User login
Paradigm-changing osimertinib approval in front-line for advanced NSCLC
The US Food and Drug Administration awarded regulatory approval this spring to the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor osimertinib for the treatment of patients with exon 19 deletion- or exon21 L858R mutation-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated for advanced disease.
Osimertinib is designed to target both sensitizing and resistant mutant forms of EGFR, but not the wildtype protein, in an effort to improve safety and efficacy compared with other standard of care (SoC) EGFR inhibitors. It was previously approved in the second-line setting in NSCLC following failure of prior EGFR inhibitor therapy in 2015. The current approval represents a paradigm shift in the front-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, reinforcing the role of osimertinib, which has been recommended in this setting by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in Oncology for more than a year.
Approval was based on the phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled FLAURA trial. A total of 556 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive an oral daily dose of 80 mg osimertinib or gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg. The trial was conducted during December 2014 through March 2016 at 132 sites in 29 countries.
Eligible patients were aged 18 or over and had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, had not previously received treatment for advanced disease, were eligible for first-line treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib, had locally or centrally confirmed EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations alone or concurrently with other EGFR mutations, and a World Health Organization Performance Status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all predisease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out light work), and a minimum life expectancy of 12 weeks.
Patients with central nervous system metastases were eligible if their condition was neurologically stable. Patients who had previous definitive treatment or glucocorticoid therapy had to have completed it at least 2 weeks before the start of the trial. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had any previous treatment with any systemic anticancer therapy for advanced NSCLC, had major surgery within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, had radiation therapy to more than 30% of the bone marrow or a wide field of radiation within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, or were currently receiving potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 3A4.
Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression or death by more than 50% compared with standard TKI therapy. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months with osimertinib, compared with 10.2 months for erlotinib or gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46; P < .0001). PFS benefit extended across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with CNS metastases (median PFS: 15.2 months vs 9.6 months; HR: 0.47; P = .0009). Confirmed overall response rate was 77% and 69% in the study and SoC groups, respectively, and estimated duration of response (DoR) was 17.6 months and 9.6 months. At the time of analysis, there were too few deaths to compare overall survival.
The most common adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients treated with osimertinib were diarrhea, rash, dry skin, nail toxicity, stomatitis, and reduced appetite. Serious AEs occurred in 4% of patients treated with osimertinib, most commonly involving pneumonia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and pulmonary embolism (PE). The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 33.7% in the osimertinib group and 44.8% in the SoC group. Patients treated with osimertinib were less likely to discontinue treatment due to AEs (13.3% vs 18.1% of those receiving SoC).
Osimertinib is marketed as Tagrisso by AstraZeneca and the recommended dose is 80 mg orally once daily, with or without food. The prescribing information details warnings and precautions relating to interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis, QTc interval prolongation, cardiomyopathy, keratitis, and embryofetal toxicity.
Treatment with osimertinib should be withheld in patients presenting with worsening of respiratory symptoms indicative of ILD and permanently discontinued if ILD is confirmed. Electrocardiograms and electrolytes should be monitored periodically in patients with congenital long QTc syndrome, congestive heart failure, electrolyte abnormalities or in patients taking medications known to prolong QTc interval. Treatment should be permanently discontinued in those who develop QTc interval prolongation with signs and symptoms of life-threatening arrhythmia.
Cardiac monitoring, including assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction should be performed at baseline and throughout treatment in patients with cardiac risk factors and treatment should be permanently discontinued in patients who develop symptomatic congestive heart failure. Patients with signs and symptoms of keratitis should be referred to an ophthalmologist. Osimertinib can cause fetal harm and patients should be advised of the potential risk and the need for effective contraception use during treatment and for 6 weeks after the final dose is administered.
1. US Food and Drug Administration Website. FDA approves osimertinib for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC with most common EGFR mutations. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm605113.htm. Last updated April 18, 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
2. Soria J-C, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non–small-
3. Tagrisso (osimertinib tablets) for oral use. Prescribing information. AstraZeneca. https://www.azpicentral.com/tagrisso/tagrisso.pdf#page=1. August 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
The US Food and Drug Administration awarded regulatory approval this spring to the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor osimertinib for the treatment of patients with exon 19 deletion- or exon21 L858R mutation-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated for advanced disease.
Osimertinib is designed to target both sensitizing and resistant mutant forms of EGFR, but not the wildtype protein, in an effort to improve safety and efficacy compared with other standard of care (SoC) EGFR inhibitors. It was previously approved in the second-line setting in NSCLC following failure of prior EGFR inhibitor therapy in 2015. The current approval represents a paradigm shift in the front-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, reinforcing the role of osimertinib, which has been recommended in this setting by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in Oncology for more than a year.
Approval was based on the phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled FLAURA trial. A total of 556 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive an oral daily dose of 80 mg osimertinib or gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg. The trial was conducted during December 2014 through March 2016 at 132 sites in 29 countries.
Eligible patients were aged 18 or over and had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, had not previously received treatment for advanced disease, were eligible for first-line treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib, had locally or centrally confirmed EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations alone or concurrently with other EGFR mutations, and a World Health Organization Performance Status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all predisease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out light work), and a minimum life expectancy of 12 weeks.
Patients with central nervous system metastases were eligible if their condition was neurologically stable. Patients who had previous definitive treatment or glucocorticoid therapy had to have completed it at least 2 weeks before the start of the trial. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had any previous treatment with any systemic anticancer therapy for advanced NSCLC, had major surgery within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, had radiation therapy to more than 30% of the bone marrow or a wide field of radiation within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, or were currently receiving potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 3A4.
Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression or death by more than 50% compared with standard TKI therapy. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months with osimertinib, compared with 10.2 months for erlotinib or gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46; P < .0001). PFS benefit extended across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with CNS metastases (median PFS: 15.2 months vs 9.6 months; HR: 0.47; P = .0009). Confirmed overall response rate was 77% and 69% in the study and SoC groups, respectively, and estimated duration of response (DoR) was 17.6 months and 9.6 months. At the time of analysis, there were too few deaths to compare overall survival.
The most common adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients treated with osimertinib were diarrhea, rash, dry skin, nail toxicity, stomatitis, and reduced appetite. Serious AEs occurred in 4% of patients treated with osimertinib, most commonly involving pneumonia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and pulmonary embolism (PE). The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 33.7% in the osimertinib group and 44.8% in the SoC group. Patients treated with osimertinib were less likely to discontinue treatment due to AEs (13.3% vs 18.1% of those receiving SoC).
Osimertinib is marketed as Tagrisso by AstraZeneca and the recommended dose is 80 mg orally once daily, with or without food. The prescribing information details warnings and precautions relating to interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis, QTc interval prolongation, cardiomyopathy, keratitis, and embryofetal toxicity.
Treatment with osimertinib should be withheld in patients presenting with worsening of respiratory symptoms indicative of ILD and permanently discontinued if ILD is confirmed. Electrocardiograms and electrolytes should be monitored periodically in patients with congenital long QTc syndrome, congestive heart failure, electrolyte abnormalities or in patients taking medications known to prolong QTc interval. Treatment should be permanently discontinued in those who develop QTc interval prolongation with signs and symptoms of life-threatening arrhythmia.
Cardiac monitoring, including assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction should be performed at baseline and throughout treatment in patients with cardiac risk factors and treatment should be permanently discontinued in patients who develop symptomatic congestive heart failure. Patients with signs and symptoms of keratitis should be referred to an ophthalmologist. Osimertinib can cause fetal harm and patients should be advised of the potential risk and the need for effective contraception use during treatment and for 6 weeks after the final dose is administered.
The US Food and Drug Administration awarded regulatory approval this spring to the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor osimertinib for the treatment of patients with exon 19 deletion- or exon21 L858R mutation-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated for advanced disease.
Osimertinib is designed to target both sensitizing and resistant mutant forms of EGFR, but not the wildtype protein, in an effort to improve safety and efficacy compared with other standard of care (SoC) EGFR inhibitors. It was previously approved in the second-line setting in NSCLC following failure of prior EGFR inhibitor therapy in 2015. The current approval represents a paradigm shift in the front-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, reinforcing the role of osimertinib, which has been recommended in this setting by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in Oncology for more than a year.
Approval was based on the phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled FLAURA trial. A total of 556 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive an oral daily dose of 80 mg osimertinib or gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg. The trial was conducted during December 2014 through March 2016 at 132 sites in 29 countries.
Eligible patients were aged 18 or over and had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, had not previously received treatment for advanced disease, were eligible for first-line treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib, had locally or centrally confirmed EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations alone or concurrently with other EGFR mutations, and a World Health Organization Performance Status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all predisease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out light work), and a minimum life expectancy of 12 weeks.
Patients with central nervous system metastases were eligible if their condition was neurologically stable. Patients who had previous definitive treatment or glucocorticoid therapy had to have completed it at least 2 weeks before the start of the trial. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had any previous treatment with any systemic anticancer therapy for advanced NSCLC, had major surgery within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, had radiation therapy to more than 30% of the bone marrow or a wide field of radiation within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, or were currently receiving potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 3A4.
Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression or death by more than 50% compared with standard TKI therapy. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months with osimertinib, compared with 10.2 months for erlotinib or gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46; P < .0001). PFS benefit extended across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with CNS metastases (median PFS: 15.2 months vs 9.6 months; HR: 0.47; P = .0009). Confirmed overall response rate was 77% and 69% in the study and SoC groups, respectively, and estimated duration of response (DoR) was 17.6 months and 9.6 months. At the time of analysis, there were too few deaths to compare overall survival.
The most common adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients treated with osimertinib were diarrhea, rash, dry skin, nail toxicity, stomatitis, and reduced appetite. Serious AEs occurred in 4% of patients treated with osimertinib, most commonly involving pneumonia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and pulmonary embolism (PE). The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 33.7% in the osimertinib group and 44.8% in the SoC group. Patients treated with osimertinib were less likely to discontinue treatment due to AEs (13.3% vs 18.1% of those receiving SoC).
Osimertinib is marketed as Tagrisso by AstraZeneca and the recommended dose is 80 mg orally once daily, with or without food. The prescribing information details warnings and precautions relating to interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis, QTc interval prolongation, cardiomyopathy, keratitis, and embryofetal toxicity.
Treatment with osimertinib should be withheld in patients presenting with worsening of respiratory symptoms indicative of ILD and permanently discontinued if ILD is confirmed. Electrocardiograms and electrolytes should be monitored periodically in patients with congenital long QTc syndrome, congestive heart failure, electrolyte abnormalities or in patients taking medications known to prolong QTc interval. Treatment should be permanently discontinued in those who develop QTc interval prolongation with signs and symptoms of life-threatening arrhythmia.
Cardiac monitoring, including assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction should be performed at baseline and throughout treatment in patients with cardiac risk factors and treatment should be permanently discontinued in patients who develop symptomatic congestive heart failure. Patients with signs and symptoms of keratitis should be referred to an ophthalmologist. Osimertinib can cause fetal harm and patients should be advised of the potential risk and the need for effective contraception use during treatment and for 6 weeks after the final dose is administered.
1. US Food and Drug Administration Website. FDA approves osimertinib for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC with most common EGFR mutations. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm605113.htm. Last updated April 18, 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
2. Soria J-C, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non–small-
3. Tagrisso (osimertinib tablets) for oral use. Prescribing information. AstraZeneca. https://www.azpicentral.com/tagrisso/tagrisso.pdf#page=1. August 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
1. US Food and Drug Administration Website. FDA approves osimertinib for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC with most common EGFR mutations. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm605113.htm. Last updated April 18, 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
2. Soria J-C, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non–small-
3. Tagrisso (osimertinib tablets) for oral use. Prescribing information. AstraZeneca. https://www.azpicentral.com/tagrisso/tagrisso.pdf#page=1. August 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
BRAF-MEK inhibitor combo approved for adjuvant melanoma therapy
On April 30, 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for the combined use of dabrafenib and trametinib to include adjuvant treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma following complete surgical resection. Dabrafenib is an inhibitor of the BRAF kinase, and trametinib is an inhibitor of the MEK kinase, both of which are components of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway. The 2 drugs are already approved as both single agents and in combination for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.
The current approval was based on data from a phase 3, international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The COMBI-AD trial was carried out from January 2013 through December 2014 at 169 sites in 26 countries. A total of 870 patients with stage III melanoma and BRAF V600E/K mutations and pathologic involvement of regional lymph nodes following complete resection were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily in combination with trametinib 2 mg once daily, or 2 matched placebos for up to 1 year. Randomization was stratified according to BRAF mutation status (V600E or V600K) and disease stage (IIIA, IIIB or IIIC).
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 (on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). Patients who had undergone previous systemic anticancer therapy or radiotherapy were excluded from the study.
The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), defined as the time from randomization to disease recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), freedom from relapse (FFR), and safety. Clinical examination and imaging by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or both was performed every 3 months for the first 2 years and then every 6 months until disease recurrence or trial completion.
As of the data cut-off, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 53% compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; P < .001). Median RFS was not yet reached in the combination arm, compared with 16.6 months in the placebo arm. The RFS benefit was observed across all prespecified subgroups, and the combination was also found to improve OS, DMFS, and FFR.
The most common adverse events (AEs) included pyrexia, fatigue, nausea, rash, vomiting, diarrhea, chills, and myalgia. Overall, 97% of patients experienced an AE, 41% experienced a grade 3/4 AE, and 26% had an AE that led to treatment discontinuation. In patients treated with placebo, those numbers were 88%, 14%, and 3%, respectively.
The separate prescribing information for dabrafenib and trametinib detail warnings and precautions relating to their combined use, including the need to confirm BRAF status before starting therapy (because use in BRAF wildtype tumors can promote tumor cell proliferation), new primary malignancies, hemorrhage, cardiomyopathy, uveitis, serious febrile reactions, serious skin toxicity, hyperglycemia, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, colitis and gastrointestinal perforation, venous thromboembolism, ocular toxicities, interstitial lung disease, and embryofetal toxicity.
Dermatologic evaluations should be completed before starting therapy, every 2 months during and for up to 6 months after completion of therapy, and patients should be monitored closely for the signs and symptoms of noncutaneous primary malignancies. Treatment should be discontinued for all grade 4 hemorrhagic events and for any grade 3 events that do not improve, and withheld for grade 3 events until they resolve, at which point treatment can be resumed at the next lowest dose as described in the prescribing information.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) values should be assessed before initiating therapy, after 1 month, and then at intervals of 2-3 months. Treatment should be withheld for up to 4 weeks if absolute LVEF values decrease by 10% and are less than the lower limit of normal (LLN) and it should be permanently discontinued for symptomatic cardiomyopathy or persistent, asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction of >20% from baseline that is below LLN and does not resolve within 4 weeks.
Treatment should be withheld for fevers higher than 104°F or for serious febrile reactions or fever accompanied by hypotension, rigors or chills, dehydration, or renal failure. Serum creatinine levels should be monitored, along with other evidence of renal function, during, and after severe pyrexia. Antipyretics should be administered as secondary prophylaxis when treatment is resumed if the patient had previous episodes of severe febrile reaction or if fever was associated with complications. Corticosteroids should be administered for at least 5 days for second or subsequent pyrexia if the body temperature dose not return to baseline within 3 days of fever onset or for pyrexia associated with complications and no evidence of active infection.
Treatment should also be withheld for intolerable or severe skin toxicity and resumed at a lower dose as per guidelines in patients who improve or recover within 3 weeks. Serum glucose levels should be monitored at the start of treatment and as clinically appropriate in patients with pre-existing diabetes or hyperglycemia. Patients with G6PD deficiency should be monitored closely for signs of hemolytic anemia.
Patients should be monitored closely for signs and symptoms of colitis and gastrointestinal
Ophthalmological evaluations should be performed periodically and within 24 hours of patient-reported loss of vision or other visual disturbances. Treatment should be permanently discontinued in patients with documented retinal vein occlusion and withheld for retinal pigment epithelial detachment. Treatment should also be withheld in patients presenting with new or progressive pulmonary symptoms and findings and permanently discontinued for treatment-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.
Both dabrafenib and trametinib can cause fetal harm and patients should be warned of this risk and the need for adequate contraceptive measures. Dabrafenib and trametinib are marketed as Tafinlar and Mekinist by Novartis.
1. US Food and Drug Administration Website. FDA approves dabrafenib plus trametinib for adjuvant treatment of melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm606165.htm. Last updated April 30, 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
2. Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1913-1823.
3. Tafinlar (dabrafenib) capsules, for oral use. Prescribing information. Novartis. https://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/sites/www.pharma.us.novartis.com/files/tafinlar.pdf. May 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
4. Mekinist (trametinib) tablets, for oral use. Prescribing information. Novartis. https://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/sites/www.pharma.us.novartis.com/files/mekinist.pdf. May 2018. Accessed October 6th, 2018.
On April 30, 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for the combined use of dabrafenib and trametinib to include adjuvant treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma following complete surgical resection. Dabrafenib is an inhibitor of the BRAF kinase, and trametinib is an inhibitor of the MEK kinase, both of which are components of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway. The 2 drugs are already approved as both single agents and in combination for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.
The current approval was based on data from a phase 3, international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The COMBI-AD trial was carried out from January 2013 through December 2014 at 169 sites in 26 countries. A total of 870 patients with stage III melanoma and BRAF V600E/K mutations and pathologic involvement of regional lymph nodes following complete resection were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily in combination with trametinib 2 mg once daily, or 2 matched placebos for up to 1 year. Randomization was stratified according to BRAF mutation status (V600E or V600K) and disease stage (IIIA, IIIB or IIIC).
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 (on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). Patients who had undergone previous systemic anticancer therapy or radiotherapy were excluded from the study.
The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), defined as the time from randomization to disease recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), freedom from relapse (FFR), and safety. Clinical examination and imaging by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or both was performed every 3 months for the first 2 years and then every 6 months until disease recurrence or trial completion.
As of the data cut-off, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 53% compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; P < .001). Median RFS was not yet reached in the combination arm, compared with 16.6 months in the placebo arm. The RFS benefit was observed across all prespecified subgroups, and the combination was also found to improve OS, DMFS, and FFR.
The most common adverse events (AEs) included pyrexia, fatigue, nausea, rash, vomiting, diarrhea, chills, and myalgia. Overall, 97% of patients experienced an AE, 41% experienced a grade 3/4 AE, and 26% had an AE that led to treatment discontinuation. In patients treated with placebo, those numbers were 88%, 14%, and 3%, respectively.
The separate prescribing information for dabrafenib and trametinib detail warnings and precautions relating to their combined use, including the need to confirm BRAF status before starting therapy (because use in BRAF wildtype tumors can promote tumor cell proliferation), new primary malignancies, hemorrhage, cardiomyopathy, uveitis, serious febrile reactions, serious skin toxicity, hyperglycemia, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, colitis and gastrointestinal perforation, venous thromboembolism, ocular toxicities, interstitial lung disease, and embryofetal toxicity.
