinated earlier than 2 years post treatment is a question worthy of preemptive discussion, he said.
What about timing?
“A silver lining of the pandemic is that it’s improving our understanding of response to vaccinations and outcomes with respiratory viruses in patients with hematologic malignancies,” said Samuel Rubinstein, MD, of the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re going to learn a lot more about how to ensure that our patients are optimally protected from respiratory viruses.”
Dr. Rubinstein focuses on plasma cell disorders, mostly multiple myeloma, and routinely explains to patients consenting to use daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, or a BCMA-directed therapy, that these therapies “in particular probably do impair vaccine immune response.”
He has handled the timing of the COVID-19 vaccines – currently boosters, in most cases – as he has with influenza and other immunizations such as the pneumococcal vaccine, administering the vaccines agnostic to therapy unless the patient is about to start daratumumab or a BCMA-directed therapy. In this case, he considers vaccinating and waiting 2 weeks (for an immune response to occur) before starting therapy.
However, “if I have any concern that a delay will result in suboptimal cancer control, then I don’t wait,” Dr. Rubinstein said. Poor control of a primary malignancy has been consistently associated with worse COVID-19–specific outcomes in cancer–COVID-19 studies, he said, including an analysis of almost 5,000 patients recorded to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium .1
(The analysis also documented that patients with a hematologic malignancy had an odds ratio of higher COVID-19 severity of 1.7, compared with patients with a solid tumor, and an odds ratio of 30-day mortality of 1.44.)
Ideally, said Dr. Warner, patients will get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines or others, “before starting on any cytotoxic chemotherapy and when they do not have low blood counts or perhaps autoimmune complications of immunotherapy.” However, “perfect being the enemy of good, it’s better to get vaccinated than to wait for the exact ideal time.”
Peter Paul Yu, MD, physician-in-chief at Hartford (Conn.) Healthcare Cancer Institute, said that for most patients, there’s no evidence to support an optimal timing of vaccine administration during the chemotherapy cycle. “We looked into that [to guide administration of the COVID-19 vaccines], thinking there might be some data about influenza vaccination,” he said. “But there isn’t much. … And if we make things more complicated than the evidence suggests, we may have fewer people getting vaccinations.”
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network offered several timing recommendations in its August 2021 COVID-19 vaccination guidance – mainly that patients receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy (such as those on cytarabine/anthracycline-based induction regimens for acute myeloid leukemia) delay COVID-19 vaccination until absolute neutrophil count recovery, and that patients on long-term maintenance therapy (for instance, targeted agents for chronic lymphocytic leukemia or myeloproliferative neoplasms) be vaccinated as soon as possible.
Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months, the NCCN noted, following HCT or engineered cell therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T cells) “in order to maximize vaccine efficacy.”
More known unknowns
The tempered efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies “has been shown in multiple studies of multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and other malignancies, and we know it’s true in transplant,” said Dr. Pergam.
In a study of 67 patients with hematologic malignancies at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, for instance, 46.3% did not generate IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor–binding domain after completing their two-dose mRNA vaccine series. Patients with B-cell CLL were especially unlikely to develop antibodies.2A much larger study of more than 1,400 patients from investigators at the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minn., and Jacksonville, Fla., found that approximately 25% of all patients with hematologic malignancies did not produce antispike IgG antibodies, and that those with the most common B-cell malignancies had the lowest rate of seropositivity (44%-79%).3There’s a clear but challenging delineation between antibody testing in the research space and in clinical practice, however. Various national and cancer societies recommended earlier this year against routine postvaccine serological monitoring outside of clinical trials, and the sources interviewed for this story all emphasized that antibody titer measurements should not guide decisions about boosters or about the precautions advised for patients.
Titers checked at a single point in time do not capture the kinetics, multidimensional nature, or durability of an immune response, Dr. Warner said. “There are papers out there that say zero patients with CCL seroconverted … but they do still have some immunity, and maybe even a lot of immunity.”
Antibody testing can create a false sense of security, or a false sense of dread, he said. Yet in practice, the use of serological monitoring “has been all over the place [with] no consistency … and decisions probably being made at the individual clinic level or health system level,” he said.
To a lesser degree, so have definitions of what composes significant immunocompromise in the context of COVID-19 vaccine eligibility. “The question comes up, what does immunocompromised really mean?” said Dr. Yu, whose institution is a member of the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance.
