The United States Food and Drug Administration’s approval earlier this year of pembrolizumab marks the first tumor agnostic indication for a cancer drug.^1,2 Accelerated approval was granted for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with any unresectable or metastatic solid tumor that displays mismatch repair deficiencies (dMMR) or high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and who have progressed after previous treatment and have no satisfactory alternatives. It is also approved specifically for patients with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer (CRC) that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.

Pembrolizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitor that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand, PD-L1, restoring the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells and boosting the anti-tumor immune response. It is thought to be particularly effective in dMMR/MSI-H tumors because they have a high mutational load and therefore display an abundance of antigens on their surfaces to provoke an immune response.

Approval for the drug was based on the demonstration of durable responses in 149 patients with MSI-H or dMMR cancers across 5 uncontrolled, multicohort, multicenter, single-arm trials. In all, 90 of the patients had CRC, and the remaining 59 patients had 1 of 14 other cancer types that included endometrial, biliary, gastric or gastroesophageal, pancreatic, and breast cancers.

The United States Food and Drug Administration’s approval earlier this year of pembrolizumab marks the first tumor agnostic indication for a cancer drug.^1,2 Accelerated approval was granted for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with any unresectable or metastatic solid tumor that displays mismatch repair deficiencies (dMMR) or high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and who have progressed after previous treatment and have no satisfactory alternatives. It is also approved specifically for patients with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer (CRC) that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.

Pembrolizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitor that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand, PD-L1, restoring the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells and boosting the anti-tumor immune response. It is thought to be particularly effective in dMMR/MSI-H tumors because they have a high mutational load and therefore display an abundance of antigens on their surfaces to provoke an immune response.

Approval for the drug was based on the demonstration of durable responses in 149 patients with MSI-H or dMMR cancers across 5 uncontrolled, multicohort, multicenter, single-arm trials. In all, 90 of the patients had CRC, and the remaining 59 patients had 1 of 14 other cancer types that included endometrial, biliary, gastric or gastroesophageal, pancreatic, and breast cancers.

The United States Food and Drug Administration’s approval earlier this year of pembrolizumab marks the first tumor agnostic indication for a cancer drug.^1,2 Accelerated approval was granted for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with any unresectable or metastatic solid tumor that displays mismatch repair deficiencies (dMMR) or high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and who have progressed after previous treatment and have no satisfactory alternatives. It is also approved specifically for patients with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer (CRC) that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.

Pembrolizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitor that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand, PD-L1, restoring the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells and boosting the anti-tumor immune response. It is thought to be particularly effective in dMMR/MSI-H tumors because they have a high mutational load and therefore display an abundance of antigens on their surfaces to provoke an immune response.

Approval for the drug was based on the demonstration of durable responses in 149 patients with MSI-H or dMMR cancers across 5 uncontrolled, multicohort, multicenter, single-arm trials. In all, 90 of the patients had CRC, and the remaining 59 patients had 1 of 14 other cancer types that included endometrial, biliary, gastric or gastroesophageal, pancreatic, and breast cancers.

The accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor brigatinib, marked the fourth approved drug in this class.¹ The most recent approval expands the available treatment options for patients with metastatic ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease is no longer responding to the first-line ALK inhibitor crizotinib. The FDA based its decision on the results of the phase 2 ALTA trial, in which a significant proportion of patients experienced tumor shrinkage.²

The pivotal trial was a noncomparative, 2-arm, open-label, multicenter study that was carried out during June 2014-September 2015 at 71 centers across 18 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC, disease progression while taking crizotinib, at least 1 measurable lesion, adequate organ and hematologic function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤2 (range, 0-5, where 0 means the patient is fully active, and 2, ambulatory and capable of all self-care but not able to carry out any work activities).

Patients were excluded from the trial if they had received previous ALK inhibitor therapy, other than crizotinib, or had received crizotinib within 3 days of the first dose of brigatinib, or they had received chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or investigational drugs within 14 days or monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first dose of the study drug. Anyone with a history or the presence of pulmonary interstitial disease or drug-related pneumonitis or symptomatic central nervous system (CNS) metastases that were neurologically unstable or required an increasing dose of corticosteroids was also ineligible.