Dermatologic evaluations should be completed before starting therapy, every 2 months during and for up to 6 months after completion of therapy, and patients should be monitored closely for the signs and symptoms of noncutaneous primary malignancies. Treatment should be discontinued for all grade 4 hemorrhagic events and for any grade 3 events that do not improve, and withheld for grade 3 events until they resolve, at which point treatment can be resumed at the next lowest dose as described in the prescribing information.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) values should be assessed before initiating therapy, after 1 month, and then at intervals of 2-3 months. Treatment should be withheld for up to 4 weeks if absolute LVEF values decrease by 10% and are less than the lower limit of normal (LLN) and it should be permanently discontinued for symptomatic cardiomyopathy or persistent, asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction of >20% from baseline that is below LLN and does not resolve within 4 weeks.
Treatment should be withheld for fevers higher than 104°F or for serious febrile reactions or fever accompanied by hypotension, rigors or chills, dehydration, or renal failure. Serum creatinine levels should be monitored, along with other evidence of renal function, during, and after severe pyrexia. Antipyretics should be administered as secondary prophylaxis when treatment is resumed if the patient had previous episodes of severe febrile reaction or if fever was associated with complications. Corticosteroids should be administered for at least 5 days for second or subsequent pyrexia if the body temperature dose not return to baseline within 3 days of fever onset or for pyrexia associated with complications and no evidence of active infection.
Treatment should also be withheld for intolerable or severe skin toxicity and resumed at a lower dose as per guidelines in patients who improve or recover within 3 weeks. Serum glucose levels should be monitored at the start of treatment and as clinically appropriate in patients with pre-existing diabetes or hyperglycemia. Patients with G6PD deficiency should be monitored closely for signs of hemolytic anemia.
Patients should be monitored closely for signs and symptoms of colitis and gastrointestinal
Ophthalmological evaluations should be performed periodically and within 24 hours of patient-reported loss of vision or other visual disturbances. Treatment should be permanently discontinued in patients with documented retinal vein occlusion and withheld for retinal pigment epithelial detachment. Treatment should also be withheld in patients presenting with new or progressive pulmonary symptoms and findings and permanently discontinued for treatment-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.
Both dabrafenib and trametinib can cause fetal harm and patients should be warned of this risk and the need for adequate contraceptive measures. Dabrafenib and trametinib are marketed as Tafinlar and Mekinist by Novartis.
On April 30, 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for the combined use of dabrafenib and trametinib to include adjuvant treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma following complete surgical resection. Dabrafenib is an inhibitor of the BRAF kinase, and trametinib is an inhibitor of the MEK kinase, both of which are components of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway. The 2 drugs are already approved as both single agents and in combination for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.
The current approval was based on data from a phase 3, international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The COMBI-AD trial was carried out from January 2013 through December 2014 at 169 sites in 26 countries. A total of 870 patients with stage III melanoma and BRAF V600E/K mutations and pathologic involvement of regional lymph nodes following complete resection were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily in combination with trametinib 2 mg once daily, or 2 matched placebos for up to 1 year. Randomization was stratified according to BRAF mutation status (V600E or V600K) and disease stage (IIIA, IIIB or IIIC).
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 (on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). Patients who had undergone previous systemic anticancer therapy or radiotherapy were excluded from the study.
The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), defined as the time from randomization to disease recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), freedom from relapse (FFR), and safety. Clinical examination and imaging by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or both was performed every 3 months for the first 2 years and then every 6 months until disease recurrence or trial completion.
As of the data cut-off, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 53% compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; P < .001). Median RFS was not yet reached in the combination arm, compared with 16.6 months in the placebo arm. The RFS benefit was observed across all prespecified subgroups, and the combination was also found to improve OS, DMFS, and FFR.
The most common adverse events (AEs) included pyrexia, fatigue, nausea, rash, vomiting, diarrhea, chills, and myalgia. Overall, 97% of patients experienced an AE, 41% experienced a grade 3/4 AE, and 26% had an AE that led to treatment discontinuation. In patients treated with placebo, those numbers were 88%, 14%, and 3%, respectively.
The separate prescribing information for dabrafenib and trametinib detail warnings and precautions relating to their combined use, including the need to confirm BRAF status before starting therapy (because use in BRAF wildtype tumors can promote tumor cell proliferation), new primary malignancies, hemorrhage, cardiomyopathy, uveitis, serious febrile reactions, serious skin toxicity, hyperglycemia, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, colitis and gastrointestinal perforation, venous thromboembolism, ocular toxicities, interstitial lung disease, and embryofetal toxicity.
Dermatologic evaluations should be completed before starting therapy, every 2 months during and for up to 6 months after completion of therapy, and patients should be monitored closely for the signs and symptoms of noncutaneous primary malignancies. Treatment should be discontinued for all grade 4 hemorrhagic events and for any grade 3 events that do not improve, and withheld for grade 3 events until they resolve, at which point treatment can be resumed at the next lowest dose as described in the prescribing information.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) values should be assessed before initiating therapy, after 1 month, and then at intervals of 2-3 months. Treatment should be withheld for up to 4 weeks if absolute LVEF values decrease by 10% and are less than the lower limit of normal (LLN) and it should be permanently discontinued for symptomatic cardiomyopathy or persistent, asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction of >20% from baseline that is below LLN and does not resolve within 4 weeks.
Treatment should be withheld for fevers higher than 104°F or for serious febrile reactions or fever accompanied by hypotension, rigors or chills, dehydration, or renal failure. Serum creatinine levels should be monitored, along with other evidence of renal function, during, and after severe pyrexia. Antipyretics should be administered as secondary prophylaxis when treatment is resumed if the patient had previous episodes of severe febrile reaction or if fever was associated with complications. Corticosteroids should be administered for at least 5 days for second or subsequent pyrexia if the body temperature dose not return to baseline within 3 days of fever onset or for pyrexia associated with complications and no evidence of active infection.
Treatment should also be withheld for intolerable or severe skin toxicity and resumed at a lower dose as per guidelines in patients who improve or recover within 3 weeks. Serum glucose levels should be monitored at the start of treatment and as clinically appropriate in patients with pre-existing diabetes or hyperglycemia. Patients with G6PD deficiency should be monitored closely for signs of hemolytic anemia.
Patients should be monitored closely for signs and symptoms of colitis and gastrointestinal
Ophthalmological evaluations should be performed periodically and within 24 hours of patient-reported loss of vision or other visual disturbances. Treatment should be permanently discontinued in patients with documented retinal vein occlusion and withheld for retinal pigment epithelial detachment. Treatment should also be withheld in patients presenting with new or progressive pulmonary symptoms and findings and permanently discontinued for treatment-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.
Both dabrafenib and trametinib can cause fetal harm and patients should be warned of this risk and the need for adequate contraceptive measures. Dabrafenib and trametinib are marketed as Tafinlar and Mekinist by Novartis.
1. US Food and Drug Administration Website. FDA approves dabrafenib plus trametinib for adjuvant treatment of melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm606165.htm. Last updated April 30, 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
2. Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1913-1823.
3. Tafinlar (dabrafenib) capsules, for oral use. Prescribing information. Novartis. https://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/sites/www.pharma.us.novartis.com/files/tafinlar.pdf. May 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
4. Mekinist (trametinib) tablets, for oral use. Prescribing information. Novartis. https://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/sites/www.pharma.us.novartis.com/files/mekinist.pdf. May 2018. Accessed October 6th, 2018.
1. US Food and Drug Administration Website. FDA approves dabrafenib plus trametinib for adjuvant treatment of melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm606165.htm. Last updated April 30, 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
2. Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1913-1823.
3. Tafinlar (dabrafenib) capsules, for oral use. Prescribing information. Novartis. https://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/sites/www.pharma.us.novartis.com/files/tafinlar.pdf. May 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018.
4. Mekinist (trametinib) tablets, for oral use. Prescribing information. Novartis. https://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/sites/www.pharma.us.novartis.com/files/mekinist.pdf. May 2018. Accessed October 6th, 2018.
HU could save millions of lives in Africa, speaker says
SAN DIEGO—Daily hydroxyurea (HU) treatment is feasible, safe, and effective for children with sickle cell disease (SCD) in sub-Saharan Africa, according to a phase 1/2 trial.
During HU treatment, children experienced less vaso-occlusive pain, fewer cases of malaria and other infections, and lower rates of transfusions and death, compared to rates observed in the pretreatment screening phase of the trial.
“Based on that data, we believe that wider access to hydroxyurea for sickle cell anemia has the potential to save millions of lives in Africa,” said Léon Tshilolo, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Monkole in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Dr. Tshilolo reported the data, from the REACH trial (NCT01966731), during the plenary session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 3*). Data were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Use of HU has been limited in Africa because of cost, access issues, and challenges associated with laboratory monitoring, according to researchers.
Moreover, most of the efficacy data on HU come from studies conducted in the United States, Europe, and other high-income settings, said senior study author Russell E. Ware, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Center in Ohio.
“Now that there’s data in an African setting, I think this will go a long way to advancing [HU therapy] and encouraging governments, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies to bring it in,” Dr. Ware said.
To collect the data, Drs. Ware and Tshilolo and their colleagues evaluated SCD patients, ages 1 to 10, living in four sub-Saharan African countries—Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, and Uganda.
The children completed a 2-month pretreatment screening phase designed to capture baseline clinical and laboratory data.
The children were started at 15 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg of HU for 6 months, followed by escalation to the maximum-tolerated dose.
A total of 606 children were treated, 600 of them for 3 months. Treatment is ongoing, but the mean treatment duration at the time of analysis was 29 months.
Results
The average maximum tolerated dose was 22.5 mg/kg/day. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 5.1% of the children, which was below the 20% protocol-specified threshold for safety, Dr. Tshilolo said.
Dose-limiting toxicities included severe anemia, reticulocytopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. However, there were similar rates of these events during the screening period and the treatment period.
The rate of vaso-occlusive pain during HU treatment was 44.6 events per 100 patient-years, compared with 98.3 events per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.56).
The rate of malaria infection was 22.9 events per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period, compared to 46.9 events in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.66).
The rate of nonmalaria infections was 90.0 events per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period, compared to 142.5 events per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.72).
Dr. Tshilolo said the researchers were “encouraged” by the reduced infection rates, particularly in light of previous concerns that HU could suppress the immune system and put children at risk for malaria.
The rate of transfusion during HU treatment was 14.2 events per 100 patient-years, compared to 43.3 events per 100 patient-years (IRR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.47).
Death rates were 1.1 per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period and 3.6 per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.88).
Dr. Tshilolo reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation, along with nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ware reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation and the article.
SAN DIEGO—Daily hydroxyurea (HU) treatment is feasible, safe, and effective for children with sickle cell disease (SCD) in sub-Saharan Africa, according to a phase 1/2 trial.
During HU treatment, children experienced less vaso-occlusive pain, fewer cases of malaria and other infections, and lower rates of transfusions and death, compared to rates observed in the pretreatment screening phase of the trial.
“Based on that data, we believe that wider access to hydroxyurea for sickle cell anemia has the potential to save millions of lives in Africa,” said Léon Tshilolo, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Monkole in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Dr. Tshilolo reported the data, from the REACH trial (NCT01966731), during the plenary session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 3*). Data were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Use of HU has been limited in Africa because of cost, access issues, and challenges associated with laboratory monitoring, according to researchers.
Moreover, most of the efficacy data on HU come from studies conducted in the United States, Europe, and other high-income settings, said senior study author Russell E. Ware, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Center in Ohio.
“Now that there’s data in an African setting, I think this will go a long way to advancing [HU therapy] and encouraging governments, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies to bring it in,” Dr. Ware said.
To collect the data, Drs. Ware and Tshilolo and their colleagues evaluated SCD patients, ages 1 to 10, living in four sub-Saharan African countries—Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, and Uganda.
The children completed a 2-month pretreatment screening phase designed to capture baseline clinical and laboratory data.
The children were started at 15 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg of HU for 6 months, followed by escalation to the maximum-tolerated dose.
A total of 606 children were treated, 600 of them for 3 months. Treatment is ongoing, but the mean treatment duration at the time of analysis was 29 months.
Results
The average maximum tolerated dose was 22.5 mg/kg/day. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 5.1% of the children, which was below the 20% protocol-specified threshold for safety, Dr. Tshilolo said.
Dose-limiting toxicities included severe anemia, reticulocytopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. However, there were similar rates of these events during the screening period and the treatment period.
The rate of vaso-occlusive pain during HU treatment was 44.6 events per 100 patient-years, compared with 98.3 events per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.56).
The rate of malaria infection was 22.9 events per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period, compared to 46.9 events in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.66).
The rate of nonmalaria infections was 90.0 events per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period, compared to 142.5 events per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.72).
Dr. Tshilolo said the researchers were “encouraged” by the reduced infection rates, particularly in light of previous concerns that HU could suppress the immune system and put children at risk for malaria.
The rate of transfusion during HU treatment was 14.2 events per 100 patient-years, compared to 43.3 events per 100 patient-years (IRR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.47).
Death rates were 1.1 per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period and 3.6 per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.88).
Dr. Tshilolo reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation, along with nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ware reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation and the article.
SAN DIEGO—Daily hydroxyurea (HU) treatment is feasible, safe, and effective for children with sickle cell disease (SCD) in sub-Saharan Africa, according to a phase 1/2 trial.
During HU treatment, children experienced less vaso-occlusive pain, fewer cases of malaria and other infections, and lower rates of transfusions and death, compared to rates observed in the pretreatment screening phase of the trial.
“Based on that data, we believe that wider access to hydroxyurea for sickle cell anemia has the potential to save millions of lives in Africa,” said Léon Tshilolo, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Monkole in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Dr. Tshilolo reported the data, from the REACH trial (NCT01966731), during the plenary session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 3*). Data were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Use of HU has been limited in Africa because of cost, access issues, and challenges associated with laboratory monitoring, according to researchers.
Moreover, most of the efficacy data on HU come from studies conducted in the United States, Europe, and other high-income settings, said senior study author Russell E. Ware, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Center in Ohio.
“Now that there’s data in an African setting, I think this will go a long way to advancing [HU therapy] and encouraging governments, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies to bring it in,” Dr. Ware said.
To collect the data, Drs. Ware and Tshilolo and their colleagues evaluated SCD patients, ages 1 to 10, living in four sub-Saharan African countries—Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, and Uganda.
The children completed a 2-month pretreatment screening phase designed to capture baseline clinical and laboratory data.
The children were started at 15 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg of HU for 6 months, followed by escalation to the maximum-tolerated dose.
A total of 606 children were treated, 600 of them for 3 months. Treatment is ongoing, but the mean treatment duration at the time of analysis was 29 months.
Results
The average maximum tolerated dose was 22.5 mg/kg/day. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 5.1% of the children, which was below the 20% protocol-specified threshold for safety, Dr. Tshilolo said.
Dose-limiting toxicities included severe anemia, reticulocytopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. However, there were similar rates of these events during the screening period and the treatment period.
The rate of vaso-occlusive pain during HU treatment was 44.6 events per 100 patient-years, compared with 98.3 events per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.56).
The rate of malaria infection was 22.9 events per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period, compared to 46.9 events in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.66).
The rate of nonmalaria infections was 90.0 events per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period, compared to 142.5 events per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.72).
Dr. Tshilolo said the researchers were “encouraged” by the reduced infection rates, particularly in light of previous concerns that HU could suppress the immune system and put children at risk for malaria.
The rate of transfusion during HU treatment was 14.2 events per 100 patient-years, compared to 43.3 events per 100 patient-years (IRR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.47).
Death rates were 1.1 per 100 patient-years in the HU treatment period and 3.6 per 100 patient-years in the pretreatment period (IRR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.88).
Dr. Tshilolo reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation, along with nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ware reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation and the article.
Triplet demonstrates activity in relapsed/refractory MM
SAN DIEGO—A three-drug combination produced “deep and durable” responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.
Selinexor, dexamethasone, and daratumumab produced a response rate of 73% when given at the recommended dosing schedule to MM patients who had received at least three prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent.
Most responders had a very good partial response (VGPR), but there were no complete responses. At a median follow-up of 7.7 months, the median progression-free survival had not been reached.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.
Cristina J. Gasparetto, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, presented these results, from the phase 1/2 STOMP trial (NCT02343042), as abstract 599.*
Patients
As of November 15, the trial had enrolled 28 MM patients. At baseline, their median age was 68 (range, 44-77). There were 14 males and 14 females. The median time from diagnosis to study treatment was 5.9 years (range, <1 to 12.9 years).
Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 2 to 10) prior treatment regimens.
All 28 patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, and 61% of them (n=17) were refractory to the treatment. All 28 patients had also received an immunomodulatory drug, and 64% of them (n=18) were refractory to it.
Seventy-nine percent (n=22) of patients had undergone an autologous transplant, and 7% (n=2) had received prior daratumumab.
Treatment
Patients were treated in two concurrent cohorts.
One cohort included 25 patients who received selinexor at 100 mg once-weekly (QW), dexamethasone at 40 mg QW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
The other cohort included three patients who received selinexor at 60 mg twice-weekly (BIW), dexamethasone at 20 mg BIW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
The recommended phase 2 dose and schedule was selinexor at 100 mg QW, dexamethasone at 40 mg QW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
Safety
Among patients who received the recommended phase 2 dosing schedule, common treatment-related AEs included:
- Nausea (60%)
- Diarrhea (32%)
- Anorexia (28%)
- Vomiting (24%)
- Dysgeusia (20%)
- Fatigue (48%)
- Hyponatremia (28%)
- Insomnia (24%)
- Blurred vision (24%)
- Thrombocytopenia (64%)
- Anemia (48%)
- Leukopenia (44%)
- Neutropenia (44%)
- Lymphopenia (20%).
“[T]he weekly dose was better tolerated [with] only a couple of patients with grade 3 [gastrointestinal] toxicity,” Dr Gasparetto noted.
The most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (44%), anemia (28%), leukopenia (28%), and neutropenia (24%). There were no grade 5 AEs.
Efficacy
The median follow-up was 7.7 months, and the median time on study was 5.8 months.
Twenty-six patients were evaluable for response, as two patients withdrew consent prior to follow-up.
The overall response rate was 73% (n=19), which includes seven very good partial responses (VGPRs) and 12 partial responses (PRs). Two patients had a minimal response, four had stable disease, and one progressed.
Among patients with a PR or better, the median time on treatment was 7.3 months. The median time to response was 1 month.
Three VGPRs are ongoing, but four patients who achieved a VGPR progressed.
Six PRs are ongoing, and one patient with a PR progressed. Other reasons for treatment discontinuation among patients with a PR included transplant (n=1), AE (n=1), patient decision (n=2), and hospice (n=1).
One patient with a minimal response progressed, and one discontinued treatment due to an AE.
The median progression-free survival was not reached.
“Selinexor in combination with dara and dexa appears to be highly active, producing deep and durable responses in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Gasparetto said.
She reported relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The trial is sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.
*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.
SAN DIEGO—A three-drug combination produced “deep and durable” responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.
Selinexor, dexamethasone, and daratumumab produced a response rate of 73% when given at the recommended dosing schedule to MM patients who had received at least three prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent.