As of September, the MSK Cancer Center had taken a more granular approach to describing moderate to severe immunocompromise than did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC said this level of immunocompromise includes people receiving active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood, and those who’ve received a stem cell transplant within the past 2 years. MSK extended the recommendation, as it concerns hematologic malignancies, to patients who are within 12 months after treatment with B-cell depleting drugs, patients who have been treated for blood cancers within the last 6 months, and patients who received CAR T therapy within the past 2 years.
Dr. Yu, who was not involved in creating the MSK recommendations for third COVID-19 vaccines, said that he has been thinking more broadly during the pandemic about the notion of immunocompetence. “It’s my opinion that patients with hematologic malignancies, even if they’re not on treatment, are not fully immune competent,” he said. This includes patients with CLL stage 0 and patients with plasma cell dyscrasias who don’t yet meet the criteria for multiple myeloma but have a monoclonal gammopathy, and those with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, he said.
“We’re seeing [variable] recommendations based on expert opinion, and I think that’s justifiable in such a dynamic situation,” Dr. Yu said. “I would [even] argue it’s desirable so we can learn from different approaches” and collect more rigorous observational data.
Immunocompetence needs to be “viewed in the context of the threat,” he added. “COVID changes the equation. … What’s immunocompromised in my mind has changed [from prepandemic times].”
Preparing for measles
Measles lit up on Dr. Pergam’s radar screen in 2019, when an outbreak occurred in nearby Clark County, Wash. This and other outbreaks in New York, California, and other states highlighted declines in measles herd immunity in the United States and prompted him to investigate the seroprevalence of measles antibodies in the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s outpatient population.
Of 959 consecutive patients seen at the center, they found, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. For patients with hematologic malignancies and those with a history of HCT, seroprevalence was worse: 37% and 54%, respectively, were without the IgG antibodies.4 Measles “is the most contagious human virus we have at the moment,” he said, and “revaccinating people is hard when it comes to cancer because it is a live virus vaccine.”
Vaccine hesitancy, a rise in nonmedical exemptions, and other factors were threatening herd immunity before the pandemic began. Now, with declines in routine childhood medical visits and other vaccination opportunities and resources here and in other countries – and declining immunization rates documented by the CDC in May 2021 – the pandemic has made measles outbreaks more likely, he said. (Measles outbreaks in West Africa on the tail end of the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 caused more deaths in children than Ebola, he noted.)
The first priority is vaccination “cocooning,” a strategy that has long been important for patients with hematologic malignancies. But it also possible, Dr. Pergam said, that in the setting of any future community transmission, revaccination for HCT recipients could occur earlier than the standard 2-year post-transplantation recommendation.
In a 2019 position statement endorsed by the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Pergam and other infectious disease physicians and oncologists provide criteria for considering early revaccination on a case-by-case basis for patients on minimal immunosuppressive therapy who are at least 1-year post transplantation.5
“Our thinking was that there may be lower-risk patients to whom we could offer the vaccine” – patients for whom the risk of developing measles might outweigh the risk of potential vaccine-related complications, he said.
And if there were community cases, he added, there might be a place for testing antibody levels in post-transplant patients, however imperfect the window to immunity may be. “We’re thinking through potential scenarios,” he said. “Oncologists should think about measles again and have it on their back burner.”
References
1. Grivas P et al. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jun;32(6):787-800.
2. Agha ME et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 July;8(7):ofab353.
3. Greenberger LM et al. Cancer Cell. 2021 Aug 9;39(8):1031-3.
4. Marquis SR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 July;4(7):e2118508.
5. Pergam SA et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Nov;25:e321-30.
Precision medicine: A new approach to AML, other blood cancers
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
NORD: Approaching rare cancers through a diversity lens
The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD® ) advocates for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. Since its inception in 1983, NORD has advocated for marginalized individuals – people living with rare diseases, diagnosed and undiagnosed – who were excluded from conventional clinical care, research, and drug development.
People living with rare diseases often experience a long and arduous journey to diagnosis, due to a dearth of information in medical textbooks, lack of knowledge in the clinical setting, lack of research, and lack of FDA-approved treatments. Furthermore, a substantial amount of research has shown inequity in access to and quality of health care for marginalized groups, especially Black, Brown, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC). The barriers to be accurately diagnosed and provided quality care by specialists already poses threats to quality and length of life of the community at large, but the additional barriers faced by BIPOC communities have deadly consequences due to the lack of access to culturally proficient health care and access to rare disease specialists, in addition to socioeconomic considerations (i.e., insurance access and medical literacy).