A total of 222 patients were randomized to receive one of two brigatinib doses, either 90 mg daily or 180 mg daily after a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (the latter to help mitigate pulmonary adverse events observed in previous studies). Randomization was stratified according to baseline brain metastases (present or absent) and best investigator-assessed response to crizotinib (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] vs other or unknown)

Chest and abdomen imaging by computed-tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast were performed to assess disease at screening and every 8 weeks through cycle 15, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Contrast-enhanced brain MRI was carried out at screening and repeated after baseline for the 68% of patients who had CNS metastases at the time of enrollment.

The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1), and secondary endpoints included CNS response, duration of response (DoR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively). ORRs for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 48% and 53%, respectively. Responses occurred quickly and were durable in both arms; after a median follow-up of 8 months, median DoR was 13.8 months for both doses. Among the patients with brain metastases, the intracranial response rates for the two doses were 42% and 67%, respectively, notable because of the poor ability of crizotinib to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

Other secondary outcomes also favored the 180-mg dose. Investigator-assessed PFS for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 9.2 months and 12.9 months, respectively, and estimated 1-year OS was 71% and 80%, respectively, the latter representing a nonstatistically significant 43% reduction in the risk of death with the 180 mg dose. There were 4 confirmed CRs in the 180-mg arm and 1 in the 90-mg arm.

The safety of brigatinib was evaluated in 219 patients who received at least 1 dose of brigatinib. Treatment was discontinued in 8% of patients in the 180-mg arm and 3% in the 90-mg arm because of adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and headache, and visual disturbances also occurred. The most common serious AEs were pneumonia and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis.

The prescribing information details warnings and precautions about these and other potential toxicities, including hypertension, bradycardia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and pancreatic enzyme elevation, and hyperglycemia.³ Patients should be monitored for new or worsening respiratory symptoms, especially during the first week of initiating brigatinib treatment; blood pressure should be controlled before treatment initiation and monitored after 2 weeks and at least monthly thereafter; heart rate and blood pressure should be monitored frequently; patients should be advised to report any visual symptoms, or any unexplained muscle pain, tenderness or weakness; CPK, lipase, and amylase levels should be monitored during treatment, and fasting glucose tested before starting treatment and periodically thereafter.

Brigatinib should be withheld in any patient with new or worsening respiratory symptoms, for grade 3 hypertension despite optimal antihypertensive therapy, for symptomatic bradycardia, for patients with new or worsening visual symptoms of grade 2 or above, for grade 3 or 4 CPK or pancreatic enzyme elevation, or if adequate hyperglycemia control cannot be achieved. Treatment should be permanently discontinued for grade 3 or 4 or recurrent interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, grade 4 or recurrent grade 3 hypertension, life-threatening bradycardia, and grade 4 visual disturbance.

Based on its mechanism of action, brigatinib can cause fetal harm and patients of reproductive potential should be advised of the risks and necessary precautions. Brigatinib is marketed as Alunbrig. It was discovered by Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc, which was acquired by Takeda in February 2017.

The accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor brigatinib, marked the fourth approved drug in this class.¹ The most recent approval expands the available treatment options for patients with metastatic ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease is no longer responding to the first-line ALK inhibitor crizotinib. The FDA based its decision on the results of the phase 2 ALTA trial, in which a significant proportion of patients experienced tumor shrinkage.²

The pivotal trial was a noncomparative, 2-arm, open-label, multicenter study that was carried out during June 2014-September 2015 at 71 centers across 18 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC, disease progression while taking crizotinib, at least 1 measurable lesion, adequate organ and hematologic function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤2 (range, 0-5, where 0 means the patient is fully active, and 2, ambulatory and capable of all self-care but not able to carry out any work activities).

Patients were excluded from the trial if they had received previous ALK inhibitor therapy, other than crizotinib, or had received crizotinib within 3 days of the first dose of brigatinib, or they had received chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or investigational drugs within 14 days or monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first dose of the study drug. Anyone with a history or the presence of pulmonary interstitial disease or drug-related pneumonitis or symptomatic central nervous system (CNS) metastases that were neurologically unstable or required an increasing dose of corticosteroids was also ineligible.