Most responders had a very good partial response (VGPR), but there were no complete responses. At a median follow-up of 7.7 months, the median progression-free survival had not been reached.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.
Cristina J. Gasparetto, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, presented these results, from the phase 1/2 STOMP trial (NCT02343042), as abstract 599.*
Patients
As of November 15, the trial had enrolled 28 MM patients. At baseline, their median age was 68 (range, 44-77). There were 14 males and 14 females. The median time from diagnosis to study treatment was 5.9 years (range, <1 to 12.9 years).
Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 2 to 10) prior treatment regimens.
All 28 patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, and 61% of them (n=17) were refractory to the treatment. All 28 patients had also received an immunomodulatory drug, and 64% of them (n=18) were refractory to it.
Seventy-nine percent (n=22) of patients had undergone an autologous transplant, and 7% (n=2) had received prior daratumumab.
Treatment
Patients were treated in two concurrent cohorts.
One cohort included 25 patients who received selinexor at 100 mg once-weekly (QW), dexamethasone at 40 mg QW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
The other cohort included three patients who received selinexor at 60 mg twice-weekly (BIW), dexamethasone at 20 mg BIW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
The recommended phase 2 dose and schedule was selinexor at 100 mg QW, dexamethasone at 40 mg QW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
Safety
Among patients who received the recommended phase 2 dosing schedule, common treatment-related AEs included:
- Nausea (60%)
- Diarrhea (32%)
- Anorexia (28%)
- Vomiting (24%)
- Dysgeusia (20%)
- Fatigue (48%)
- Hyponatremia (28%)
- Insomnia (24%)
- Blurred vision (24%)
- Thrombocytopenia (64%)
- Anemia (48%)
- Leukopenia (44%)
- Neutropenia (44%)
- Lymphopenia (20%).
“[T]he weekly dose was better tolerated [with] only a couple of patients with grade 3 [gastrointestinal] toxicity,” Dr Gasparetto noted.
The most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (44%), anemia (28%), leukopenia (28%), and neutropenia (24%). There were no grade 5 AEs.
Efficacy
The median follow-up was 7.7 months, and the median time on study was 5.8 months.
Twenty-six patients were evaluable for response, as two patients withdrew consent prior to follow-up.
The overall response rate was 73% (n=19), which includes seven very good partial responses (VGPRs) and 12 partial responses (PRs). Two patients had a minimal response, four had stable disease, and one progressed.
Among patients with a PR or better, the median time on treatment was 7.3 months. The median time to response was 1 month.
Three VGPRs are ongoing, but four patients who achieved a VGPR progressed.
Six PRs are ongoing, and one patient with a PR progressed. Other reasons for treatment discontinuation among patients with a PR included transplant (n=1), AE (n=1), patient decision (n=2), and hospice (n=1).
One patient with a minimal response progressed, and one discontinued treatment due to an AE.
The median progression-free survival was not reached.
“Selinexor in combination with dara and dexa appears to be highly active, producing deep and durable responses in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Gasparetto said.
She reported relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The trial is sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.
*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.
SAN DIEGO—A three-drug combination produced “deep and durable” responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.
Selinexor, dexamethasone, and daratumumab produced a response rate of 73% when given at the recommended dosing schedule to MM patients who had received at least three prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent.
Most responders had a very good partial response (VGPR), but there were no complete responses. At a median follow-up of 7.7 months, the median progression-free survival had not been reached.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.
Cristina J. Gasparetto, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, presented these results, from the phase 1/2 STOMP trial (NCT02343042), as abstract 599.*
Patients
As of November 15, the trial had enrolled 28 MM patients. At baseline, their median age was 68 (range, 44-77). There were 14 males and 14 females. The median time from diagnosis to study treatment was 5.9 years (range, <1 to 12.9 years).
Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 2 to 10) prior treatment regimens.
All 28 patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, and 61% of them (n=17) were refractory to the treatment. All 28 patients had also received an immunomodulatory drug, and 64% of them (n=18) were refractory to it.
Seventy-nine percent (n=22) of patients had undergone an autologous transplant, and 7% (n=2) had received prior daratumumab.
Treatment
Patients were treated in two concurrent cohorts.
One cohort included 25 patients who received selinexor at 100 mg once-weekly (QW), dexamethasone at 40 mg QW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
The other cohort included three patients who received selinexor at 60 mg twice-weekly (BIW), dexamethasone at 20 mg BIW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
The recommended phase 2 dose and schedule was selinexor at 100 mg QW, dexamethasone at 40 mg QW, and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg QW.
Safety
Among patients who received the recommended phase 2 dosing schedule, common treatment-related AEs included:
- Nausea (60%)
- Diarrhea (32%)
- Anorexia (28%)
- Vomiting (24%)
- Dysgeusia (20%)
- Fatigue (48%)
- Hyponatremia (28%)
- Insomnia (24%)
- Blurred vision (24%)
- Thrombocytopenia (64%)
- Anemia (48%)
- Leukopenia (44%)
- Neutropenia (44%)
- Lymphopenia (20%).
“[T]he weekly dose was better tolerated [with] only a couple of patients with grade 3 [gastrointestinal] toxicity,” Dr Gasparetto noted.
The most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (44%), anemia (28%), leukopenia (28%), and neutropenia (24%). There were no grade 5 AEs.
Efficacy
The median follow-up was 7.7 months, and the median time on study was 5.8 months.
Twenty-six patients were evaluable for response, as two patients withdrew consent prior to follow-up.
The overall response rate was 73% (n=19), which includes seven very good partial responses (VGPRs) and 12 partial responses (PRs). Two patients had a minimal response, four had stable disease, and one progressed.
Among patients with a PR or better, the median time on treatment was 7.3 months. The median time to response was 1 month.
Three VGPRs are ongoing, but four patients who achieved a VGPR progressed.
Six PRs are ongoing, and one patient with a PR progressed. Other reasons for treatment discontinuation among patients with a PR included transplant (n=1), AE (n=1), patient decision (n=2), and hospice (n=1).
One patient with a minimal response progressed, and one discontinued treatment due to an AE.
The median progression-free survival was not reached.
“Selinexor in combination with dara and dexa appears to be highly active, producing deep and durable responses in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Gasparetto said.
She reported relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The trial is sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.
*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.
Two-drug combo deemed ‘very promising’ for PMBCL
SAN DIEGO—Nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin may be a new treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to investigators from the CheckMate 436 trial.
Interim results from this phase 1/2 trial revealed an overall response rate of 70%, including a complete response rate of 27%.
“It’s very promising . . . to see this level of activity in this advanced, relapsed/refractory population,” said Joseph E. Eid, MD, senior vice president and head of medical at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is sponsoring CheckMate 436 in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
Dr. Eid also noted that adverse events (AEs) observed with this regimen were consistent with the safety profiles of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin alone.
These results were presented as a poster at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1691).
Rationale
Dr. Eid noted that patients with relapsed or refractory PMBCL have limited treatment options.
“The initial therapy works well in 70% to 80% of patients, but the patients who fail don’t have good options,” he said.
Prior research has shown that PMBCL is often characterized by overexpression of the PD-1 ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, and most PMBCL expresses CD30.
Dr. Eid said CheckMate 436 (NCT02581631) was designed to “take advantage” of these characteristics by employing the anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin.
Patients and treatment
The interim analysis of this trial included 30 patients with relapsed/refractory PMCBL. Their median age at enrollment was 35.5 (range, 19 to 83), and 57% of patients were female.
Sixty percent of patients had refractory disease, 23% had relapsed disease, and 17% had both.
The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range, 1-5). Thirteen percent of patients had prior autologous stem cell transplant.
The patients received nivolumab at 240 mg and brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
At a median follow-up of 6.1 months, 10 patients were still on treatment. Reasons for discontinuation included maximum clinical benefit (n=9), disease progression (n=7), AEs unrelated to treatment (n=2), patient request (n=1), and “other” reasons (n=1).
Safety
“There were no new safety signals,” Dr. Eid said. “The adverse events reflected the two agents’ profiles.”
The rate of treatment-related AEs was 83%. The most common of these were neutropenia (27%), peripheral neuropathy (20%), hyperthyroidism (13%), rash (10%), and thrombocytopenia (10%).
Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (7%), decreased neutrophil count (7%), hypersensitivity (3%), diarrhea (3%), and maculopapular rash (3%).
The rate of serious treatment-related AEs was 10%. This included grade 3-4 diarrhea and maculopapular rash and grade 5 acute kidney injury.
The acute kidney injury was the only fatal AE considered treatment-related. There were three other deaths in the trial, but they were considered unrelated to treatment.
Response
The complete response rate was 27% (n=8), and the partial response rate was 43% (n=13), for an overall response rate of 70% (n=21).
“The early indication is that 70% response is a pretty good outcome in a relapsed/refractory population that, otherwise, their outcome is pretty dismal,” Dr. Eid said.
Ten percent of patients (n=3) had stable disease, 13% (n=4) progressed, and investigators were unable to determine the status for 7% of patients (n=2).
The median time to response was 1.3 months, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. The median duration of response and complete response were not reached.
Overall and progression-free survival data are not yet mature.
Still, the investigators concluded that nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin “may provide a new treatment option” for patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL.
“The results are very, very promising,” Dr. Eid said.
This trial is supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
SAN DIEGO—Nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin may be a new treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to investigators from the CheckMate 436 trial.
Interim results from this phase 1/2 trial revealed an overall response rate of 70%, including a complete response rate of 27%.
“It’s very promising . . . to see this level of activity in this advanced, relapsed/refractory population,” said Joseph E. Eid, MD, senior vice president and head of medical at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is sponsoring CheckMate 436 in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
Dr. Eid also noted that adverse events (AEs) observed with this regimen were consistent with the safety profiles of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin alone.
These results were presented as a poster at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1691).
Rationale
Dr. Eid noted that patients with relapsed or refractory PMBCL have limited treatment options.
“The initial therapy works well in 70% to 80% of patients, but the patients who fail don’t have good options,” he said.
Prior research has shown that PMBCL is often characterized by overexpression of the PD-1 ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, and most PMBCL expresses CD30.
Dr. Eid said CheckMate 436 (NCT02581631) was designed to “take advantage” of these characteristics by employing the anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin.
Patients and treatment
The interim analysis of this trial included 30 patients with relapsed/refractory PMCBL. Their median age at enrollment was 35.5 (range, 19 to 83), and 57% of patients were female.
Sixty percent of patients had refractory disease, 23% had relapsed disease, and 17% had both.
The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range, 1-5). Thirteen percent of patients had prior autologous stem cell transplant.
The patients received nivolumab at 240 mg and brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
At a median follow-up of 6.1 months, 10 patients were still on treatment. Reasons for discontinuation included maximum clinical benefit (n=9), disease progression (n=7), AEs unrelated to treatment (n=2), patient request (n=1), and “other” reasons (n=1).
Safety
“There were no new safety signals,” Dr. Eid said. “The adverse events reflected the two agents’ profiles.”
The rate of treatment-related AEs was 83%. The most common of these were neutropenia (27%), peripheral neuropathy (20%), hyperthyroidism (13%), rash (10%), and thrombocytopenia (10%).
Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (7%), decreased neutrophil count (7%), hypersensitivity (3%), diarrhea (3%), and maculopapular rash (3%).
The rate of serious treatment-related AEs was 10%. This included grade 3-4 diarrhea and maculopapular rash and grade 5 acute kidney injury.
The acute kidney injury was the only fatal AE considered treatment-related. There were three other deaths in the trial, but they were considered unrelated to treatment.
Response
The complete response rate was 27% (n=8), and the partial response rate was 43% (n=13), for an overall response rate of 70% (n=21).
“The early indication is that 70% response is a pretty good outcome in a relapsed/refractory population that, otherwise, their outcome is pretty dismal,” Dr. Eid said.
Ten percent of patients (n=3) had stable disease, 13% (n=4) progressed, and investigators were unable to determine the status for 7% of patients (n=2).
The median time to response was 1.3 months, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. The median duration of response and complete response were not reached.
Overall and progression-free survival data are not yet mature.
Still, the investigators concluded that nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin “may provide a new treatment option” for patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL.
“The results are very, very promising,” Dr. Eid said.
This trial is supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
SAN DIEGO—Nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin may be a new treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to investigators from the CheckMate 436 trial.
Interim results from this phase 1/2 trial revealed an overall response rate of 70%, including a complete response rate of 27%.
“It’s very promising . . . to see this level of activity in this advanced, relapsed/refractory population,” said Joseph E. Eid, MD, senior vice president and head of medical at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is sponsoring CheckMate 436 in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
Dr. Eid also noted that adverse events (AEs) observed with this regimen were consistent with the safety profiles of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin alone.
These results were presented as a poster at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1691).
Rationale
Dr. Eid noted that patients with relapsed or refractory PMBCL have limited treatment options.
“The initial therapy works well in 70% to 80% of patients, but the patients who fail don’t have good options,” he said.
Prior research has shown that PMBCL is often characterized by overexpression of the PD-1 ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, and most PMBCL expresses CD30.
Dr. Eid said CheckMate 436 (NCT02581631) was designed to “take advantage” of these characteristics by employing the anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin.
Patients and treatment
The interim analysis of this trial included 30 patients with relapsed/refractory PMCBL. Their median age at enrollment was 35.5 (range, 19 to 83), and 57% of patients were female.
Sixty percent of patients had refractory disease, 23% had relapsed disease, and 17% had both.
The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range, 1-5). Thirteen percent of patients had prior autologous stem cell transplant.
The patients received nivolumab at 240 mg and brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
At a median follow-up of 6.1 months, 10 patients were still on treatment. Reasons for discontinuation included maximum clinical benefit (n=9), disease progression (n=7), AEs unrelated to treatment (n=2), patient request (n=1), and “other” reasons (n=1).
Safety
“There were no new safety signals,” Dr. Eid said. “The adverse events reflected the two agents’ profiles.”
The rate of treatment-related AEs was 83%. The most common of these were neutropenia (27%), peripheral neuropathy (20%), hyperthyroidism (13%), rash (10%), and thrombocytopenia (10%).
Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (7%), decreased neutrophil count (7%), hypersensitivity (3%), diarrhea (3%), and maculopapular rash (3%).
The rate of serious treatment-related AEs was 10%. This included grade 3-4 diarrhea and maculopapular rash and grade 5 acute kidney injury.
The acute kidney injury was the only fatal AE considered treatment-related. There were three other deaths in the trial, but they were considered unrelated to treatment.
Response
The complete response rate was 27% (n=8), and the partial response rate was 43% (n=13), for an overall response rate of 70% (n=21).
“The early indication is that 70% response is a pretty good outcome in a relapsed/refractory population that, otherwise, their outcome is pretty dismal,” Dr. Eid said.
Ten percent of patients (n=3) had stable disease, 13% (n=4) progressed, and investigators were unable to determine the status for 7% of patients (n=2).
The median time to response was 1.3 months, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. The median duration of response and complete response were not reached.
Overall and progression-free survival data are not yet mature.
Still, the investigators concluded that nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin “may provide a new treatment option” for patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL.
“The results are very, very promising,” Dr. Eid said.
This trial is supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
Symptom burdens related to chemotherapy-induced anemia in stage IV cancer
Anemia is a common complication of cancer treatment as well as of cancer itself. Most cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy experience anemia sometime during their treatment course.1,2 Moderate to severe anemia is associated with an array of symptoms that are known to compromise the physical functioning and quality of life of cancer patients. Common anemia-related symptoms include fatigue, drowsiness, depression, dyspnea, tachycardia, and dizziness.1,3-7
Symptoms produced by cancer itself or the disease treatment (ie, side effects such as anemia) collectively compose a patient’s symptom burden.8 Although the occurrence of anemia-related fatigue has been described more systematically, other clinical presentations of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) are not well characterized. Furthermore, the overall symptom burdens associated with different ranges of hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations have also not been well reported. Although various tools have been developed to facilitate the reporting of fatigue and other symptoms experienced by patients with CIA, such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI),9-11 these questionnaires have not been extensively used outside of the research context. As such, knowledge on symptom burdens associated with CIA in real-world patient populations remains lacking.
Given the common occurrence of CIA, management of CIA and associated symptoms plays an important role to patients’ quality of life during cancer treatment. Symptom control is often the main goal for patients with stage IV cancers, as treatment for disease is most likely palliative or noncurative. To facilitate supportive care planning, it is important to understand patient symptom burdens as chemotherapy progresses over cycles and Hb levels decline. We conducted a comprehensive medical record review study in patients diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), breast cancer, and lung cancers at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large community-based health care delivery system. The objective of this study was to report the occurrence of CIA-related symptoms throughout the course of chemotherapy and by Hb levels.
Methods
Study setting and population
KPSC is an integrated managed-care organization that provides comprehensive health services for 4 million racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members who broadly represent the population in Southern California.12 The organization maintains electronic records of health care received by its members, including physician record notes and clinical databases such as laboratory test results, diagnosis codes, medical procedures, medication dispenses, and disease registries. KPSC’s cancer registry is Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, which is affiliated and routinely collects information on age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, cancer type, histology, and stage at diagnosis.
Patients who met the following inclusion criteria were included in this study: diagnosed with stage IV NHL, breast cancer, or lung cancer at age 18 years or older at KPSC between March 25, 2010 and December 31, 2012; initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy at KPSC before June 30, 2013 (only the first chemotherapy course was included in this evaluation); and had at least 1 Hb measurement during the course of chemotherapy. Of those who met the inclusion criteria, patients who met the following criteria were excluded if they had less than 12 months KPSC membership before start of chemotherapy, missing information on cancer stage or chemotherapy regimen/agents, a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome before chemotherapy initiation, a diagnosis of inherited anemia, an Hb concentration <10 g/L within 3 months before chemotherapy initiation, a transfusion within 2 weeks before chemotherapy initiation, radiation within 4 months before chemotherapy initiation, or bone marrow transplantation within 12 months before chemotherapy initiation or during the chemotherapy course. These exclusion criteria were applied to evaluate symptom burdens most likely related to CIA as opposed to other cancer treatment or pre-existing anemia.
CIA in this study was defined as moderate to severe anemia with Hb <10 g/dL after chemotherapy initiation. Based on this definition for CIA, all patients who developed CIA between the first chemotherapy administration to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy were included for the record review
Data collection
Data on anemia-related symptoms or signs and anemia-related comorbidities (Table 1) were collected by standardized review of physician record notes in the electronic medical records. A set of 24 anemia-related symptoms were identified based on the literature and clinical expertise and included abdominal pain, blurred vision/double vision/loss of vision, cold intolerance/coldness in hands or feet, depression/anxiety, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea/shortness of breath/tachypnea, edema, fatigue, headache, heart failure, heat intolerance, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, palpitations/tachycardia, paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities, pectoral angina/chest pain, sweating/diaphoresis, syncope, and vertigo. Record review period was defined as 1 month before chemotherapy to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy in the first course. To understand the development of new symptoms during chemotherapy treatment, pre-existing symptoms documented within 1 month before chemotherapy initiation were recorded.