In addition to further delayed diagnosis and inequities in care, people of color are consistently underrepresented in clinical trials and registries, resulting in a lack of diversity in clinical studies and some mystery in how effective therapies will be across diverse populations of patients. Because many rare diseases are genetic and certain genetic conditions disproportionately affect communities of color, having a vast majority of white participants creates significant knowledge gaps that can affect patient care and drug development and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, when looking at the rare cancer population within the rare disease community, the same problems persist. Of the approximately 7,000 known rare diseases, 1 more than 500 are rare cancers, 2 and combined, all rare cancers account for slightly more than one out of ever four cancer diagnoses each year and one out of every four cancer-related deaths. 3 Black people have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial/ethnic group in the U.S. for most cancers, and Black men have the highest cancer incidence rate. 4 NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition™, including 27 rare cancer member organizations, are committed to shining a light on the causes of these inequities for rare cancer patients, including but not limited to systemic racism, economic disparities, cultural differences, and issues concerning access to quality health care and inclusive research.
To raise awareness of rare cancers and the issues rare cancer patients face throughout the diagnostic odyssey, in seeking and receiving specialized care and in advocating for awareness, and increased research and drug development, NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition spearheaded Rare Cancer Day, observed annually on September 30. Through the universal hashtag campaign #RareCancerDay and our social media toolkit of infographics and messaging, NORD brings together the global community of advocates to promote awareness of rare cancers and provide opportunities to educate patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. NORD hosted a free webinar for the rare disease community, Rare Cancers: Breaking Down Barriers to Diagnosis, Treatment and Research, to explore rare cancer challenges and offer insights to assist those who are impacted. Throughout August and September, NORD highlighted the powerful, important, and inspiring stories of the rare cancer community on the NORD blog.
In addition, the 2021 NORD Rare Diseases + Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, held October 18 and 19, featured a breakout session and a follow-up discussion group on Advancing Rare Cancer Awareness & Education Among Healthcare Professionals. These sessions explored educational gaps and approaches for increasing awareness and delivering quality education for healthcare professionals in optimizing care for rare cancer patients, genomic testing, personalized medicine, and collaboration with researchers and patient advocacy groups.
This issue of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers helps us further our mission to foster the identification, treatment, and cure of rare disorders through programs of education, advocacy, research, and patient services, as well as the work of NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition™ which aims to unite NORD member organizations working in rare cancers to collaborate on issues facing the greater rare cancer community.
NORD remains steadfastly committed to advocating for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, gender expression, mental illness, socioeconomic status or background, neuro(a)typicality, or physical appearance. NORD’s work includes advocating for rare cancer patients, raising awareness of rare cancer patients, sharing the stories of people living with rare cancers, and educating patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals about accurate diagnosis, quality care, advancements in research, and available treatment options. Learn more at rarediseases.org.
Rebecca Aune
Director of Education Programs
Debbie Drell
Director of Membership
References
1. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; FAQs About Rare Diseases; 11/30/2017. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases
2. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Rare Cancers; 1/25/2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers, or https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers
3. NIH National Cancer Institute. Rare Cancer Statistics | Did You Know? [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY&t=155s. Published April 5, 2018. Accessed Oct. 20, 2021.
4. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts; Figures for African Americans 2019-2021. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2019. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans-2019-2021.pdf1.
The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD® ) advocates for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. Since its inception in 1983, NORD has advocated for marginalized individuals – people living with rare diseases, diagnosed and undiagnosed – who were excluded from conventional clinical care, research, and drug development.
People living with rare diseases often experience a long and arduous journey to diagnosis, due to a dearth of information in medical textbooks, lack of knowledge in the clinical setting, lack of research, and lack of FDA-approved treatments. Furthermore, a substantial amount of research has shown inequity in access to and quality of health care for marginalized groups, especially Black, Brown, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC). The barriers to be accurately diagnosed and provided quality care by specialists already poses threats to quality and length of life of the community at large, but the additional barriers faced by BIPOC communities have deadly consequences due to the lack of access to culturally proficient health care and access to rare disease specialists, in addition to socioeconomic considerations (i.e., insurance access and medical literacy).