A total of 222 patients were randomized to receive one of two brigatinib doses, either 90 mg daily or 180 mg daily after a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (the latter to help mitigate pulmonary adverse events observed in previous studies). Randomization was stratified according to baseline brain metastases (present or absent) and best investigator-assessed response to crizotinib (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] vs other or unknown)

Chest and abdomen imaging by computed-tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast were performed to assess disease at screening and every 8 weeks through cycle 15, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Contrast-enhanced brain MRI was carried out at screening and repeated after baseline for the 68% of patients who had CNS metastases at the time of enrollment.

The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1), and secondary endpoints included CNS response, duration of response (DoR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively). ORRs for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 48% and 53%, respectively. Responses occurred quickly and were durable in both arms; after a median follow-up of 8 months, median DoR was 13.8 months for both doses. Among the patients with brain metastases, the intracranial response rates for the two doses were 42% and 67%, respectively, notable because of the poor ability of crizotinib to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

Other secondary outcomes also favored the 180-mg dose. Investigator-assessed PFS for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 9.2 months and 12.9 months, respectively, and estimated 1-year OS was 71% and 80%, respectively, the latter representing a nonstatistically significant 43% reduction in the risk of death with the 180 mg dose. There were 4 confirmed CRs in the 180-mg arm and 1 in the 90-mg arm.

The safety of brigatinib was evaluated in 219 patients who received at least 1 dose of brigatinib. Treatment was discontinued in 8% of patients in the 180-mg arm and 3% in the 90-mg arm because of adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and headache, and visual disturbances also occurred. The most common serious AEs were pneumonia and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis.

The prescribing information details warnings and precautions about these and other potential toxicities, including hypertension, bradycardia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and pancreatic enzyme elevation, and hyperglycemia.³ Patients should be monitored for new or worsening respiratory symptoms, especially during the first week of initiating brigatinib treatment; blood pressure should be controlled before treatment initiation and monitored after 2 weeks and at least monthly thereafter; heart rate and blood pressure should be monitored frequently; patients should be advised to report any visual symptoms, or any unexplained muscle pain, tenderness or weakness; CPK, lipase, and amylase levels should be monitored during treatment, and fasting glucose tested before starting treatment and periodically thereafter.

Brigatinib should be withheld in any patient with new or worsening respiratory symptoms, for grade 3 hypertension despite optimal antihypertensive therapy, for symptomatic bradycardia, for patients with new or worsening visual symptoms of grade 2 or above, for grade 3 or 4 CPK or pancreatic enzyme elevation, or if adequate hyperglycemia control cannot be achieved. Treatment should be permanently discontinued for grade 3 or 4 or recurrent interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, grade 4 or recurrent grade 3 hypertension, life-threatening bradycardia, and grade 4 visual disturbance.

Based on its mechanism of action, brigatinib can cause fetal harm and patients of reproductive potential should be advised of the risks and necessary precautions. Brigatinib is marketed as Alunbrig. It was discovered by Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc, which was acquired by Takeda in February 2017.

The accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor brigatinib, marked the fourth approved drug in this class.¹ The most recent approval expands the available treatment options for patients with metastatic ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease is no longer responding to the first-line ALK inhibitor crizotinib. The FDA based its decision on the results of the phase 2 ALTA trial, in which a significant proportion of patients experienced tumor shrinkage.²

The pivotal trial was a noncomparative, 2-arm, open-label, multicenter study that was carried out during June 2014-September 2015 at 71 centers across 18 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC, disease progression while taking crizotinib, at least 1 measurable lesion, adequate organ and hematologic function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤2 (range, 0-5, where 0 means the patient is fully active, and 2, ambulatory and capable of all self-care but not able to carry out any work activities).

Patients were excluded from the trial if they had received previous ALK inhibitor therapy, other than crizotinib, or had received crizotinib within 3 days of the first dose of brigatinib, or they had received chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or investigational drugs within 14 days or monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first dose of the study drug. Anyone with a history or the presence of pulmonary interstitial disease or drug-related pneumonitis or symptomatic central nervous system (CNS) metastases that were neurologically unstable or required an increasing dose of corticosteroids was also ineligible.