The data elements extracted included the date the symptom was documented, date the symptom started, symptom duration (when available), and any relevant comments regarding the symptom (ie, if dyspnea was at rest or on exertion, whether the symptom was a side effect caused by chemotherapy, or change in symptom severity). Ten percent of the records were reviewed independently by 2 abstractors to ensure quality control. Additional quality control measures included SAS algorithms (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to check reasonability and logical consistency in the abstracted data.
Patient demographic characteristics, cancer stage, additional selected comorbidities (Table 1), chemotherapy information, Hb test results, and anemia treatment, including erythrocyte stimulating agent (ESA) use and red blood cell transfusion, were collected using KPSC’s cancer registry and clinical databases. Anemia was defined by severity as grade 1 (10 g/dL to lower limit of normal, ie, 14 g/dL for men and 12 g/dL for women), grade 2 (8.0-9.9 g/dL), grade 3 (6.5-7.9 g/dL), and grade 4 (<6.5 g/dL) following the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.13
Statistical analysis
Distributions of demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were calculated by CIA status, overall and by cancer type. Differences between patients who did and did not develop CIA were assessed using chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. For those who developed CIA, the distribution of the worst anemia grade was also calculated for each cycle of chemotherapy.
Next, the distributions for the following symptom categories were calculated in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status: pre-existing symptoms that occurred before chemotherapy, any symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, whether they started before chemotherapy), and incident symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, new symptoms that only started after chemotherapy). Specifically, the proportion of patients with each individual symptom and the distribution of the number of symptoms per patient were calculated. Differences in symptom distribution by CIA status were assessed using chi-square test.
The distribution of symptoms in each chemotherapy cycle was calculated up to 6 chemotherapy cycles (as >80% of the patients only had treatment up to 6 cycles) in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status. For this analysis, a symptom was “mapped” to a cycle if the date (or date range) of the symptom fell within the date range of that chemotherapy cycle. In patients who developed CIA, the distribution of symptoms was also calculated by anemia grade. This was again done on the chemotherapy cycle level. For each chemotherapy cycle, an anemia grade was assigned (no anemia or anemia grade 1, 2, 3, and 4) using the lowest Hb measurement in that cycle. Symptoms that occurred in a chemotherapy cycle were then “mapped” to the anemia grade of that cycle. Some patients had more than 1 anemia event of the same grade (eg, if a patient’s grade 2 anemia persist across cycles). For these patients, we randomly selected only 1 anemia event of the same grade from each patient to be included in this analysis. Patients could still contribute multiple events of different grades to this analysis. We calculated the mean number of symptoms per patient for each anemia grade (ie, 1-4) separately. Because of the small number of patients who developed grade 4 anemia (n = 11), they were combined with the grade 3 patients when the distributions of individual symptoms were evaluated.
All analyses were repeated stratified by gender. P values for differences between men and women were calculated using chi-square test or t test. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3.
Results
A total of 402 stage IV NHL, breast, and lung cancer patients who developed CIA and 98 patients who did not develop CIA during the first course of chemotherapy were included (Figure 1).
The distribution of cancer types in the study sample were similar across CIA status (Table 1). The mean age at diagnosis was 66 years in patients who developed CIA and 62 years in patients who did not develop CIA. Women accounted for half of the patients in both study samples (52% and 51%, respectively). Most of the study patients were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema and gastroesophageal reflux disease were among the most common comorbidities examined in both study samples, while malnutrition and moderate to severe renal disease were also common in patients who developed CIA (Table 1).
The mean Hb level before chemotherapy was lower for patients who developed CIA compared with patients who did not develop CIA (12.3 g/dL and 13.5 g/dL, respectively; Table 1). The mean lowest Hb level during chemotherapy was 8.5 g/dL for patients who developed CIA and 11.4 g/dL for patients without CIA (Table 1). The number of anemia events by grade in each chemotherapy cycle in patients who developed CIA is shown in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the number and proportion of study patients with each of the symptoms documented before and after chemotherapy initiation for the 2 study samples. Patients who developed CIA had statistically significantly more pre-existing symptoms, incident symptoms, or any symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy compared with patients who did not develop CIA.
Table 4 shows the number and proportion of study patients with symptoms that occurred during each chemotherapy cycle. Again, fatigue is the predominant symptom documented throughout cycles for all patients. In patients who developed CIA, the proportion of patients experiencing the following symptoms was relatively stable across chemotherapy cycles: depression/anxiety, dizziness/lightheadedness, fatigue, pale skin, and sweating. The proportion of patients experiencing paralysis/ataxia/numbness/tingling in extremities increased over cycles. For headache, loss of appetite, hypotension, and nausea/vomiting, the proportion of patients with symptom documentation was highest in cycle 1, stabilizing in subsequent cycles (Table 4). In patients without CIA, the cycle-level prevalence of most of the symptoms did not increase over cycles, except for paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities. For insomnia, loss of appetite, and nausea/vomiting, the cycle-level prevalence dropped after the first cycle. There was no clear increasing trend of the mean number of symptoms per patient across chemotherapy cycles in both study samples (Table 4).
Table 5 shows the distribution of symptoms by anemia grade in patients who developed CIA. In general, the prevalence of symptoms increased with higher grades of anemia. The following symptoms especially have a clear increase in prevalence as the severity of anemia progressed: abdominal pain, depression, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, heart failure, headache, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, pale skin, palpitations, pectoral angina, and sweating. The mean number of symptoms per patient increased as CIA grade increased, from 3.6 (SD, 2.9) for grade 2 CIA to 5.4 (SD, 3.5) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (specifically, 5.3 [SD, 3.4] for grade 3 CIA and 6.4 [SD, 4.1] for grade 4 CIA; data not shown) (Table 5).
When stratified by gender, there are no material differences between men and women in most analyses. In men, the mean number of pre-existing symptoms was 1.7 (SD, 1.8) and 1.0 (SD, 1.2) for those with and without CIA, respectively (P = .02). The mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was 7.0 (SD, 3.4) and 4.2 (SD, 2.4), respectively (P < .01). In women, the mean number of pre-existing symptoms was not statistically different in those with and without CIA (1.6 [SD, 2.2] and 1.3 [SD, 1.8], respectively; P = .46). However, like in men, the mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was significantly more in those with CIA (6.5 [SD, 3.3] and 4.0 [SD, 2.9], respectively; P < .01). As in the overall analysis, there was no clear increasing trend of the number of symptoms per patients across chemotherapy cycles in both men and women, but the average number of symptoms increased as the CIA grade increased. For men, the mean number of symptoms per patient increased from 3.7 (SD, 3.0) for grade 2 CIA to 6.0 (SD, 3.5) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (data not shown). For women, the mean number of symptoms per patient increased from 3.6 (SD, 2.9) for grade 2 CIA to 4.7 (SD, 3.3) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (data not shown).
Discussion
In this study, we described the number and type of symptoms documented in the medical record notes among stage IV NHL, breast cancer, and lung cancer patients who did or did not develop CIA during chemotherapy.
Our findings on the prevalence of fatigue are in line with other studies in the literature. Maxwell reported that the prevalence of fatigue was 80% to 96% in cancer patients.17 Cella and colleagues found that using FACT-General questionnaire, 75% of cancer patients reported fatigue.11 The comparability of our estimate and those found in studies based on patient self-report offered some assurance of the validity of assessing symptom prevalence through physician record notes. In addition to fatigue, we described prevalence of 23 additional symptoms, most of which have not been extensively studied in the literature. Gabrilove and colleagues found that a substantial proportion of patients with CIA had moderate to severe score for lack of appetite (36%) and disturbed sleep (41%) using the MDASI.10 The prevalence of loss of appetite and insomnia was around 50% and 25%, respectively, in our study samples. A 2013 systematic review of 21 multinational studies reported the pooled prevalence of several nonfatigue symptoms in cancer patients including headache (23%), sleep disturbance/insomnia (49%), appetite changes (45%), nausea/vomiting (26%), diarrhea (15%), depression (34%), dyspnea (44%), dizziness (26%), numbness/tingling (42%), edema (14%), and sweating (28%).18 Our prevalence estimates in patients with CIA for most of these symptoms were higher, likely because Reilly and colleagues used source studies that included any cancer patients undergoing treatment and not just those with CIA. Our findings on the increased symptom burden in patients who experienced episodes of advanced anemia compared with patients with mild anemia were also consistent with the literature. To this end, several studies using MDASI or the FACT-An reported differential symptom burdens by Hb level based on patient self-report,10,11,19 including data on improvement in symptom burden and quality of life after anemia was amended with the use of ESA.20,21
We found that the number of pre-existing symptoms was significantly higher in patients who went on to develop CIA than in patients who did not develop CIA. Specifically, fatigue, loss of appetite, and pale skin before chemotherapy seemed to be significantly more common in patients who went on to develop CIA. This finding suggested that presentation of these symptoms before chemotherapy initiation may be a predictor for developing moderate or severe anemia during treatment. This is a novel hypothesis, as no studies have evaluated the relationship between pretreatment symptom and risk of CIA. However, our study was not designed to address this specific question. Additional investigation is needed to further shed light on whether the occurrence of anemia-related symptoms in nonanemic patients can be used to effectively risk-stratify patients for subsequent CIA.
Contrary to our expectation, the prevalence of most symptoms did not clearly increase as chemotherapy progressed. There are several possible explanations to this phenomenon, with the most likely being related to reporting of anemia-related symptoms. For example, patients might stop reporting the same symptom repeatedly or become adjusted to the new Hb levels, leading to less symptom manifestation. Clinicians may also be less likely to ask about symptoms in later treatment cycles and/or to document chronic symptoms. Several symptoms were rarely documented altogether, such as cold intolerance, heat intolerance, heart failure, and vertigo. Symptoms reported in earlier cycles could also be managed successfully. Another possible explanation is differential loss of follow-up. Patients who experienced severe adverse events or symptoms may terminate treatment prematurely. Thus, symptom burden found toward later cycles may not represent the true symptom burden should everyone who initiated the chemotherapy treatment complete all planned cycles.
Limitations
In addition to the limitations already discussed, there are several others that should be considered when interpreting our results. We did not have a consistent measure of symptom severity in the medical records. Duration of symptoms was also often poorly documented by physicians. Therefore, our results are not directly comparable with studies such as the MDASI that incorporate severity or duration in their prevalence measure.
Despite the potential limitations, our study has several important strengths.
Conclusions
Our data provide physicians a comprehensive picture of prevalence of various types of symptoms and how symptom burden evolves as chemotherapy cycle and anemia severity progress. High-grade CIA correlates with an increased symptom burden.
1. Barrett-Lee PJ, Ludwig H, Birgegård G, et al. Independent risk factors for anemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: results from the European Cancer Anaemia Survey. Oncology. 2006;70(1):34-48.
2. Kitano T, Tada H, Nishimura T, et al. Prevalence and incidence of anemia in Japanese cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Int J Hematol. 2007;86(1):37-41.
3. Birgegård G, Aapro MS, Bokemeyer C, et al. Cancer-related anemia: pathogenesis, prevalence and treatment. Oncology. 2005;68(Suppl 1):3-11.
4. Harper P, Littlewood T. Anaemia of cancer: impact on patient fatigue and long-term outcome. Oncology. 2005;69(Suppl 2):2-7.
5. Nieboer P, Buijs C, Rodenhuis S, et al. Fatigue and relating factors in high-risk breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant standard or high-dose chemotherapy: a longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8296-8304.
6. Bremberg ER, Brandberg Y, Hising C, Friesland S, Eksborg S. Anemia and quality of life including anemia-related symptoms in patients with solid tumors in clinical practice. Med Oncol. 2007;24(1):95-102.
7. Hofman M, Ryan JL, Figueroa-Moseley CD, Jean-Pierre P, Morrow GR. Cancer-related fatigue: the scale of the problem. Oncologist. 2007;12(Suppl 1):4-10.
8. Cleeland CS. Symptom burden: multiple symptoms and their impact as patient-reported outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2007(37):16-21.
9. Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, Blendowski C, Kaplan E. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13(2):63-74.
10. Gabrilove JL, Perez EA, Tomita DK, Rossi G, Cleeland CS. Assessing symptom burden using the M. D. Anderson symptom inventory in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: results of a multicenter, open-label study (SURPASS) of patients treated with darbepoetin-alpha at a dose of 200 microg every 2 weeks. Cancer. 2007;110(7):1629-1640.
11. Cella D. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) scale: a new tool for the assessment of outcomes in cancer anemia and fatigue. Semin Hematol. 1997;34(3 Suppl 2):13-19.
12. Koebnick C, Langer-Gould AM, Gould MK, et al. Sociodemographic characteristics of members of a large, integrated health care system: comparison with US Census Bureau data. Perm J. 2012;16(3):37-41.
13. Groopman JE, Itri LM. Chemotherapy-induced anemia in adults: incidence and treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(19):1616-1634.
14. Gilreath JA, Stenehjem DD, Rodgers GM. Diagnosis and treatment of cancer-related anemia. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(2):203-212.
15. Rizzo JD, Somerfield MR, Hagerty KL, et al. Use of epoetin and darbepoetin in patients with cancer: 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(1):132-149.
16. Bohlius J, Tonia T, Nüesch E, et al. Effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms in cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analyses of published and unpublished data. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(1):33-45.
17. Maxwell MB. When the cancer patient becomes anemic. Cancer Nurs. 1984;7(4):321-326.
18. Reilly CM, Bruner DW, Mitchell SA, et al. A literature synthesis of symptom prevalence and severity in persons receiving active cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(6):1525-1550.
19. Crawford J, Cella D, Cleeland CS, et al. Relationship between changes in hemoglobin level and quality of life during chemotherapy in anemic cancer patients receiving epoetin alfa therapy. Cancer. 2002;95(4):888-895.
20. Mouysset JL, Freier B, van den Bosch J, et al. Hemoglobin levels and quality of life in patients with symptomatic chemotherapy-induced anemia: the eAQUA study. Cancer Manag Res. 2016;8:1-10.
21. Vansteenkiste J, Pirker R, Massuti B, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of darbepoetin alfa in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(16):1211-1220.
22. Kleinman L, Benjamin K, Viswanathan H, et al. The anemia impact measure (AIM): development and content validation of a patient-reported outcome measure of anemia symptoms and symptom impacts in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1255-1266.
Anemia is a common complication of cancer treatment as well as of cancer itself. Most cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy experience anemia sometime during their treatment course.1,2 Moderate to severe anemia is associated with an array of symptoms that are known to compromise the physical functioning and quality of life of cancer patients. Common anemia-related symptoms include fatigue, drowsiness, depression, dyspnea, tachycardia, and dizziness.1,3-7
Symptoms produced by cancer itself or the disease treatment (ie, side effects such as anemia) collectively compose a patient’s symptom burden.8 Although the occurrence of anemia-related fatigue has been described more systematically, other clinical presentations of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) are not well characterized. Furthermore, the overall symptom burdens associated with different ranges of hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations have also not been well reported. Although various tools have been developed to facilitate the reporting of fatigue and other symptoms experienced by patients with CIA, such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI),9-11 these questionnaires have not been extensively used outside of the research context. As such, knowledge on symptom burdens associated with CIA in real-world patient populations remains lacking.
Given the common occurrence of CIA, management of CIA and associated symptoms plays an important role to patients’ quality of life during cancer treatment. Symptom control is often the main goal for patients with stage IV cancers, as treatment for disease is most likely palliative or noncurative. To facilitate supportive care planning, it is important to understand patient symptom burdens as chemotherapy progresses over cycles and Hb levels decline. We conducted a comprehensive medical record review study in patients diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), breast cancer, and lung cancers at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large community-based health care delivery system. The objective of this study was to report the occurrence of CIA-related symptoms throughout the course of chemotherapy and by Hb levels.
Methods
Study setting and population
KPSC is an integrated managed-care organization that provides comprehensive health services for 4 million racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members who broadly represent the population in Southern California.12 The organization maintains electronic records of health care received by its members, including physician record notes and clinical databases such as laboratory test results, diagnosis codes, medical procedures, medication dispenses, and disease registries. KPSC’s cancer registry is Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, which is affiliated and routinely collects information on age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, cancer type, histology, and stage at diagnosis.
Patients who met the following inclusion criteria were included in this study: diagnosed with stage IV NHL, breast cancer, or lung cancer at age 18 years or older at KPSC between March 25, 2010 and December 31, 2012; initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy at KPSC before June 30, 2013 (only the first chemotherapy course was included in this evaluation); and had at least 1 Hb measurement during the course of chemotherapy. Of those who met the inclusion criteria, patients who met the following criteria were excluded if they had less than 12 months KPSC membership before start of chemotherapy, missing information on cancer stage or chemotherapy regimen/agents, a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome before chemotherapy initiation, a diagnosis of inherited anemia, an Hb concentration <10 g/L within 3 months before chemotherapy initiation, a transfusion within 2 weeks before chemotherapy initiation, radiation within 4 months before chemotherapy initiation, or bone marrow transplantation within 12 months before chemotherapy initiation or during the chemotherapy course. These exclusion criteria were applied to evaluate symptom burdens most likely related to CIA as opposed to other cancer treatment or pre-existing anemia.
CIA in this study was defined as moderate to severe anemia with Hb <10 g/dL after chemotherapy initiation. Based on this definition for CIA, all patients who developed CIA between the first chemotherapy administration to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy were included for the record review
Data collection
Data on anemia-related symptoms or signs and anemia-related comorbidities (Table 1) were collected by standardized review of physician record notes in the electronic medical records. A set of 24 anemia-related symptoms were identified based on the literature and clinical expertise and included abdominal pain, blurred vision/double vision/loss of vision, cold intolerance/coldness in hands or feet, depression/anxiety, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea/shortness of breath/tachypnea, edema, fatigue, headache, heart failure, heat intolerance, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, palpitations/tachycardia, paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities, pectoral angina/chest pain, sweating/diaphoresis, syncope, and vertigo. Record review period was defined as 1 month before chemotherapy to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy in the first course. To understand the development of new symptoms during chemotherapy treatment, pre-existing symptoms documented within 1 month before chemotherapy initiation were recorded.
The data elements extracted included the date the symptom was documented, date the symptom started, symptom duration (when available), and any relevant comments regarding the symptom (ie, if dyspnea was at rest or on exertion, whether the symptom was a side effect caused by chemotherapy, or change in symptom severity). Ten percent of the records were reviewed independently by 2 abstractors to ensure quality control. Additional quality control measures included SAS algorithms (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to check reasonability and logical consistency in the abstracted data.
Patient demographic characteristics, cancer stage, additional selected comorbidities (Table 1), chemotherapy information, Hb test results, and anemia treatment, including erythrocyte stimulating agent (ESA) use and red blood cell transfusion, were collected using KPSC’s cancer registry and clinical databases. Anemia was defined by severity as grade 1 (10 g/dL to lower limit of normal, ie, 14 g/dL for men and 12 g/dL for women), grade 2 (8.0-9.9 g/dL), grade 3 (6.5-7.9 g/dL), and grade 4 (<6.5 g/dL) following the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.13
Statistical analysis
Distributions of demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were calculated by CIA status, overall and by cancer type. Differences between patients who did and did not develop CIA were assessed using chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. For those who developed CIA, the distribution of the worst anemia grade was also calculated for each cycle of chemotherapy.