In addition to further delayed diagnosis and inequities in care, people of color are consistently underrepresented in clinical trials and registries, resulting in a lack of diversity in clinical studies and some mystery in how effective therapies will be across diverse populations of patients. Because many rare diseases are genetic and certain genetic conditions disproportionately affect communities of color, having a vast majority of white participants creates significant knowledge gaps that can affect patient care and drug development and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, when looking at the rare cancer population within the rare disease community, the same problems persist. Of the approximately 7,000 known rare diseases, 1 more than 500 are rare cancers, 2 and combined, all rare cancers account for slightly more than one out of ever four cancer diagnoses each year and one out of every four cancer-related deaths. 3 Black people have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial/ethnic group in the U.S. for most cancers, and Black men have the highest cancer incidence rate. 4 NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition™, including 27 rare cancer member organizations, are committed to shining a light on the causes of these inequities for rare cancer patients, including but not limited to systemic racism, economic disparities, cultural differences, and issues concerning access to quality health care and inclusive research.
To raise awareness of rare cancers and the issues rare cancer patients face throughout the diagnostic odyssey, in seeking and receiving specialized care and in advocating for awareness, and increased research and drug development, NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition spearheaded Rare Cancer Day, observed annually on September 30. Through the universal hashtag campaign #RareCancerDay and our social media toolkit of infographics and messaging, NORD brings together the global community of advocates to promote awareness of rare cancers and provide opportunities to educate patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. NORD hosted a free webinar for the rare disease community, Rare Cancers: Breaking Down Barriers to Diagnosis, Treatment and Research, to explore rare cancer challenges and offer insights to assist those who are impacted. Throughout August and September, NORD highlighted the powerful, important, and inspiring stories of the rare cancer community on the NORD blog.
In addition, the 2021 NORD Rare Diseases + Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, held October 18 and 19, featured a breakout session and a follow-up discussion group on Advancing Rare Cancer Awareness & Education Among Healthcare Professionals. These sessions explored educational gaps and approaches for increasing awareness and delivering quality education for healthcare professionals in optimizing care for rare cancer patients, genomic testing, personalized medicine, and collaboration with researchers and patient advocacy groups.
This issue of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers helps us further our mission to foster the identification, treatment, and cure of rare disorders through programs of education, advocacy, research, and patient services, as well as the work of NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition™ which aims to unite NORD member organizations working in rare cancers to collaborate on issues facing the greater rare cancer community.
NORD remains steadfastly committed to advocating for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, gender expression, mental illness, socioeconomic status or background, neuro(a)typicality, or physical appearance. NORD’s work includes advocating for rare cancer patients, raising awareness of rare cancer patients, sharing the stories of people living with rare cancers, and educating patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals about accurate diagnosis, quality care, advancements in research, and available treatment options. Learn more at rarediseases.org.
Rebecca Aune
Director of Education Programs
Debbie Drell
Director of Membership
References
1. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; FAQs About Rare Diseases; 11/30/2017. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases
2. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Rare Cancers; 1/25/2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers, or https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers
3. NIH National Cancer Institute. Rare Cancer Statistics | Did You Know? [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY&t=155s. Published April 5, 2018. Accessed Oct. 20, 2021.
4. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts; Figures for African Americans 2019-2021. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2019. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans-2019-2021.pdf1.
The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD® ) advocates for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. Since its inception in 1983, NORD has advocated for marginalized individuals – people living with rare diseases, diagnosed and undiagnosed – who were excluded from conventional clinical care, research, and drug development.
People living with rare diseases often experience a long and arduous journey to diagnosis, due to a dearth of information in medical textbooks, lack of knowledge in the clinical setting, lack of research, and lack of FDA-approved treatments. Furthermore, a substantial amount of research has shown inequity in access to and quality of health care for marginalized groups, especially Black, Brown, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC). The barriers to be accurately diagnosed and provided quality care by specialists already poses threats to quality and length of life of the community at large, but the additional barriers faced by BIPOC communities have deadly consequences due to the lack of access to culturally proficient health care and access to rare disease specialists, in addition to socioeconomic considerations (i.e., insurance access and medical literacy).