A total of 222 patients were randomized to receive one of two brigatinib doses, either 90 mg daily or 180 mg daily after a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (the latter to help mitigate pulmonary adverse events observed in previous studies). Randomization was stratified according to baseline brain metastases (present or absent) and best investigator-assessed response to crizotinib (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] vs other or unknown)

Chest and abdomen imaging by computed-tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast were performed to assess disease at screening and every 8 weeks through cycle 15, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Contrast-enhanced brain MRI was carried out at screening and repeated after baseline for the 68% of patients who had CNS metastases at the time of enrollment.

The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1), and secondary endpoints included CNS response, duration of response (DoR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively). ORRs for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 48% and 53%, respectively. Responses occurred quickly and were durable in both arms; after a median follow-up of 8 months, median DoR was 13.8 months for both doses. Among the patients with brain metastases, the intracranial response rates for the two doses were 42% and 67%, respectively, notable because of the poor ability of crizotinib to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

Other secondary outcomes also favored the 180-mg dose. Investigator-assessed PFS for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 9.2 months and 12.9 months, respectively, and estimated 1-year OS was 71% and 80%, respectively, the latter representing a nonstatistically significant 43% reduction in the risk of death with the 180 mg dose. There were 4 confirmed CRs in the 180-mg arm and 1 in the 90-mg arm.

The safety of brigatinib was evaluated in 219 patients who received at least 1 dose of brigatinib. Treatment was discontinued in 8% of patients in the 180-mg arm and 3% in the 90-mg arm because of adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and headache, and visual disturbances also occurred. The most common serious AEs were pneumonia and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis.

The prescribing information details warnings and precautions about these and other potential toxicities, including hypertension, bradycardia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and pancreatic enzyme elevation, and hyperglycemia.³ Patients should be monitored for new or worsening respiratory symptoms, especially during the first week of initiating brigatinib treatment; blood pressure should be controlled before treatment initiation and monitored after 2 weeks and at least monthly thereafter; heart rate and blood pressure should be monitored frequently; patients should be advised to report any visual symptoms, or any unexplained muscle pain, tenderness or weakness; CPK, lipase, and amylase levels should be monitored during treatment, and fasting glucose tested before starting treatment and periodically thereafter.

Brigatinib should be withheld in any patient with new or worsening respiratory symptoms, for grade 3 hypertension despite optimal antihypertensive therapy, for symptomatic bradycardia, for patients with new or worsening visual symptoms of grade 2 or above, for grade 3 or 4 CPK or pancreatic enzyme elevation, or if adequate hyperglycemia control cannot be achieved. Treatment should be permanently discontinued for grade 3 or 4 or recurrent interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, grade 4 or recurrent grade 3 hypertension, life-threatening bradycardia, and grade 4 visual disturbance.

Based on its mechanism of action, brigatinib can cause fetal harm and patients of reproductive potential should be advised of the risks and necessary precautions. Brigatinib is marketed as Alunbrig. It was discovered by Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc, which was acquired by Takeda in February 2017.

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved in the US to treat children and young adults with leukemia is also producing high response rates in lymphoma, according to investigators of the JULIET trial.

They reported that tisagenlecleucel (formerly CTL019) produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 53% and a complete response (CR) rate of 40% in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Additionally, researchers say the stability in the response rate at 3 and 6 months—38% and 37%, respectively—indicates the durability of the therapy.

At 3 months, 32% of patients who achieved CR remained in CR. At 6 months, 30% remained in CR.

Researchers believe these results confirm the durable clinical benefit reported previously.

Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented the JULIET data at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 577).

“Only about half of relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients are eligible for transplant,” Dr Schuster said. “[O]f those patients, only about a half respond to salvage chemotherapy, and a significant number of patients relapse post-transplant. So there is really a large unmet need for these patients, and CAR T-cell therapy is a potential agent [for them].”

The JULIET trial was a global, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluating tisagenlecleucel in DLBCL patients. Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™) consists of CAR T cells with a CD19 antigen-binding domain, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta signaling domain.

The trial was conducted at 27 sites in 10 countries across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. There were 2 centralized manufacturing sites, one in Europe and one in the US.