Next, the distributions for the following symptom categories were calculated in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status: pre-existing symptoms that occurred before chemotherapy, any symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, whether they started before chemotherapy), and incident symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, new symptoms that only started after chemotherapy). Specifically, the proportion of patients with each individual symptom and the distribution of the number of symptoms per patient were calculated. Differences in symptom distribution by CIA status were assessed using chi-square test.
The distribution of symptoms in each chemotherapy cycle was calculated up to 6 chemotherapy cycles (as >80% of the patients only had treatment up to 6 cycles) in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status. For this analysis, a symptom was “mapped” to a cycle if the date (or date range) of the symptom fell within the date range of that chemotherapy cycle. In patients who developed CIA, the distribution of symptoms was also calculated by anemia grade. This was again done on the chemotherapy cycle level. For each chemotherapy cycle, an anemia grade was assigned (no anemia or anemia grade 1, 2, 3, and 4) using the lowest Hb measurement in that cycle. Symptoms that occurred in a chemotherapy cycle were then “mapped” to the anemia grade of that cycle. Some patients had more than 1 anemia event of the same grade (eg, if a patient’s grade 2 anemia persist across cycles). For these patients, we randomly selected only 1 anemia event of the same grade from each patient to be included in this analysis. Patients could still contribute multiple events of different grades to this analysis. We calculated the mean number of symptoms per patient for each anemia grade (ie, 1-4) separately. Because of the small number of patients who developed grade 4 anemia (n = 11), they were combined with the grade 3 patients when the distributions of individual symptoms were evaluated.
All analyses were repeated stratified by gender. P values for differences between men and women were calculated using chi-square test or t test. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3.
Results
A total of 402 stage IV NHL, breast, and lung cancer patients who developed CIA and 98 patients who did not develop CIA during the first course of chemotherapy were included (Figure 1).
The distribution of cancer types in the study sample were similar across CIA status (Table 1). The mean age at diagnosis was 66 years in patients who developed CIA and 62 years in patients who did not develop CIA. Women accounted for half of the patients in both study samples (52% and 51%, respectively). Most of the study patients were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema and gastroesophageal reflux disease were among the most common comorbidities examined in both study samples, while malnutrition and moderate to severe renal disease were also common in patients who developed CIA (Table 1).
The mean Hb level before chemotherapy was lower for patients who developed CIA compared with patients who did not develop CIA (12.3 g/dL and 13.5 g/dL, respectively; Table 1). The mean lowest Hb level during chemotherapy was 8.5 g/dL for patients who developed CIA and 11.4 g/dL for patients without CIA (Table 1). The number of anemia events by grade in each chemotherapy cycle in patients who developed CIA is shown in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the number and proportion of study patients with each of the symptoms documented before and after chemotherapy initiation for the 2 study samples. Patients who developed CIA had statistically significantly more pre-existing symptoms, incident symptoms, or any symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy compared with patients who did not develop CIA.
Table 4 shows the number and proportion of study patients with symptoms that occurred during each chemotherapy cycle. Again, fatigue is the predominant symptom documented throughout cycles for all patients. In patients who developed CIA, the proportion of patients experiencing the following symptoms was relatively stable across chemotherapy cycles: depression/anxiety, dizziness/lightheadedness, fatigue, pale skin, and sweating. The proportion of patients experiencing paralysis/ataxia/numbness/tingling in extremities increased over cycles. For headache, loss of appetite, hypotension, and nausea/vomiting, the proportion of patients with symptom documentation was highest in cycle 1, stabilizing in subsequent cycles (Table 4). In patients without CIA, the cycle-level prevalence of most of the symptoms did not increase over cycles, except for paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities. For insomnia, loss of appetite, and nausea/vomiting, the cycle-level prevalence dropped after the first cycle. There was no clear increasing trend of the mean number of symptoms per patient across chemotherapy cycles in both study samples (Table 4).
Table 5 shows the distribution of symptoms by anemia grade in patients who developed CIA. In general, the prevalence of symptoms increased with higher grades of anemia. The following symptoms especially have a clear increase in prevalence as the severity of anemia progressed: abdominal pain, depression, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, heart failure, headache, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, pale skin, palpitations, pectoral angina, and sweating. The mean number of symptoms per patient increased as CIA grade increased, from 3.6 (SD, 2.9) for grade 2 CIA to 5.4 (SD, 3.5) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (specifically, 5.3 [SD, 3.4] for grade 3 CIA and 6.4 [SD, 4.1] for grade 4 CIA; data not shown) (Table 5).
When stratified by gender, there are no material differences between men and women in most analyses. In men, the mean number of pre-existing symptoms was 1.7 (SD, 1.8) and 1.0 (SD, 1.2) for those with and without CIA, respectively (P = .02). The mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was 7.0 (SD, 3.4) and 4.2 (SD, 2.4), respectively (P < .01). In women, the mean number of pre-existing symptoms was not statistically different in those with and without CIA (1.6 [SD, 2.2] and 1.3 [SD, 1.8], respectively; P = .46). However, like in men, the mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was significantly more in those with CIA (6.5 [SD, 3.3] and 4.0 [SD, 2.9], respectively; P < .01). As in the overall analysis, there was no clear increasing trend of the number of symptoms per patients across chemotherapy cycles in both men and women, but the average number of symptoms increased as the CIA grade increased. For men, the mean number of symptoms per patient increased from 3.7 (SD, 3.0) for grade 2 CIA to 6.0 (SD, 3.5) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (data not shown). For women, the mean number of symptoms per patient increased from 3.6 (SD, 2.9) for grade 2 CIA to 4.7 (SD, 3.3) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (data not shown).
Discussion
In this study, we described the number and type of symptoms documented in the medical record notes among stage IV NHL, breast cancer, and lung cancer patients who did or did not develop CIA during chemotherapy.
Our findings on the prevalence of fatigue are in line with other studies in the literature. Maxwell reported that the prevalence of fatigue was 80% to 96% in cancer patients.17 Cella and colleagues found that using FACT-General questionnaire, 75% of cancer patients reported fatigue.11 The comparability of our estimate and those found in studies based on patient self-report offered some assurance of the validity of assessing symptom prevalence through physician record notes. In addition to fatigue, we described prevalence of 23 additional symptoms, most of which have not been extensively studied in the literature. Gabrilove and colleagues found that a substantial proportion of patients with CIA had moderate to severe score for lack of appetite (36%) and disturbed sleep (41%) using the MDASI.10 The prevalence of loss of appetite and insomnia was around 50% and 25%, respectively, in our study samples. A 2013 systematic review of 21 multinational studies reported the pooled prevalence of several nonfatigue symptoms in cancer patients including headache (23%), sleep disturbance/insomnia (49%), appetite changes (45%), nausea/vomiting (26%), diarrhea (15%), depression (34%), dyspnea (44%), dizziness (26%), numbness/tingling (42%), edema (14%), and sweating (28%).18 Our prevalence estimates in patients with CIA for most of these symptoms were higher, likely because Reilly and colleagues used source studies that included any cancer patients undergoing treatment and not just those with CIA. Our findings on the increased symptom burden in patients who experienced episodes of advanced anemia compared with patients with mild anemia were also consistent with the literature. To this end, several studies using MDASI or the FACT-An reported differential symptom burdens by Hb level based on patient self-report,10,11,19 including data on improvement in symptom burden and quality of life after anemia was amended with the use of ESA.20,21
We found that the number of pre-existing symptoms was significantly higher in patients who went on to develop CIA than in patients who did not develop CIA. Specifically, fatigue, loss of appetite, and pale skin before chemotherapy seemed to be significantly more common in patients who went on to develop CIA. This finding suggested that presentation of these symptoms before chemotherapy initiation may be a predictor for developing moderate or severe anemia during treatment. This is a novel hypothesis, as no studies have evaluated the relationship between pretreatment symptom and risk of CIA. However, our study was not designed to address this specific question. Additional investigation is needed to further shed light on whether the occurrence of anemia-related symptoms in nonanemic patients can be used to effectively risk-stratify patients for subsequent CIA.
Contrary to our expectation, the prevalence of most symptoms did not clearly increase as chemotherapy progressed. There are several possible explanations to this phenomenon, with the most likely being related to reporting of anemia-related symptoms. For example, patients might stop reporting the same symptom repeatedly or become adjusted to the new Hb levels, leading to less symptom manifestation. Clinicians may also be less likely to ask about symptoms in later treatment cycles and/or to document chronic symptoms. Several symptoms were rarely documented altogether, such as cold intolerance, heat intolerance, heart failure, and vertigo. Symptoms reported in earlier cycles could also be managed successfully. Another possible explanation is differential loss of follow-up. Patients who experienced severe adverse events or symptoms may terminate treatment prematurely. Thus, symptom burden found toward later cycles may not represent the true symptom burden should everyone who initiated the chemotherapy treatment complete all planned cycles.
Limitations
In addition to the limitations already discussed, there are several others that should be considered when interpreting our results. We did not have a consistent measure of symptom severity in the medical records. Duration of symptoms was also often poorly documented by physicians. Therefore, our results are not directly comparable with studies such as the MDASI that incorporate severity or duration in their prevalence measure.
Despite the potential limitations, our study has several important strengths.
Conclusions
Our data provide physicians a comprehensive picture of prevalence of various types of symptoms and how symptom burden evolves as chemotherapy cycle and anemia severity progress. High-grade CIA correlates with an increased symptom burden.
Anemia is a common complication of cancer treatment as well as of cancer itself. Most cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy experience anemia sometime during their treatment course.1,2 Moderate to severe anemia is associated with an array of symptoms that are known to compromise the physical functioning and quality of life of cancer patients. Common anemia-related symptoms include fatigue, drowsiness, depression, dyspnea, tachycardia, and dizziness.1,3-7
Symptoms produced by cancer itself or the disease treatment (ie, side effects such as anemia) collectively compose a patient’s symptom burden.8 Although the occurrence of anemia-related fatigue has been described more systematically, other clinical presentations of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) are not well characterized. Furthermore, the overall symptom burdens associated with different ranges of hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations have also not been well reported. Although various tools have been developed to facilitate the reporting of fatigue and other symptoms experienced by patients with CIA, such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI),9-11 these questionnaires have not been extensively used outside of the research context. As such, knowledge on symptom burdens associated with CIA in real-world patient populations remains lacking.
Given the common occurrence of CIA, management of CIA and associated symptoms plays an important role to patients’ quality of life during cancer treatment. Symptom control is often the main goal for patients with stage IV cancers, as treatment for disease is most likely palliative or noncurative. To facilitate supportive care planning, it is important to understand patient symptom burdens as chemotherapy progresses over cycles and Hb levels decline. We conducted a comprehensive medical record review study in patients diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), breast cancer, and lung cancers at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large community-based health care delivery system. The objective of this study was to report the occurrence of CIA-related symptoms throughout the course of chemotherapy and by Hb levels.
Methods
Study setting and population
KPSC is an integrated managed-care organization that provides comprehensive health services for 4 million racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members who broadly represent the population in Southern California.12 The organization maintains electronic records of health care received by its members, including physician record notes and clinical databases such as laboratory test results, diagnosis codes, medical procedures, medication dispenses, and disease registries. KPSC’s cancer registry is Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, which is affiliated and routinely collects information on age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, cancer type, histology, and stage at diagnosis.
Patients who met the following inclusion criteria were included in this study: diagnosed with stage IV NHL, breast cancer, or lung cancer at age 18 years or older at KPSC between March 25, 2010 and December 31, 2012; initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy at KPSC before June 30, 2013 (only the first chemotherapy course was included in this evaluation); and had at least 1 Hb measurement during the course of chemotherapy. Of those who met the inclusion criteria, patients who met the following criteria were excluded if they had less than 12 months KPSC membership before start of chemotherapy, missing information on cancer stage or chemotherapy regimen/agents, a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome before chemotherapy initiation, a diagnosis of inherited anemia, an Hb concentration <10 g/L within 3 months before chemotherapy initiation, a transfusion within 2 weeks before chemotherapy initiation, radiation within 4 months before chemotherapy initiation, or bone marrow transplantation within 12 months before chemotherapy initiation or during the chemotherapy course. These exclusion criteria were applied to evaluate symptom burdens most likely related to CIA as opposed to other cancer treatment or pre-existing anemia.
CIA in this study was defined as moderate to severe anemia with Hb <10 g/dL after chemotherapy initiation. Based on this definition for CIA, all patients who developed CIA between the first chemotherapy administration to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy were included for the record review
Data collection
Data on anemia-related symptoms or signs and anemia-related comorbidities (Table 1) were collected by standardized review of physician record notes in the electronic medical records. A set of 24 anemia-related symptoms were identified based on the literature and clinical expertise and included abdominal pain, blurred vision/double vision/loss of vision, cold intolerance/coldness in hands or feet, depression/anxiety, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea/shortness of breath/tachypnea, edema, fatigue, headache, heart failure, heat intolerance, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, palpitations/tachycardia, paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities, pectoral angina/chest pain, sweating/diaphoresis, syncope, and vertigo. Record review period was defined as 1 month before chemotherapy to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy in the first course. To understand the development of new symptoms during chemotherapy treatment, pre-existing symptoms documented within 1 month before chemotherapy initiation were recorded.
The data elements extracted included the date the symptom was documented, date the symptom started, symptom duration (when available), and any relevant comments regarding the symptom (ie, if dyspnea was at rest or on exertion, whether the symptom was a side effect caused by chemotherapy, or change in symptom severity). Ten percent of the records were reviewed independently by 2 abstractors to ensure quality control. Additional quality control measures included SAS algorithms (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to check reasonability and logical consistency in the abstracted data.
Patient demographic characteristics, cancer stage, additional selected comorbidities (Table 1), chemotherapy information, Hb test results, and anemia treatment, including erythrocyte stimulating agent (ESA) use and red blood cell transfusion, were collected using KPSC’s cancer registry and clinical databases. Anemia was defined by severity as grade 1 (10 g/dL to lower limit of normal, ie, 14 g/dL for men and 12 g/dL for women), grade 2 (8.0-9.9 g/dL), grade 3 (6.5-7.9 g/dL), and grade 4 (<6.5 g/dL) following the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.13
Statistical analysis
Distributions of demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were calculated by CIA status, overall and by cancer type. Differences between patients who did and did not develop CIA were assessed using chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. For those who developed CIA, the distribution of the worst anemia grade was also calculated for each cycle of chemotherapy.
Next, the distributions for the following symptom categories were calculated in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status: pre-existing symptoms that occurred before chemotherapy, any symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, whether they started before chemotherapy), and incident symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, new symptoms that only started after chemotherapy). Specifically, the proportion of patients with each individual symptom and the distribution of the number of symptoms per patient were calculated. Differences in symptom distribution by CIA status were assessed using chi-square test.
The distribution of symptoms in each chemotherapy cycle was calculated up to 6 chemotherapy cycles (as >80% of the patients only had treatment up to 6 cycles) in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status. For this analysis, a symptom was “mapped” to a cycle if the date (or date range) of the symptom fell within the date range of that chemotherapy cycle. In patients who developed CIA, the distribution of symptoms was also calculated by anemia grade. This was again done on the chemotherapy cycle level. For each chemotherapy cycle, an anemia grade was assigned (no anemia or anemia grade 1, 2, 3, and 4) using the lowest Hb measurement in that cycle. Symptoms that occurred in a chemotherapy cycle were then “mapped” to the anemia grade of that cycle. Some patients had more than 1 anemia event of the same grade (eg, if a patient’s grade 2 anemia persist across cycles). For these patients, we randomly selected only 1 anemia event of the same grade from each patient to be included in this analysis. Patients could still contribute multiple events of different grades to this analysis. We calculated the mean number of symptoms per patient for each anemia grade (ie, 1-4) separately. Because of the small number of patients who developed grade 4 anemia (n = 11), they were combined with the grade 3 patients when the distributions of individual symptoms were evaluated.
All analyses were repeated stratified by gender. P values for differences between men and women were calculated using chi-square test or t test. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3.
Results
A total of 402 stage IV NHL, breast, and lung cancer patients who developed CIA and 98 patients who did not develop CIA during the first course of chemotherapy were included (Figure 1).
The distribution of cancer types in the study sample were similar across CIA status (Table 1). The mean age at diagnosis was 66 years in patients who developed CIA and 62 years in patients who did not develop CIA. Women accounted for half of the patients in both study samples (52% and 51%, respectively). Most of the study patients were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema and gastroesophageal reflux disease were among the most common comorbidities examined in both study samples, while malnutrition and moderate to severe renal disease were also common in patients who developed CIA (Table 1).
The mean Hb level before chemotherapy was lower for patients who developed CIA compared with patients who did not develop CIA (12.3 g/dL and 13.5 g/dL, respectively; Table 1). The mean lowest Hb level during chemotherapy was 8.5 g/dL for patients who developed CIA and 11.4 g/dL for patients without CIA (Table 1). The number of anemia events by grade in each chemotherapy cycle in patients who developed CIA is shown in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the number and proportion of study patients with each of the symptoms documented before and after chemotherapy initiation for the 2 study samples. Patients who developed CIA had statistically significantly more pre-existing symptoms, incident symptoms, or any symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy compared with patients who did not develop CIA.
Table 4 shows the number and proportion of study patients with symptoms that occurred during each chemotherapy cycle. Again, fatigue is the predominant symptom documented throughout cycles for all patients. In patients who developed CIA, the proportion of patients experiencing the following symptoms was relatively stable across chemotherapy cycles: depression/anxiety, dizziness/lightheadedness, fatigue, pale skin, and sweating. The proportion of patients experiencing paralysis/ataxia/numbness/tingling in extremities increased over cycles. For headache, loss of appetite, hypotension, and nausea/vomiting, the proportion of patients with symptom documentation was highest in cycle 1, stabilizing in subsequent cycles (Table 4). In patients without CIA, the cycle-level prevalence of most of the symptoms did not increase over cycles, except for paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities. For insomnia, loss of appetite, and nausea/vomiting, the cycle-level prevalence dropped after the first cycle. There was no clear increasing trend of the mean number of symptoms per patient across chemotherapy cycles in both study samples (Table 4).
Table 5 shows the distribution of symptoms by anemia grade in patients who developed CIA. In general, the prevalence of symptoms increased with higher grades of anemia. The following symptoms especially have a clear increase in prevalence as the severity of anemia progressed: abdominal pain, depression, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, heart failure, headache, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, pale skin, palpitations, pectoral angina, and sweating. The mean number of symptoms per patient increased as CIA grade increased, from 3.6 (SD, 2.9) for grade 2 CIA to 5.4 (SD, 3.5) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (specifically, 5.3 [SD, 3.4] for grade 3 CIA and 6.4 [SD, 4.1] for grade 4 CIA; data not shown) (Table 5).