In addition to further delayed diagnosis and inequities in care, people of color are consistently underrepresented in clinical trials and registries, resulting in a lack of diversity in clinical studies and some mystery in how effective therapies will be across diverse populations of patients. Because many rare diseases are genetic and certain genetic conditions disproportionately affect communities of color, having a vast majority of white participants creates significant knowledge gaps that can affect patient care and drug development and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, when looking at the rare cancer population within the rare disease community, the same problems persist. Of the approximately 7,000 known rare diseases, 1 more than 500 are rare cancers, 2 and combined, all rare cancers account for slightly more than one out of ever four cancer diagnoses each year and one out of every four cancer-related deaths. 3 Black people have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial/ethnic group in the U.S. for most cancers, and Black men have the highest cancer incidence rate. 4 NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition™, including 27 rare cancer member organizations, are committed to shining a light on the causes of these inequities for rare cancer patients, including but not limited to systemic racism, economic disparities, cultural differences, and issues concerning access to quality health care and inclusive research.
To raise awareness of rare cancers and the issues rare cancer patients face throughout the diagnostic odyssey, in seeking and receiving specialized care and in advocating for awareness, and increased research and drug development, NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition spearheaded Rare Cancer Day, observed annually on September 30. Through the universal hashtag campaign #RareCancerDay and our social media toolkit of infographics and messaging, NORD brings together the global community of advocates to promote awareness of rare cancers and provide opportunities to educate patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. NORD hosted a free webinar for the rare disease community, Rare Cancers: Breaking Down Barriers to Diagnosis, Treatment and Research, to explore rare cancer challenges and offer insights to assist those who are impacted. Throughout August and September, NORD highlighted the powerful, important, and inspiring stories of the rare cancer community on the NORD blog.
In addition, the 2021 NORD Rare Diseases + Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, held October 18 and 19, featured a breakout session and a follow-up discussion group on Advancing Rare Cancer Awareness & Education Among Healthcare Professionals. These sessions explored educational gaps and approaches for increasing awareness and delivering quality education for healthcare professionals in optimizing care for rare cancer patients, genomic testing, personalized medicine, and collaboration with researchers and patient advocacy groups.
This issue of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers helps us further our mission to foster the identification, treatment, and cure of rare disorders through programs of education, advocacy, research, and patient services, as well as the work of NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition™ which aims to unite NORD member organizations working in rare cancers to collaborate on issues facing the greater rare cancer community.
NORD remains steadfastly committed to advocating for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, gender expression, mental illness, socioeconomic status or background, neuro(a)typicality, or physical appearance. NORD’s work includes advocating for rare cancer patients, raising awareness of rare cancer patients, sharing the stories of people living with rare cancers, and educating patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals about accurate diagnosis, quality care, advancements in research, and available treatment options. Learn more at rarediseases.org.
Rebecca Aune
Director of Education Programs
Debbie Drell
Director of Membership
References
1. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; FAQs About Rare Diseases; 11/30/2017. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases
2. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Rare Cancers; 1/25/2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers, or https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers
3. NIH National Cancer Institute. Rare Cancer Statistics | Did You Know? [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY&t=155s. Published April 5, 2018. Accessed Oct. 20, 2021.
4. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts; Figures for African Americans 2019-2021. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2019. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans-2019-2021.pdf1.
Myeloid patients respond robustly to Moderna COVID vaccine
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
FROM ASH 2021
‘Outstanding data’: Mosunetuzumab in r/r follicular lymphoma
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
AT ASH 2021
For leukemias, COVID-19 death risks tied to poor prognoses, ICU deferrals
, results of an American Society of Hematology (ASH) COVID-19 registry study suggest.
Rates of severe COVID-19 were significantly higher among patients who had active disease or neutropenia at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Mortality related to COVID-19 was linked to neutropenia, primary disease prognosis of less than 6 months, and deferral of recommended ICU care, study results show.
By contrast, mortality was not associated with active primary disease or its treatment, according to researcher Pinkal Desai, MD, MPH.
Taken together, these findings provide preliminary evidence to support the use of aggressive supportive treatment of COVID-19 in patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes, said Dr. Desai, a hematologist-oncologist with Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York.
“If desired by patients, aggressive support for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is appropriate, regardless of remission status, given the results of our study,” Dr. Desai said in a press conference during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In non-cancer patient populations, advanced age and cytopenias have been associated with mortality related to COVID-19, Dr. Desai said. Likewise, patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndrome are generally older and have disease- or treatment-related cytopenias, which might affect the severity of and mortality from COVID-19, she added.
With that concern in mind, Dr. Desai and co-investigators looked at predictors of severe COVID-19 disease and death among patients in the ASH Research Collaborative (ASH RC) COVID-19 Registry for Hematology.
This registry was started in the early days of the pandemic to provide real-time observational COVID-19 data to clinicians, according to an ASH news release.