When stratified by gender, there are no material differences between men and women in most analyses. In men, the mean number of pre-existing symptoms was 1.7 (SD, 1.8) and 1.0 (SD, 1.2) for those with and without CIA, respectively (P = .02). The mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was 7.0 (SD, 3.4) and 4.2 (SD, 2.4), respectively (P < .01). In women, the mean number of pre-existing symptoms was not statistically different in those with and without CIA (1.6 [SD, 2.2] and 1.3 [SD, 1.8], respectively; P = .46). However, like in men, the mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was significantly more in those with CIA (6.5 [SD, 3.3] and 4.0 [SD, 2.9], respectively; P < .01). As in the overall analysis, there was no clear increasing trend of the number of symptoms per patients across chemotherapy cycles in both men and women, but the average number of symptoms increased as the CIA grade increased. For men, the mean number of symptoms per patient increased from 3.7 (SD, 3.0) for grade 2 CIA to 6.0 (SD, 3.5) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (data not shown). For women, the mean number of symptoms per patient increased from 3.6 (SD, 2.9) for grade 2 CIA to 4.7 (SD, 3.3) for grades 3 and 4 CIA (data not shown).
Discussion
In this study, we described the number and type of symptoms documented in the medical record notes among stage IV NHL, breast cancer, and lung cancer patients who did or did not develop CIA during chemotherapy.
Our findings on the prevalence of fatigue are in line with other studies in the literature. Maxwell reported that the prevalence of fatigue was 80% to 96% in cancer patients.17 Cella and colleagues found that using FACT-General questionnaire, 75% of cancer patients reported fatigue.11 The comparability of our estimate and those found in studies based on patient self-report offered some assurance of the validity of assessing symptom prevalence through physician record notes. In addition to fatigue, we described prevalence of 23 additional symptoms, most of which have not been extensively studied in the literature. Gabrilove and colleagues found that a substantial proportion of patients with CIA had moderate to severe score for lack of appetite (36%) and disturbed sleep (41%) using the MDASI.10 The prevalence of loss of appetite and insomnia was around 50% and 25%, respectively, in our study samples. A 2013 systematic review of 21 multinational studies reported the pooled prevalence of several nonfatigue symptoms in cancer patients including headache (23%), sleep disturbance/insomnia (49%), appetite changes (45%), nausea/vomiting (26%), diarrhea (15%), depression (34%), dyspnea (44%), dizziness (26%), numbness/tingling (42%), edema (14%), and sweating (28%).18 Our prevalence estimates in patients with CIA for most of these symptoms were higher, likely because Reilly and colleagues used source studies that included any cancer patients undergoing treatment and not just those with CIA. Our findings on the increased symptom burden in patients who experienced episodes of advanced anemia compared with patients with mild anemia were also consistent with the literature. To this end, several studies using MDASI or the FACT-An reported differential symptom burdens by Hb level based on patient self-report,10,11,19 including data on improvement in symptom burden and quality of life after anemia was amended with the use of ESA.20,21
We found that the number of pre-existing symptoms was significantly higher in patients who went on to develop CIA than in patients who did not develop CIA. Specifically, fatigue, loss of appetite, and pale skin before chemotherapy seemed to be significantly more common in patients who went on to develop CIA. This finding suggested that presentation of these symptoms before chemotherapy initiation may be a predictor for developing moderate or severe anemia during treatment. This is a novel hypothesis, as no studies have evaluated the relationship between pretreatment symptom and risk of CIA. However, our study was not designed to address this specific question. Additional investigation is needed to further shed light on whether the occurrence of anemia-related symptoms in nonanemic patients can be used to effectively risk-stratify patients for subsequent CIA.
Contrary to our expectation, the prevalence of most symptoms did not clearly increase as chemotherapy progressed. There are several possible explanations to this phenomenon, with the most likely being related to reporting of anemia-related symptoms. For example, patients might stop reporting the same symptom repeatedly or become adjusted to the new Hb levels, leading to less symptom manifestation. Clinicians may also be less likely to ask about symptoms in later treatment cycles and/or to document chronic symptoms. Several symptoms were rarely documented altogether, such as cold intolerance, heat intolerance, heart failure, and vertigo. Symptoms reported in earlier cycles could also be managed successfully. Another possible explanation is differential loss of follow-up. Patients who experienced severe adverse events or symptoms may terminate treatment prematurely. Thus, symptom burden found toward later cycles may not represent the true symptom burden should everyone who initiated the chemotherapy treatment complete all planned cycles.
Limitations
In addition to the limitations already discussed, there are several others that should be considered when interpreting our results. We did not have a consistent measure of symptom severity in the medical records. Duration of symptoms was also often poorly documented by physicians. Therefore, our results are not directly comparable with studies such as the MDASI that incorporate severity or duration in their prevalence measure.
Despite the potential limitations, our study has several important strengths.
Conclusions
Our data provide physicians a comprehensive picture of prevalence of various types of symptoms and how symptom burden evolves as chemotherapy cycle and anemia severity progress. High-grade CIA correlates with an increased symptom burden.
1. Barrett-Lee PJ, Ludwig H, Birgegård G, et al. Independent risk factors for anemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: results from the European Cancer Anaemia Survey. Oncology. 2006;70(1):34-48.
2. Kitano T, Tada H, Nishimura T, et al. Prevalence and incidence of anemia in Japanese cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Int J Hematol. 2007;86(1):37-41.
3. Birgegård G, Aapro MS, Bokemeyer C, et al. Cancer-related anemia: pathogenesis, prevalence and treatment. Oncology. 2005;68(Suppl 1):3-11.
4. Harper P, Littlewood T. Anaemia of cancer: impact on patient fatigue and long-term outcome. Oncology. 2005;69(Suppl 2):2-7.
5. Nieboer P, Buijs C, Rodenhuis S, et al. Fatigue and relating factors in high-risk breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant standard or high-dose chemotherapy: a longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8296-8304.
6. Bremberg ER, Brandberg Y, Hising C, Friesland S, Eksborg S. Anemia and quality of life including anemia-related symptoms in patients with solid tumors in clinical practice. Med Oncol. 2007;24(1):95-102.
7. Hofman M, Ryan JL, Figueroa-Moseley CD, Jean-Pierre P, Morrow GR. Cancer-related fatigue: the scale of the problem. Oncologist. 2007;12(Suppl 1):4-10.
8. Cleeland CS. Symptom burden: multiple symptoms and their impact as patient-reported outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2007(37):16-21.
9. Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, Blendowski C, Kaplan E. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13(2):63-74.
10. Gabrilove JL, Perez EA, Tomita DK, Rossi G, Cleeland CS. Assessing symptom burden using the M. D. Anderson symptom inventory in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: results of a multicenter, open-label study (SURPASS) of patients treated with darbepoetin-alpha at a dose of 200 microg every 2 weeks. Cancer. 2007;110(7):1629-1640.
11. Cella D. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) scale: a new tool for the assessment of outcomes in cancer anemia and fatigue. Semin Hematol. 1997;34(3 Suppl 2):13-19.
12. Koebnick C, Langer-Gould AM, Gould MK, et al. Sociodemographic characteristics of members of a large, integrated health care system: comparison with US Census Bureau data. Perm J. 2012;16(3):37-41.
13. Groopman JE, Itri LM. Chemotherapy-induced anemia in adults: incidence and treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(19):1616-1634.
14. Gilreath JA, Stenehjem DD, Rodgers GM. Diagnosis and treatment of cancer-related anemia. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(2):203-212.
15. Rizzo JD, Somerfield MR, Hagerty KL, et al. Use of epoetin and darbepoetin in patients with cancer: 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(1):132-149.
16. Bohlius J, Tonia T, Nüesch E, et al. Effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms in cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analyses of published and unpublished data. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(1):33-45.
17. Maxwell MB. When the cancer patient becomes anemic. Cancer Nurs. 1984;7(4):321-326.
18. Reilly CM, Bruner DW, Mitchell SA, et al. A literature synthesis of symptom prevalence and severity in persons receiving active cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(6):1525-1550.
19. Crawford J, Cella D, Cleeland CS, et al. Relationship between changes in hemoglobin level and quality of life during chemotherapy in anemic cancer patients receiving epoetin alfa therapy. Cancer. 2002;95(4):888-895.
20. Mouysset JL, Freier B, van den Bosch J, et al. Hemoglobin levels and quality of life in patients with symptomatic chemotherapy-induced anemia: the eAQUA study. Cancer Manag Res. 2016;8:1-10.
21. Vansteenkiste J, Pirker R, Massuti B, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of darbepoetin alfa in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(16):1211-1220.
22. Kleinman L, Benjamin K, Viswanathan H, et al. The anemia impact measure (AIM): development and content validation of a patient-reported outcome measure of anemia symptoms and symptom impacts in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1255-1266.
1. Barrett-Lee PJ, Ludwig H, Birgegård G, et al. Independent risk factors for anemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: results from the European Cancer Anaemia Survey. Oncology. 2006;70(1):34-48.
2. Kitano T, Tada H, Nishimura T, et al. Prevalence and incidence of anemia in Japanese cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Int J Hematol. 2007;86(1):37-41.
3. Birgegård G, Aapro MS, Bokemeyer C, et al. Cancer-related anemia: pathogenesis, prevalence and treatment. Oncology. 2005;68(Suppl 1):3-11.
4. Harper P, Littlewood T. Anaemia of cancer: impact on patient fatigue and long-term outcome. Oncology. 2005;69(Suppl 2):2-7.
5. Nieboer P, Buijs C, Rodenhuis S, et al. Fatigue and relating factors in high-risk breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant standard or high-dose chemotherapy: a longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8296-8304.
6. Bremberg ER, Brandberg Y, Hising C, Friesland S, Eksborg S. Anemia and quality of life including anemia-related symptoms in patients with solid tumors in clinical practice. Med Oncol. 2007;24(1):95-102.
7. Hofman M, Ryan JL, Figueroa-Moseley CD, Jean-Pierre P, Morrow GR. Cancer-related fatigue: the scale of the problem. Oncologist. 2007;12(Suppl 1):4-10.
8. Cleeland CS. Symptom burden: multiple symptoms and their impact as patient-reported outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2007(37):16-21.
9. Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, Blendowski C, Kaplan E. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13(2):63-74.
10. Gabrilove JL, Perez EA, Tomita DK, Rossi G, Cleeland CS. Assessing symptom burden using the M. D. Anderson symptom inventory in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: results of a multicenter, open-label study (SURPASS) of patients treated with darbepoetin-alpha at a dose of 200 microg every 2 weeks. Cancer. 2007;110(7):1629-1640.
11. Cella D. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) scale: a new tool for the assessment of outcomes in cancer anemia and fatigue. Semin Hematol. 1997;34(3 Suppl 2):13-19.
12. Koebnick C, Langer-Gould AM, Gould MK, et al. Sociodemographic characteristics of members of a large, integrated health care system: comparison with US Census Bureau data. Perm J. 2012;16(3):37-41.
13. Groopman JE, Itri LM. Chemotherapy-induced anemia in adults: incidence and treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(19):1616-1634.
14. Gilreath JA, Stenehjem DD, Rodgers GM. Diagnosis and treatment of cancer-related anemia. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(2):203-212.
15. Rizzo JD, Somerfield MR, Hagerty KL, et al. Use of epoetin and darbepoetin in patients with cancer: 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(1):132-149.
16. Bohlius J, Tonia T, Nüesch E, et al. Effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms in cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analyses of published and unpublished data. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(1):33-45.
17. Maxwell MB. When the cancer patient becomes anemic. Cancer Nurs. 1984;7(4):321-326.
18. Reilly CM, Bruner DW, Mitchell SA, et al. A literature synthesis of symptom prevalence and severity in persons receiving active cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(6):1525-1550.
19. Crawford J, Cella D, Cleeland CS, et al. Relationship between changes in hemoglobin level and quality of life during chemotherapy in anemic cancer patients receiving epoetin alfa therapy. Cancer. 2002;95(4):888-895.
20. Mouysset JL, Freier B, van den Bosch J, et al. Hemoglobin levels and quality of life in patients with symptomatic chemotherapy-induced anemia: the eAQUA study. Cancer Manag Res. 2016;8:1-10.
21. Vansteenkiste J, Pirker R, Massuti B, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of darbepoetin alfa in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(16):1211-1220.
22. Kleinman L, Benjamin K, Viswanathan H, et al. The anemia impact measure (AIM): development and content validation of a patient-reported outcome measure of anemia symptoms and symptom impacts in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1255-1266.
All-or-none approach boosts adherence to stroke treatments
CHICAGO – Stroke patients in low to middle income care settings may frequently fail to get timely evidence-based treatments when they’re admitted to the hospital and even when they’re discharged, but a large South American study found that an “all-or-none” approach to a multistep quality-improvement program led to a significant increase in therapy adherence and smoking cessation. The results were reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“A multifaceted quality-improvement intervention did not result in a significant increase in the composite adherence score for evidence-based therapies in patients with acute ischemic stroke [AIS] or transient ischemic attack [TIA],” said M. Julia Machline-Carrion, MD, PhD, principal investigator of the BRIDGE-Stroke study and a cardiologist at the Hospital for Heart in São Paulo. “However, when using a more conservative ‘all-or-none’ approach of complete adherence, the intervention resulted in improved adherence to evidence-based therapies.”
The quality-improvement program also resulted in a significant increase in the use of thrombolysis and uptake in smoking cessation education by study participants, Dr. Machline-Carrion added.
The study randomized 1,624 patients with AIS or TIA to the multifaceted quality-improvement intervention or routine practice. The intervention consisted of a patient identification system (wristband and printed reminders), a therapeutic plan road map and checklist, case management, educational materials, interactive workshops, and periodic audit and feedback reports to each participating cluster. Colored wristbands were to help promptly identify AIS or TIA patients in the emergency department and other departments they may have been sent to later on, such as the ICU, to avoid delays in initiating recommended therapies.
On average, the composite adherence score was 85.3% for those in the intervention group vs. 77.8% for controls, Dr. Machline-Carrion said. The composite adherence score consisted of 10 quality measures, ranging from early antithrombotics and prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis to anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or flutter, and smoking cessation education. “There was no statistically significant difference in the composite adherence score between the intervention group and the usual-care group,” she said.
However, when the researchers applied the all-or-none model – that is, complete adherence to all 10 in-hospital quality measures – the results were strikingly different, Dr. Machline-Carrion said. “Patients in the intervention group were more likely to receive all eligible therapies,” she said: 49.2% vs. 25.3%.
“Despite the established efficacy of several interventions for the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack, the uptake of evidence-based measures remains suboptimal, especially in low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Machline-Carrion said.
The BRIDGE-Stroke study involved 36 hospitals in Brazil, Argentina, and Peru with full emergency department coverage, central nervous system imaging, and access to recombinant tissue plasminogen activator therapies.
Dr. Machline-Carrion disclosed financial relationships with Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim. The Brazil Ministry of Health was the lead sponsor of the study.
SOURCE: Machline-Carrion MJ et al. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 19361.
CHICAGO – Stroke patients in low to middle income care settings may frequently fail to get timely evidence-based treatments when they’re admitted to the hospital and even when they’re discharged, but a large South American study found that an “all-or-none” approach to a multistep quality-improvement program led to a significant increase in therapy adherence and smoking cessation. The results were reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“A multifaceted quality-improvement intervention did not result in a significant increase in the composite adherence score for evidence-based therapies in patients with acute ischemic stroke [AIS] or transient ischemic attack [TIA],” said M. Julia Machline-Carrion, MD, PhD, principal investigator of the BRIDGE-Stroke study and a cardiologist at the Hospital for Heart in São Paulo. “However, when using a more conservative ‘all-or-none’ approach of complete adherence, the intervention resulted in improved adherence to evidence-based therapies.”
The quality-improvement program also resulted in a significant increase in the use of thrombolysis and uptake in smoking cessation education by study participants, Dr. Machline-Carrion added.
The study randomized 1,624 patients with AIS or TIA to the multifaceted quality-improvement intervention or routine practice. The intervention consisted of a patient identification system (wristband and printed reminders), a therapeutic plan road map and checklist, case management, educational materials, interactive workshops, and periodic audit and feedback reports to each participating cluster. Colored wristbands were to help promptly identify AIS or TIA patients in the emergency department and other departments they may have been sent to later on, such as the ICU, to avoid delays in initiating recommended therapies.
On average, the composite adherence score was 85.3% for those in the intervention group vs. 77.8% for controls, Dr. Machline-Carrion said. The composite adherence score consisted of 10 quality measures, ranging from early antithrombotics and prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis to anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or flutter, and smoking cessation education. “There was no statistically significant difference in the composite adherence score between the intervention group and the usual-care group,” she said.
However, when the researchers applied the all-or-none model – that is, complete adherence to all 10 in-hospital quality measures – the results were strikingly different, Dr. Machline-Carrion said. “Patients in the intervention group were more likely to receive all eligible therapies,” she said: 49.2% vs. 25.3%.
“Despite the established efficacy of several interventions for the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack, the uptake of evidence-based measures remains suboptimal, especially in low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Machline-Carrion said.
The BRIDGE-Stroke study involved 36 hospitals in Brazil, Argentina, and Peru with full emergency department coverage, central nervous system imaging, and access to recombinant tissue plasminogen activator therapies.
Dr. Machline-Carrion disclosed financial relationships with Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim. The Brazil Ministry of Health was the lead sponsor of the study.
SOURCE: Machline-Carrion MJ et al. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 19361.
CHICAGO – Stroke patients in low to middle income care settings may frequently fail to get timely evidence-based treatments when they’re admitted to the hospital and even when they’re discharged, but a large South American study found that an “all-or-none” approach to a multistep quality-improvement program led to a significant increase in therapy adherence and smoking cessation. The results were reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“A multifaceted quality-improvement intervention did not result in a significant increase in the composite adherence score for evidence-based therapies in patients with acute ischemic stroke [AIS] or transient ischemic attack [TIA],” said M. Julia Machline-Carrion, MD, PhD, principal investigator of the BRIDGE-Stroke study and a cardiologist at the Hospital for Heart in São Paulo. “However, when using a more conservative ‘all-or-none’ approach of complete adherence, the intervention resulted in improved adherence to evidence-based therapies.”
The quality-improvement program also resulted in a significant increase in the use of thrombolysis and uptake in smoking cessation education by study participants, Dr. Machline-Carrion added.
The study randomized 1,624 patients with AIS or TIA to the multifaceted quality-improvement intervention or routine practice. The intervention consisted of a patient identification system (wristband and printed reminders), a therapeutic plan road map and checklist, case management, educational materials, interactive workshops, and periodic audit and feedback reports to each participating cluster. Colored wristbands were to help promptly identify AIS or TIA patients in the emergency department and other departments they may have been sent to later on, such as the ICU, to avoid delays in initiating recommended therapies.
On average, the composite adherence score was 85.3% for those in the intervention group vs. 77.8% for controls, Dr. Machline-Carrion said. The composite adherence score consisted of 10 quality measures, ranging from early antithrombotics and prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis to anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or flutter, and smoking cessation education. “There was no statistically significant difference in the composite adherence score between the intervention group and the usual-care group,” she said.