The analysis by Dr. Desai and co-authors included 257 patients with COVID-19 as determined by their physician, including 135 with a primary diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia, 82 with acute lymphocytic leukemia, and 40 with myelodysplastic syndromes. Sixty percent of the patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19.
At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 46% of patients were in remission, and 44% had active disease, according to the report.
Both neutropenia and active disease status at COVID-19 diagnosis were linked to severe COVID-19, defined as ICU admission due to a COVID-19-related reason, according to results of multivariable analysis. Among patients with severe COVID-19, 67% had active disease, meaning just 33% were in remission, Dr. Desai noted.
In multivariable analysis, two factors were significantly associated with mortality, she added: having an estimated pre-COVID-19 prognosis from the primary disease of less than 6 months, and deferral of ICU care when it was recommended to the patient.
Mortality was 21% overall, higher than would be expected in a non-cancer population, Dr. Desai said. For patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the mortality rate was 34% and for those patients who did go to the ICU, the mortality rate was 68%.
By contrast, there was no significant association between mortality and active disease as compared to disease in remission, Dr. Desai noted in her presentation. Likewise, mortality was not associated with active treatment at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis as compared to no treatment.
Gwen Nichols, MD, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, said those are reassuring data for patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes and their healthcare providers.
“From our point of view, it helps us say, ‘do not stop your treatment because of worries about COVID-19—it’s more important that you treat your cancer,” Dr. Nichols said in an interview. “We now know we can help people through COVID-19, and I think this is just really important data to back that up,” she added.
Dr. Desai provided disclosures related to Agios, Kura Oncology, and Bristol Myers Squibb (consultancy), and to Janssen R&D and Astex (research funding).
, results of an American Society of Hematology (ASH) COVID-19 registry study suggest.
Rates of severe COVID-19 were significantly higher among patients who had active disease or neutropenia at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Mortality related to COVID-19 was linked to neutropenia, primary disease prognosis of less than 6 months, and deferral of recommended ICU care, study results show.
By contrast, mortality was not associated with active primary disease or its treatment, according to researcher Pinkal Desai, MD, MPH.
Taken together, these findings provide preliminary evidence to support the use of aggressive supportive treatment of COVID-19 in patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes, said Dr. Desai, a hematologist-oncologist with Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York.
“If desired by patients, aggressive support for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is appropriate, regardless of remission status, given the results of our study,” Dr. Desai said in a press conference during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In non-cancer patient populations, advanced age and cytopenias have been associated with mortality related to COVID-19, Dr. Desai said. Likewise, patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndrome are generally older and have disease- or treatment-related cytopenias, which might affect the severity of and mortality from COVID-19, she added.
With that concern in mind, Dr. Desai and co-investigators looked at predictors of severe COVID-19 disease and death among patients in the ASH Research Collaborative (ASH RC) COVID-19 Registry for Hematology.
This registry was started in the early days of the pandemic to provide real-time observational COVID-19 data to clinicians, according to an ASH news release.
The analysis by Dr. Desai and co-authors included 257 patients with COVID-19 as determined by their physician, including 135 with a primary diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia, 82 with acute lymphocytic leukemia, and 40 with myelodysplastic syndromes. Sixty percent of the patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19.
At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 46% of patients were in remission, and 44% had active disease, according to the report.
Both neutropenia and active disease status at COVID-19 diagnosis were linked to severe COVID-19, defined as ICU admission due to a COVID-19-related reason, according to results of multivariable analysis. Among patients with severe COVID-19, 67% had active disease, meaning just 33% were in remission, Dr. Desai noted.
In multivariable analysis, two factors were significantly associated with mortality, she added: having an estimated pre-COVID-19 prognosis from the primary disease of less than 6 months, and deferral of ICU care when it was recommended to the patient.
Mortality was 21% overall, higher than would be expected in a non-cancer population, Dr. Desai said. For patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the mortality rate was 34% and for those patients who did go to the ICU, the mortality rate was 68%.
By contrast, there was no significant association between mortality and active disease as compared to disease in remission, Dr. Desai noted in her presentation. Likewise, mortality was not associated with active treatment at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis as compared to no treatment.
Gwen Nichols, MD, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, said those are reassuring data for patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes and their healthcare providers.
“From our point of view, it helps us say, ‘do not stop your treatment because of worries about COVID-19—it’s more important that you treat your cancer,” Dr. Nichols said in an interview. “We now know we can help people through COVID-19, and I think this is just really important data to back that up,” she added.