However, when the researchers applied the all-or-none model – that is, complete adherence to all 10 in-hospital quality measures – the results were strikingly different, Dr. Machline-Carrion said. “Patients in the intervention group were more likely to receive all eligible therapies,” she said: 49.2% vs. 25.3%.
“Despite the established efficacy of several interventions for the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack, the uptake of evidence-based measures remains suboptimal, especially in low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Machline-Carrion said.
The BRIDGE-Stroke study involved 36 hospitals in Brazil, Argentina, and Peru with full emergency department coverage, central nervous system imaging, and access to recombinant tissue plasminogen activator therapies.
Dr. Machline-Carrion disclosed financial relationships with Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim. The Brazil Ministry of Health was the lead sponsor of the study.
SOURCE: Machline-Carrion MJ et al. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 19361.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Intervention group received evidence-based treatments at a rate of 49.2% vs. 25.3% for controls.
Data source: BRIDGE-Stroke, a cluster-randomized trial among 36 hospitals in Brazil, Argentina, and Peru with 1,624 patients enrolled.
Disclosures: Dr. Machline-Carrion disclosed financial relationships with Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim. The Brazil Ministry of Health was the lead sponsor of the study.
Source: Machline-Carrion MJ et al. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 19361.
Incidental Asymptomatic Fibular Stress Fractures Presenting as Varus Knee Osteoarthritis: A Case Report
ABSTRACT
Stress fractures are often missed, especially in unusual clinical settings. We report on 2 patients who presented to our orthopedic surgery clinic with incidental findings of asymptomatic proximal fibular tension side stress fractures in severe longstanding varus osteoarthritic knees. Initial plain films demonstrated an expansile deformity of the proximal fibular shaft, and differential diagnosis included a healed or healing fracture versus possible neoplasm. Magnetic resonance imaging with and without gadolinium was utilized to rule out the latter prior to planned total knee arthroplasty.
Continue to: The proximal fibula...
The proximal fibula is a rare site for stress fractures, with most of these fractures occurring in military recruits.1 To the authors’ knowledge, there has been only 1 documented case of a proximal fibular stress fracture in patients with severe osteoarthritis (OA) and fixed varus deformity, which mimicked L5 radiculopathy.2 We are not aware of any reports of asymptomatic tension-side fibular stress fractures in varus knees. In our 2 cases, the patients were indicated for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for varus degenerative joint disease after failing nonoperative treatment; however, further work-up was justified to rule out neoplasm after plain films revealed expansile deformities of the proximal fibular shaft. Each patient subsequently underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with and without gadolinium contrast, which demonstrated a healed and healing proximal fibular stress fracture. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in the evaluation of degenerative joint disease, and stress fractures about a varus knee generally occur on the compression side of the tibia and are symptomatic.3-7 The patients provided informed written consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
CASE REPORT
The first patient was a 77-year-old male who presented with longstanding knee pain, left greater than right, exacerbated by weight-bearing activities. The patient had no improvement with physical therapy or anti-inflammatory medication. He denied any history of trauma, weakness, paresthesias, or a recent increase in activity. The patient also denied any fevers, chills, night sweats, or other constitutional symptoms. On physical examination, the patient had an antalgic gait and limited range of motion bilaterally. Examination of his right lower extremity demonstrated a fixed 5° varus deformity. No distinct point tenderness was noted.
Radiographs of the right knee demonstrated varus deformity and tricompartmental degenerative changes with severe medial joint space narrowing. An expansile deformity of the proximal right fibular shaft was also noted (Figure 1), which was not present on the films 2 years earlier (Figure 2). The absence of this deformity on previous imaging raised the suspicion of a tumor. An MRI with and without gadolinium, which was obtained to rule out a neoplastic process, showed an old, healed proximal fibular shaft fracture with chronic periosteal reaction (Figure 3). There was no marrow edema to suggest acute injury and no neoplastic lesion. He was reassured regarding the benign findings and was scheduled for a left TKA, as his pain was more severe on the left knee. The patient’s stress fracture healed without complications, and he underwent a successful left TKA. He returned approximately 6 months after his procedure with worsening right knee pain and underwent a successful TKA on the right knee as well.
The second patient was a 67-year-old male with longstanding bilateral knee pain, right greater than left, with no antecedent trauma. He denied a history of increased activity, or weakness or paresthesias. He denied any fevers, chills, night sweats, or other constitutional symptoms. One year prior to presentation at our clinic, he had received corticosteroid injections and hyaluronic acid, without relief. The patient also had a history with another surgeon of arthroscopy 1 year earlier and subchondroplasty 3 years before presentation to our clinic. On physical examination, the patient’s right knee displayed a fixed 7° varus deformity with decreased range of motion, effusion, and diffuse crepitus. Further examination revealed tenderness to palpation of the proximal fibula.
Radiographs of the right knee showed degenerative joint disease with varus deformity and medial compartment joint space narrowing. They also demonstrated an expansile deformity of mixed lucency and sclerosis involving the proximal right fibular shaft (Figure 4). Although these findings appeared to be consistent with a stress fracture, their appearance was also suspicious for a neoplasm. To rule out malignancy, an MRI with and without gadolinium was obtained that revealed a healing stress fracture of the proximal fibula (Figure 5). The patient was reassured, and plans were made to proceed with a TKA. The patient’s stress fracture healed without complications, and he underwent successful right TKA. Radiographs from the patient’s 8-week follow-up showed a healed fibular stress fracture (Figure 6).
Continue to: DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this is the first report of incidental tension-side stress fractures in varus osteoarthritic knees. Stress fractures have been classified into 2 groups, fatigue fractures and insufficiency fractures. Fatigue fractures occur when abnormal stress is applied to normal bones, and insufficiency fractures result when normal stress is applied to abnormal bones.8 Stress fractures can also be classified into risk categories based on which bone is involved and the loading of the bone.9 Sites loaded in tension have increased risk of nonunion, progression to complete fracture, and reoccurrence compared with sites loaded in compression.9 Stress fractures of the fibula occur rarely, and when present, they are more commonly observed in the distal fibula in athletes and military recruits.1 Stress fractures occur rarely in patients with primary OA, and when present in this setting, obesity and malalignment are the contributing factors.3 Neither patient was obese in our case (body mass index of 27 and 28, respectively), but significant varus deformity was present in both patients. Stress fractures occurring near the knee in the setting of a varus deformity generally occur on the compression side of the tibia and are symptomatic.3-7
Regarding malalignment, Cheung and colleagues10 reported about a case of an elderly female with OA of the knee with valgus deformity that initially developed a proximal fibular stress fracture followed by a proximal tibial stress fracture. However, both of our patients had varus deformities. Mullaji and Shetty3 documented stress fractures in 34 patients with OA, a majority with varus deformities, but did not report any isolated proximal fibular stress fractures. Manish and colleagues2 reported the only documented case of an isolated proximal fibular stress fracture in a patient with osteoarthritic varus deformity. The patient presented initially with pain and paresthesias of the lower thigh and leg consistent with an L5 radiculopathy. They believed that the varus deformity and the repetitive contraction of the lateral knee muscles put increased shear forces on the fibula leading to the stress fracture. Our patients did not present with any radicular symptoms, a history of acute worsening pain, or an increased activity concerning for a stress fracture. Instead, our patients presented with progressively worsening knee pain typical of severe OA and incidental findings on imaging of tension-side fibular stress fractures. An MRI with and without gadolinium confirmed the diagnosis of a healed fracture in our first patient and a healing fracture in our second patient.
CONCLUSION
Although exceedingly rare in osteoarthritic varus knees, we presented 2 cases of MRI-confirmed proximal fibular stress fractures in this report. As demonstrated, patients may present with symptoms of OA or radicular symptoms as described by Manish and colleagues.2 Presentation may also include an expansile lesion on imaging, prompting a differential diagnosis that includes a neoplasm. If present in the setting of an osteoarthritic varus knee, stress fractures of the proximal fibula should heal with conservative treatment and not affect the plan or outcome of TKA.
- Devas MB, Sweetnam R. Stress fractures of the fibula; a review of fifty cases in athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1956;38-B(4):818-829.
- Manish KK, Agnivesh T, Pramod PS, Samir SD. Isolated proximal fibular stress fracture in osteoarthritis knee presenting as L5 radiculopathy. J Orthop Case Reports. 2015;5(3):75-77. doi:10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.315.
- Mullaji A, Shetty G. Total knee arthroplasty for arthritic knees with tibiofibular stress fractures: classification and treatment guidelines. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(2):295-301. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.012.
- Sourlas I, Papachristou G, Pilichou A, Giannoudis PV, Efstathopoulos N, Nikolaou VS. Proximal tibial stress fractures associated with primary degenerative knee osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(3):120-124
- Demir B, Gursu S, Oke R, Ozturk K, Sahin V. Proximal tibia stress fracture caused by severe arthrosis of the knee with varus deformity. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(9):457-459.
- Satku K, Kumar VP, Pho RW. Stress fractures of the tibia in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(2):309-311. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.69B2.3818767.
- Martin LM, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Stress fractures associated with osteoarthritis of the knee. A report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(5):771-774.
- Hong SH, Chu IT. Stress fracture of the proximal fibula in military recruits. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009;1(3):161-164. doi:10.4055/cios.2009.1.3.161
- Knapik JJ, Reynolds K, Hoedebecke KL. Stress fractures: Etiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. J Spec Oper Med. 17(2):120-130.
- Cheung MHS, Lee M-F, Lui TH. Insufficiency fracture of the proximal fibula and then tibia: A case report. J Orthop Surg. 2013;21(1):103-105. doi:10.1177/230949901302100126
ABSTRACT
Stress fractures are often missed, especially in unusual clinical settings. We report on 2 patients who presented to our orthopedic surgery clinic with incidental findings of asymptomatic proximal fibular tension side stress fractures in severe longstanding varus osteoarthritic knees. Initial plain films demonstrated an expansile deformity of the proximal fibular shaft, and differential diagnosis included a healed or healing fracture versus possible neoplasm. Magnetic resonance imaging with and without gadolinium was utilized to rule out the latter prior to planned total knee arthroplasty.
Continue to: The proximal fibula...
The proximal fibula is a rare site for stress fractures, with most of these fractures occurring in military recruits.1 To the authors’ knowledge, there has been only 1 documented case of a proximal fibular stress fracture in patients with severe osteoarthritis (OA) and fixed varus deformity, which mimicked L5 radiculopathy.2 We are not aware of any reports of asymptomatic tension-side fibular stress fractures in varus knees. In our 2 cases, the patients were indicated for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for varus degenerative joint disease after failing nonoperative treatment; however, further work-up was justified to rule out neoplasm after plain films revealed expansile deformities of the proximal fibular shaft. Each patient subsequently underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with and without gadolinium contrast, which demonstrated a healed and healing proximal fibular stress fracture. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in the evaluation of degenerative joint disease, and stress fractures about a varus knee generally occur on the compression side of the tibia and are symptomatic.3-7 The patients provided informed written consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
CASE REPORT
The first patient was a 77-year-old male who presented with longstanding knee pain, left greater than right, exacerbated by weight-bearing activities. The patient had no improvement with physical therapy or anti-inflammatory medication. He denied any history of trauma, weakness, paresthesias, or a recent increase in activity. The patient also denied any fevers, chills, night sweats, or other constitutional symptoms. On physical examination, the patient had an antalgic gait and limited range of motion bilaterally. Examination of his right lower extremity demonstrated a fixed 5° varus deformity. No distinct point tenderness was noted.
Radiographs of the right knee demonstrated varus deformity and tricompartmental degenerative changes with severe medial joint space narrowing. An expansile deformity of the proximal right fibular shaft was also noted (Figure 1), which was not present on the films 2 years earlier (Figure 2). The absence of this deformity on previous imaging raised the suspicion of a tumor. An MRI with and without gadolinium, which was obtained to rule out a neoplastic process, showed an old, healed proximal fibular shaft fracture with chronic periosteal reaction (Figure 3). There was no marrow edema to suggest acute injury and no neoplastic lesion. He was reassured regarding the benign findings and was scheduled for a left TKA, as his pain was more severe on the left knee. The patient’s stress fracture healed without complications, and he underwent a successful left TKA. He returned approximately 6 months after his procedure with worsening right knee pain and underwent a successful TKA on the right knee as well.
The second patient was a 67-year-old male with longstanding bilateral knee pain, right greater than left, with no antecedent trauma. He denied a history of increased activity, or weakness or paresthesias. He denied any fevers, chills, night sweats, or other constitutional symptoms. One year prior to presentation at our clinic, he had received corticosteroid injections and hyaluronic acid, without relief. The patient also had a history with another surgeon of arthroscopy 1 year earlier and subchondroplasty 3 years before presentation to our clinic. On physical examination, the patient’s right knee displayed a fixed 7° varus deformity with decreased range of motion, effusion, and diffuse crepitus. Further examination revealed tenderness to palpation of the proximal fibula.
Radiographs of the right knee showed degenerative joint disease with varus deformity and medial compartment joint space narrowing. They also demonstrated an expansile deformity of mixed lucency and sclerosis involving the proximal right fibular shaft (Figure 4). Although these findings appeared to be consistent with a stress fracture, their appearance was also suspicious for a neoplasm. To rule out malignancy, an MRI with and without gadolinium was obtained that revealed a healing stress fracture of the proximal fibula (Figure 5). The patient was reassured, and plans were made to proceed with a TKA. The patient’s stress fracture healed without complications, and he underwent successful right TKA. Radiographs from the patient’s 8-week follow-up showed a healed fibular stress fracture (Figure 6).
Continue to: DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this is the first report of incidental tension-side stress fractures in varus osteoarthritic knees. Stress fractures have been classified into 2 groups, fatigue fractures and insufficiency fractures. Fatigue fractures occur when abnormal stress is applied to normal bones, and insufficiency fractures result when normal stress is applied to abnormal bones.8 Stress fractures can also be classified into risk categories based on which bone is involved and the loading of the bone.9 Sites loaded in tension have increased risk of nonunion, progression to complete fracture, and reoccurrence compared with sites loaded in compression.9 Stress fractures of the fibula occur rarely, and when present, they are more commonly observed in the distal fibula in athletes and military recruits.1 Stress fractures occur rarely in patients with primary OA, and when present in this setting, obesity and malalignment are the contributing factors.3 Neither patient was obese in our case (body mass index of 27 and 28, respectively), but significant varus deformity was present in both patients. Stress fractures occurring near the knee in the setting of a varus deformity generally occur on the compression side of the tibia and are symptomatic.3-7
Regarding malalignment, Cheung and colleagues10 reported about a case of an elderly female with OA of the knee with valgus deformity that initially developed a proximal fibular stress fracture followed by a proximal tibial stress fracture. However, both of our patients had varus deformities. Mullaji and Shetty3 documented stress fractures in 34 patients with OA, a majority with varus deformities, but did not report any isolated proximal fibular stress fractures. Manish and colleagues2 reported the only documented case of an isolated proximal fibular stress fracture in a patient with osteoarthritic varus deformity. The patient presented initially with pain and paresthesias of the lower thigh and leg consistent with an L5 radiculopathy. They believed that the varus deformity and the repetitive contraction of the lateral knee muscles put increased shear forces on the fibula leading to the stress fracture. Our patients did not present with any radicular symptoms, a history of acute worsening pain, or an increased activity concerning for a stress fracture. Instead, our patients presented with progressively worsening knee pain typical of severe OA and incidental findings on imaging of tension-side fibular stress fractures. An MRI with and without gadolinium confirmed the diagnosis of a healed fracture in our first patient and a healing fracture in our second patient.
CONCLUSION
Although exceedingly rare in osteoarthritic varus knees, we presented 2 cases of MRI-confirmed proximal fibular stress fractures in this report. As demonstrated, patients may present with symptoms of OA or radicular symptoms as described by Manish and colleagues.2 Presentation may also include an expansile lesion on imaging, prompting a differential diagnosis that includes a neoplasm. If present in the setting of an osteoarthritic varus knee, stress fractures of the proximal fibula should heal with conservative treatment and not affect the plan or outcome of TKA.
ABSTRACT
Stress fractures are often missed, especially in unusual clinical settings. We report on 2 patients who presented to our orthopedic surgery clinic with incidental findings of asymptomatic proximal fibular tension side stress fractures in severe longstanding varus osteoarthritic knees. Initial plain films demonstrated an expansile deformity of the proximal fibular shaft, and differential diagnosis included a healed or healing fracture versus possible neoplasm. Magnetic resonance imaging with and without gadolinium was utilized to rule out the latter prior to planned total knee arthroplasty.
Continue to: The proximal fibula...
The proximal fibula is a rare site for stress fractures, with most of these fractures occurring in military recruits.1 To the authors’ knowledge, there has been only 1 documented case of a proximal fibular stress fracture in patients with severe osteoarthritis (OA) and fixed varus deformity, which mimicked L5 radiculopathy.2 We are not aware of any reports of asymptomatic tension-side fibular stress fractures in varus knees. In our 2 cases, the patients were indicated for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for varus degenerative joint disease after failing nonoperative treatment; however, further work-up was justified to rule out neoplasm after plain films revealed expansile deformities of the proximal fibular shaft. Each patient subsequently underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with and without gadolinium contrast, which demonstrated a healed and healing proximal fibular stress fracture. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in the evaluation of degenerative joint disease, and stress fractures about a varus knee generally occur on the compression side of the tibia and are symptomatic.3-7 The patients provided informed written consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
CASE REPORT
The first patient was a 77-year-old male who presented with longstanding knee pain, left greater than right, exacerbated by weight-bearing activities. The patient had no improvement with physical therapy or anti-inflammatory medication. He denied any history of trauma, weakness, paresthesias, or a recent increase in activity. The patient also denied any fevers, chills, night sweats, or other constitutional symptoms. On physical examination, the patient had an antalgic gait and limited range of motion bilaterally. Examination of his right lower extremity demonstrated a fixed 5° varus deformity. No distinct point tenderness was noted.
Radiographs of the right knee demonstrated varus deformity and tricompartmental degenerative changes with severe medial joint space narrowing. An expansile deformity of the proximal right fibular shaft was also noted (Figure 1), which was not present on the films 2 years earlier (Figure 2). The absence of this deformity on previous imaging raised the suspicion of a tumor. An MRI with and without gadolinium, which was obtained to rule out a neoplastic process, showed an old, healed proximal fibular shaft fracture with chronic periosteal reaction (Figure 3). There was no marrow edema to suggest acute injury and no neoplastic lesion. He was reassured regarding the benign findings and was scheduled for a left TKA, as his pain was more severe on the left knee. The patient’s stress fracture healed without complications, and he underwent a successful left TKA. He returned approximately 6 months after his procedure with worsening right knee pain and underwent a successful TKA on the right knee as well.
The second patient was a 67-year-old male with longstanding bilateral knee pain, right greater than left, with no antecedent trauma. He denied a history of increased activity, or weakness or paresthesias. He denied any fevers, chills, night sweats, or other constitutional symptoms. One year prior to presentation at our clinic, he had received corticosteroid injections and hyaluronic acid, without relief. The patient also had a history with another surgeon of arthroscopy 1 year earlier and subchondroplasty 3 years before presentation to our clinic. On physical examination, the patient’s right knee displayed a fixed 7° varus deformity with decreased range of motion, effusion, and diffuse crepitus. Further examination revealed tenderness to palpation of the proximal fibula.