Dr. Desai provided disclosures related to Agios, Kura Oncology, and Bristol Myers Squibb (consultancy), and to Janssen R&D and Astex (research funding).
, results of an American Society of Hematology (ASH) COVID-19 registry study suggest.
Rates of severe COVID-19 were significantly higher among patients who had active disease or neutropenia at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Mortality related to COVID-19 was linked to neutropenia, primary disease prognosis of less than 6 months, and deferral of recommended ICU care, study results show.
By contrast, mortality was not associated with active primary disease or its treatment, according to researcher Pinkal Desai, MD, MPH.
Taken together, these findings provide preliminary evidence to support the use of aggressive supportive treatment of COVID-19 in patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes, said Dr. Desai, a hematologist-oncologist with Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York.
“If desired by patients, aggressive support for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is appropriate, regardless of remission status, given the results of our study,” Dr. Desai said in a press conference during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In non-cancer patient populations, advanced age and cytopenias have been associated with mortality related to COVID-19, Dr. Desai said. Likewise, patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndrome are generally older and have disease- or treatment-related cytopenias, which might affect the severity of and mortality from COVID-19, she added.
With that concern in mind, Dr. Desai and co-investigators looked at predictors of severe COVID-19 disease and death among patients in the ASH Research Collaborative (ASH RC) COVID-19 Registry for Hematology.
This registry was started in the early days of the pandemic to provide real-time observational COVID-19 data to clinicians, according to an ASH news release.
The analysis by Dr. Desai and co-authors included 257 patients with COVID-19 as determined by their physician, including 135 with a primary diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia, 82 with acute lymphocytic leukemia, and 40 with myelodysplastic syndromes. Sixty percent of the patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19.
At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 46% of patients were in remission, and 44% had active disease, according to the report.
Both neutropenia and active disease status at COVID-19 diagnosis were linked to severe COVID-19, defined as ICU admission due to a COVID-19-related reason, according to results of multivariable analysis. Among patients with severe COVID-19, 67% had active disease, meaning just 33% were in remission, Dr. Desai noted.
In multivariable analysis, two factors were significantly associated with mortality, she added: having an estimated pre-COVID-19 prognosis from the primary disease of less than 6 months, and deferral of ICU care when it was recommended to the patient.
Mortality was 21% overall, higher than would be expected in a non-cancer population, Dr. Desai said. For patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the mortality rate was 34% and for those patients who did go to the ICU, the mortality rate was 68%.
By contrast, there was no significant association between mortality and active disease as compared to disease in remission, Dr. Desai noted in her presentation. Likewise, mortality was not associated with active treatment at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis as compared to no treatment.
Gwen Nichols, MD, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, said those are reassuring data for patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes and their healthcare providers.
“From our point of view, it helps us say, ‘do not stop your treatment because of worries about COVID-19—it’s more important that you treat your cancer,” Dr. Nichols said in an interview. “We now know we can help people through COVID-19, and I think this is just really important data to back that up,” she added.
Dr. Desai provided disclosures related to Agios, Kura Oncology, and Bristol Myers Squibb (consultancy), and to Janssen R&D and Astex (research funding).
FROM ASH 2021
Editor’s Note: Looking forward
In this special report we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of a number of cancer types through interviews with leaders in the field. And in this unique time of COVID-19 disease, we provide an update on the effects of the pandemic on immune system issues in this highly vulnerable population of cancer patients. In addition, we feature some of the critical issues of dealing with racial, ethnic, sex, and gender disparities among others in these unique populations. We hope you enjoy the issue.
– Mark S. Lesney, PhD
Editor
In this special report we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of a number of cancer types through interviews with leaders in the field. And in this unique time of COVID-19 disease, we provide an update on the effects of the pandemic on immune system issues in this highly vulnerable population of cancer patients. In addition, we feature some of the critical issues of dealing with racial, ethnic, sex, and gender disparities among others in these unique populations. We hope you enjoy the issue.
– Mark S. Lesney, PhD
Editor
In this special report we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of a number of cancer types through interviews with leaders in the field. And in this unique time of COVID-19 disease, we provide an update on the effects of the pandemic on immune system issues in this highly vulnerable population of cancer patients. In addition, we feature some of the critical issues of dealing with racial, ethnic, sex, and gender disparities among others in these unique populations. We hope you enjoy the issue.
– Mark S. Lesney, PhD
Editor