Radiographs of the right knee showed degenerative joint disease with varus deformity and medial compartment joint space narrowing. They also demonstrated an expansile deformity of mixed lucency and sclerosis involving the proximal right fibular shaft (Figure 4). Although these findings appeared to be consistent with a stress fracture, their appearance was also suspicious for a neoplasm. To rule out malignancy, an MRI with and without gadolinium was obtained that revealed a healing stress fracture of the proximal fibula (Figure 5). The patient was reassured, and plans were made to proceed with a TKA. The patient’s stress fracture healed without complications, and he underwent successful right TKA. Radiographs from the patient’s 8-week follow-up showed a healed fibular stress fracture (Figure 6).
Continue to: DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this is the first report of incidental tension-side stress fractures in varus osteoarthritic knees. Stress fractures have been classified into 2 groups, fatigue fractures and insufficiency fractures. Fatigue fractures occur when abnormal stress is applied to normal bones, and insufficiency fractures result when normal stress is applied to abnormal bones.8 Stress fractures can also be classified into risk categories based on which bone is involved and the loading of the bone.9 Sites loaded in tension have increased risk of nonunion, progression to complete fracture, and reoccurrence compared with sites loaded in compression.9 Stress fractures of the fibula occur rarely, and when present, they are more commonly observed in the distal fibula in athletes and military recruits.1 Stress fractures occur rarely in patients with primary OA, and when present in this setting, obesity and malalignment are the contributing factors.3 Neither patient was obese in our case (body mass index of 27 and 28, respectively), but significant varus deformity was present in both patients. Stress fractures occurring near the knee in the setting of a varus deformity generally occur on the compression side of the tibia and are symptomatic.3-7
Regarding malalignment, Cheung and colleagues10 reported about a case of an elderly female with OA of the knee with valgus deformity that initially developed a proximal fibular stress fracture followed by a proximal tibial stress fracture. However, both of our patients had varus deformities. Mullaji and Shetty3 documented stress fractures in 34 patients with OA, a majority with varus deformities, but did not report any isolated proximal fibular stress fractures. Manish and colleagues2 reported the only documented case of an isolated proximal fibular stress fracture in a patient with osteoarthritic varus deformity. The patient presented initially with pain and paresthesias of the lower thigh and leg consistent with an L5 radiculopathy. They believed that the varus deformity and the repetitive contraction of the lateral knee muscles put increased shear forces on the fibula leading to the stress fracture. Our patients did not present with any radicular symptoms, a history of acute worsening pain, or an increased activity concerning for a stress fracture. Instead, our patients presented with progressively worsening knee pain typical of severe OA and incidental findings on imaging of tension-side fibular stress fractures. An MRI with and without gadolinium confirmed the diagnosis of a healed fracture in our first patient and a healing fracture in our second patient.
CONCLUSION
Although exceedingly rare in osteoarthritic varus knees, we presented 2 cases of MRI-confirmed proximal fibular stress fractures in this report. As demonstrated, patients may present with symptoms of OA or radicular symptoms as described by Manish and colleagues.2 Presentation may also include an expansile lesion on imaging, prompting a differential diagnosis that includes a neoplasm. If present in the setting of an osteoarthritic varus knee, stress fractures of the proximal fibula should heal with conservative treatment and not affect the plan or outcome of TKA.
- Devas MB, Sweetnam R. Stress fractures of the fibula; a review of fifty cases in athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1956;38-B(4):818-829.
- Manish KK, Agnivesh T, Pramod PS, Samir SD. Isolated proximal fibular stress fracture in osteoarthritis knee presenting as L5 radiculopathy. J Orthop Case Reports. 2015;5(3):75-77. doi:10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.315.
- Mullaji A, Shetty G. Total knee arthroplasty for arthritic knees with tibiofibular stress fractures: classification and treatment guidelines. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(2):295-301. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.012.
- Sourlas I, Papachristou G, Pilichou A, Giannoudis PV, Efstathopoulos N, Nikolaou VS. Proximal tibial stress fractures associated with primary degenerative knee osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(3):120-124
- Demir B, Gursu S, Oke R, Ozturk K, Sahin V. Proximal tibia stress fracture caused by severe arthrosis of the knee with varus deformity. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(9):457-459.
- Satku K, Kumar VP, Pho RW. Stress fractures of the tibia in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(2):309-311. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.69B2.3818767.
- Martin LM, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Stress fractures associated with osteoarthritis of the knee. A report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(5):771-774.
- Hong SH, Chu IT. Stress fracture of the proximal fibula in military recruits. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009;1(3):161-164. doi:10.4055/cios.2009.1.3.161
- Knapik JJ, Reynolds K, Hoedebecke KL. Stress fractures: Etiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. J Spec Oper Med. 17(2):120-130.
- Cheung MHS, Lee M-F, Lui TH. Insufficiency fracture of the proximal fibula and then tibia: A case report. J Orthop Surg. 2013;21(1):103-105. doi:10.1177/230949901302100126
- Devas MB, Sweetnam R. Stress fractures of the fibula; a review of fifty cases in athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1956;38-B(4):818-829.
- Manish KK, Agnivesh T, Pramod PS, Samir SD. Isolated proximal fibular stress fracture in osteoarthritis knee presenting as L5 radiculopathy. J Orthop Case Reports. 2015;5(3):75-77. doi:10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.315.
- Mullaji A, Shetty G. Total knee arthroplasty for arthritic knees with tibiofibular stress fractures: classification and treatment guidelines. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(2):295-301. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.012.
- Sourlas I, Papachristou G, Pilichou A, Giannoudis PV, Efstathopoulos N, Nikolaou VS. Proximal tibial stress fractures associated with primary degenerative knee osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(3):120-124
- Demir B, Gursu S, Oke R, Ozturk K, Sahin V. Proximal tibia stress fracture caused by severe arthrosis of the knee with varus deformity. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(9):457-459.
- Satku K, Kumar VP, Pho RW. Stress fractures of the tibia in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(2):309-311. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.69B2.3818767.
- Martin LM, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Stress fractures associated with osteoarthritis of the knee. A report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(5):771-774.
- Hong SH, Chu IT. Stress fracture of the proximal fibula in military recruits. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009;1(3):161-164. doi:10.4055/cios.2009.1.3.161
- Knapik JJ, Reynolds K, Hoedebecke KL. Stress fractures: Etiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. J Spec Oper Med. 17(2):120-130.
- Cheung MHS, Lee M-F, Lui TH. Insufficiency fracture of the proximal fibula and then tibia: A case report. J Orthop Surg. 2013;21(1):103-105. doi:10.1177/230949901302100126
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Proximal fibular stress fractures in patients with primary osteoarthritis and fixed varus deformity have rarely been reported.
- Stress fractures occurring near the knee in the setting of a varus deformity generally occur on the compression side of the tibia and are symptomatic.
- Proximal fibular stress fractures may present as an incidental finding of an expansile deformity on plain films in patients with varus osteoarthritic knees.
- Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in the evaluation of degenerative joint disease; however, it was justified in our case to rule out neoplasm.
- When present in the setting of an osteoarthritic varus knee, stress fractures of the proximal fibula should heal with conservative treatment and should not affect the plan or outcome of TKA.
To prevent fractures, treating only women with osteoporosis is not enough
The conventional bone mineral density threshold for initiating treatment to prevent fragility fractures is a T-score of less than -2.5 (the World Health Organization criteria for osteoporosis).1 However, most fractures experienced by postmenopausal women occur not in osteoporotic women but in those with low bone mass (osteopenia).2
Investigators in New Zealand recently published the results of a randomized controlled trial they conducted to determine the efficacy of zoledronate (zoledronic acid) in preventing fractures in postmenopausal women.3 They enrolled women age 65 years or older with osteopenia of the hip and randomly assigned the participants to 4 intravenous infusions of 5 mg zoledronic acid or placebo at 18-month intervals for 6 years.
Zoledronic acid reduced fracture risk
The trial included 2,000 postmenopausal women (mean age at baseline, 71 years; 94% European ethnicity) with a T-score of -1.0 to -2.5 at either the total hip or the femoral neck on either side. Both hips were assessed. The women received either zoledronic acid treatment or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Candidates were excluded if they regularly used bone-active drugs in the previous year.
Fragility fractures were noted in 190 women in the placebo group and in 122 women treated with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.79, P<.001). The number of women that would need to be treated to prevent the occurrence of a fracture in 1 woman was 15.
Compared with placebo, zoledronic acid also lowered the risk of nonvertebral, symptomatic, and vertebral fractures as well as height loss (P≤.003 for these 4 comparisons). Relatively few adverse events occurred with zoledronic acid treatment. No atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in either group.
Trial closes the knowledge gap regarding treatment thresholds
This trial’s findings underscore the importance of age as a risk factor for fragility fracture and clarify that pharmacologic treatment is appropriate not only for women with osteoporosis but also for older postmenopausal women with osteopenia.
As the authors point out, administration of zoledronic acid less often than annually can be highly effective in preventing fractures; they recommend future trials of administration of this intravenous bisphosphonate at intervals less frequent than 18 months. Although the absence of atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw is reassuring, the authors note that their trial was underpowered to assess these uncommon events.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- World Health Organization. WHO Scientific Group on the assessment of osteoporosis at primary health care level. Summary meeting report, Brussels, Belgium, 5-7 May 2004. https://www. who.int/chp/topics/Osteoporosis.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2018.
- Siris ES, Chen YT, Abbott TA, et al. Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1108-1112.
- Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, et al. Fracture prevention with zoledronate in older women with osteopenia. N Engl J Med. 2018. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1808082.
The conventional bone mineral density threshold for initiating treatment to prevent fragility fractures is a T-score of less than -2.5 (the World Health Organization criteria for osteoporosis).1 However, most fractures experienced by postmenopausal women occur not in osteoporotic women but in those with low bone mass (osteopenia).2
Investigators in New Zealand recently published the results of a randomized controlled trial they conducted to determine the efficacy of zoledronate (zoledronic acid) in preventing fractures in postmenopausal women.3 They enrolled women age 65 years or older with osteopenia of the hip and randomly assigned the participants to 4 intravenous infusions of 5 mg zoledronic acid or placebo at 18-month intervals for 6 years.
Zoledronic acid reduced fracture risk
The trial included 2,000 postmenopausal women (mean age at baseline, 71 years; 94% European ethnicity) with a T-score of -1.0 to -2.5 at either the total hip or the femoral neck on either side. Both hips were assessed. The women received either zoledronic acid treatment or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Candidates were excluded if they regularly used bone-active drugs in the previous year.
Fragility fractures were noted in 190 women in the placebo group and in 122 women treated with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.79, P<.001). The number of women that would need to be treated to prevent the occurrence of a fracture in 1 woman was 15.
Compared with placebo, zoledronic acid also lowered the risk of nonvertebral, symptomatic, and vertebral fractures as well as height loss (P≤.003 for these 4 comparisons). Relatively few adverse events occurred with zoledronic acid treatment. No atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in either group.
Trial closes the knowledge gap regarding treatment thresholds
This trial’s findings underscore the importance of age as a risk factor for fragility fracture and clarify that pharmacologic treatment is appropriate not only for women with osteoporosis but also for older postmenopausal women with osteopenia.
As the authors point out, administration of zoledronic acid less often than annually can be highly effective in preventing fractures; they recommend future trials of administration of this intravenous bisphosphonate at intervals less frequent than 18 months. Although the absence of atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw is reassuring, the authors note that their trial was underpowered to assess these uncommon events.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
The conventional bone mineral density threshold for initiating treatment to prevent fragility fractures is a T-score of less than -2.5 (the World Health Organization criteria for osteoporosis).1 However, most fractures experienced by postmenopausal women occur not in osteoporotic women but in those with low bone mass (osteopenia).2
Investigators in New Zealand recently published the results of a randomized controlled trial they conducted to determine the efficacy of zoledronate (zoledronic acid) in preventing fractures in postmenopausal women.3 They enrolled women age 65 years or older with osteopenia of the hip and randomly assigned the participants to 4 intravenous infusions of 5 mg zoledronic acid or placebo at 18-month intervals for 6 years.
Zoledronic acid reduced fracture risk
The trial included 2,000 postmenopausal women (mean age at baseline, 71 years; 94% European ethnicity) with a T-score of -1.0 to -2.5 at either the total hip or the femoral neck on either side. Both hips were assessed. The women received either zoledronic acid treatment or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Candidates were excluded if they regularly used bone-active drugs in the previous year.
Fragility fractures were noted in 190 women in the placebo group and in 122 women treated with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.79, P<.001). The number of women that would need to be treated to prevent the occurrence of a fracture in 1 woman was 15.
Compared with placebo, zoledronic acid also lowered the risk of nonvertebral, symptomatic, and vertebral fractures as well as height loss (P≤.003 for these 4 comparisons). Relatively few adverse events occurred with zoledronic acid treatment. No atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in either group.
Trial closes the knowledge gap regarding treatment thresholds
This trial’s findings underscore the importance of age as a risk factor for fragility fracture and clarify that pharmacologic treatment is appropriate not only for women with osteoporosis but also for older postmenopausal women with osteopenia.
As the authors point out, administration of zoledronic acid less often than annually can be highly effective in preventing fractures; they recommend future trials of administration of this intravenous bisphosphonate at intervals less frequent than 18 months. Although the absence of atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw is reassuring, the authors note that their trial was underpowered to assess these uncommon events.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- World Health Organization. WHO Scientific Group on the assessment of osteoporosis at primary health care level. Summary meeting report, Brussels, Belgium, 5-7 May 2004. https://www. who.int/chp/topics/Osteoporosis.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2018.
- Siris ES, Chen YT, Abbott TA, et al. Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1108-1112.
- Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, et al. Fracture prevention with zoledronate in older women with osteopenia. N Engl J Med. 2018. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1808082.
- World Health Organization. WHO Scientific Group on the assessment of osteoporosis at primary health care level. Summary meeting report, Brussels, Belgium, 5-7 May 2004. https://www. who.int/chp/topics/Osteoporosis.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2018.
- Siris ES, Chen YT, Abbott TA, et al. Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1108-1112.
- Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, et al. Fracture prevention with zoledronate in older women with osteopenia. N Engl J Med. 2018. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1808082.
LCAR-B38M CAR T therapy appears durable in myeloma
SAN DIEGO – The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy LCAR-B38M is in the race for approval in multiple myeloma following encouraging phase 1 results reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In the LEGEND-2 phase 1/2 open study of 57 patients with advanced relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with the investigational CAR T therapy, the overall response rate was 88% and the complete response rate was 74%. Among 42 patients who achieved complete response, 39 (68%) were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD).
With a median follow-up of 12 months, the median duration of response was 16 months and progression-free survival was 15 months. But in patients who achieved MRD-negative complete response, the median progression-free survival was extended to 24 months.
Pyrexia and cytokine release syndrome were reported in 90% or more of patients. Thrombocytopenia and leukopenia were reported in nearly half of patients.
The phase 1 study was conducted by researchers from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University in Xi’an, China. The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed CAR T-cell therapy is being jointly developed by Nanjing Legend Biotech and Janssen. A phase 2 study is currently being planned in China for LCAR-B38M. In parallel, Janssen and Legend are enrolling patients in a phase 1b/2 trial of the agent (also known as JNJ-68284528) in the United States.
The therapy joins a growing field of anti-BCMA CAR T-cell agents with promising initial trial results, including bb2121.
In a video interview at ASH, Sen Zhuang, MD, PhD, vice president of oncology clinical development at Janssen Research & Development, said this class of CAR T agents offers the potential for “very long remissions” and possibly even a “cure” for myeloma.
The LEGEND-2 study is sponsored by Nanjing Legend Biotech and two of the investigators reported employment with the company.
SAN DIEGO – The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy LCAR-B38M is in the race for approval in multiple myeloma following encouraging phase 1 results reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In the LEGEND-2 phase 1/2 open study of 57 patients with advanced relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with the investigational CAR T therapy, the overall response rate was 88% and the complete response rate was 74%. Among 42 patients who achieved complete response, 39 (68%) were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD).
With a median follow-up of 12 months, the median duration of response was 16 months and progression-free survival was 15 months. But in patients who achieved MRD-negative complete response, the median progression-free survival was extended to 24 months.
Pyrexia and cytokine release syndrome were reported in 90% or more of patients. Thrombocytopenia and leukopenia were reported in nearly half of patients.
The phase 1 study was conducted by researchers from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University in Xi’an, China. The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed CAR T-cell therapy is being jointly developed by Nanjing Legend Biotech and Janssen. A phase 2 study is currently being planned in China for LCAR-B38M. In parallel, Janssen and Legend are enrolling patients in a phase 1b/2 trial of the agent (also known as JNJ-68284528) in the United States.
The therapy joins a growing field of anti-BCMA CAR T-cell agents with promising initial trial results, including bb2121.
In a video interview at ASH, Sen Zhuang, MD, PhD, vice president of oncology clinical development at Janssen Research & Development, said this class of CAR T agents offers the potential for “very long remissions” and possibly even a “cure” for myeloma.
The LEGEND-2 study is sponsored by Nanjing Legend Biotech and two of the investigators reported employment with the company.
SAN DIEGO – The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy LCAR-B38M is in the race for approval in multiple myeloma following encouraging phase 1 results reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In the LEGEND-2 phase 1/2 open study of 57 patients with advanced relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with the investigational CAR T therapy, the overall response rate was 88% and the complete response rate was 74%. Among 42 patients who achieved complete response, 39 (68%) were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD).
With a median follow-up of 12 months, the median duration of response was 16 months and progression-free survival was 15 months. But in patients who achieved MRD-negative complete response, the median progression-free survival was extended to 24 months.
Pyrexia and cytokine release syndrome were reported in 90% or more of patients. Thrombocytopenia and leukopenia were reported in nearly half of patients.
The phase 1 study was conducted by researchers from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University in Xi’an, China. The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed CAR T-cell therapy is being jointly developed by Nanjing Legend Biotech and Janssen. A phase 2 study is currently being planned in China for LCAR-B38M. In parallel, Janssen and Legend are enrolling patients in a phase 1b/2 trial of the agent (also known as JNJ-68284528) in the United States.
The therapy joins a growing field of anti-BCMA CAR T-cell agents with promising initial trial results, including bb2121.
In a video interview at ASH, Sen Zhuang, MD, PhD, vice president of oncology clinical development at Janssen Research & Development, said this class of CAR T agents offers the potential for “very long remissions” and possibly even a “cure” for myeloma.
The LEGEND-2 study is sponsored by Nanjing Legend Biotech and two of the investigators reported employment with the company.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The complete response rate was 74% with median progression-free survival of 15 months.
Study details: A phase 1/2 study of 57 patients with advanced relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
Disclosures: The study is sponsored by Nanjing Legend Biotech. Two of the investigators reported employment with the company.