Patients had to be 18 years or older, have had 2 or more prior lines of therapy for DLBCL, and have progressive disease or be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT). They could not have had any prior anti-CD19 therapy, and they could not have any central nervous system involvement.

The primary endpoint was best ORR using Lugano criteria with assessment by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety.

Study design and enrollment

Patients were screened and underwent apheresis with cryopreservation of their leukapheresis products during screening, which “allowed for enrollment of all eligible patients,” Dr Schuster said.

Patients could receive bridging chemotherapy while they awaited the manufacture of the CAR T cells.

“What’s important to note is that, early on in the trial, there was a shortage of manufacturing capacity, and this led to a longer-than-anticipated interval between enrollment and treatment,” Dr Schuster said. “This interval decreased as manufacturing capacity improved throughout the trial.”

When their CAR T cells were ready, patients were restaged, lymphodepleted, and received the tisagenlecleucel infusion. The dose ranged from 0.6 x 10⁸ to 6.0 x 10⁸ CAR-positive T cells.

The infusion could be conducted on an inpatient or outpatient basis at the investigator’s discretion, Dr Schuster said.

As of the data cutoff in March 2017, investigators enrolled 147 patients and infused 99 with tisagenlecleucel.

Forty-three patients discontinued before infusion, 9 because of an inability to manufacture the T-cell product and 34 due to death (n=16), physician decision (n=12), patient decision (n=3), adverse event (n=2), and protocol deviation (n=1). Five patients were pending infusion.

There were 81 patients with at least 3 months of follow-up or earlier disease progression evaluable for response.

Patient characteristics

Patients were a median age of 56 (range, 22–76), and 23% were 65 or older. All had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 80% had DLBCL, and 19% had transformed follicular lymphoma.

Fifteen percent had double or triple hits in CMYC, BCL2, and BCL6 genes, and 52% had germinal center B-cell type disease.

Forty-four percent had 2 prior lines of therapy, 31% had 3 prior lines of therapy, and 19% had 4 to 6 prior lines of therapy. All were either refractory to or relapsed from their last therapy.

Forty-seven percent had undergone prior auto-SCT.

Eighty-nine of the 99 patients infused with tisagenlecleucel received bridging therapy, and 92 received lymphodepleting therapy.

Twenty-six patients were infused as outpatients, and 20 remained as outpatients for 3 or more days after the infusion.

Efficacy

The trial met its primary endpoint with an ORR of 53% tested against the null hypothesis of 20% or less. Forty percent of patients achieved a CR, and 14% had a partial response.

The ORR was consistent across all subgroups, including age, sex, lines of prior antineoplastic therapy, cell of origin, and rearranged MYC/BCL2/BCL6.

“The durability of response, however, which is really the message, is shown by the stability between 3- and 6-month response rates, 38% and 37%, respectively,” Dr Schuster said. “The response rate at 3 months is really indicative of the long-term benefit of this treatment approach.”

The investigators observed no apparent relationship between tumor response at month 3 and dose. And they observed responses at all dose levels.

The very early response may be due, to a certain extent, to the chemotherapy, according to Dr Schuster.

“The effect of the T cells becomes evident as you follow these patients over time,” he said.

The median duration of response and overall response have not been reached. And 74% of patients were relapse-free at 6 months.

“Importantly, almost all the complete responders at month 3 remained in complete response,” Dr Schuster said.

Safety

Adverse events of special interest that occurred within 8 weeks of the infusion included:

• Cytokine release syndrome (CRS)—58% all grades, 15% grade 3, 8% grade 4
• Neurologic events—21% all grades, 8% grade 3, 4% grade 4
• Prolonged cytopenia—36% all grades, 15% grade 3, 12% grade 4
• Infections—34% all grades, 18% grade 3, 2% grade 4
• Febrile neutropenia—13% all grades, 11% grade 3, 2% grade 4

No deaths occurred due to tisagenlecleucel, CRS, or cerebral edema.

Fifty-seven patients developed CRS. The median time to onset of CRS was 3 days (range, 1–9), and the median duration of CRS was 7 days (range, 2–30).

Twenty-eight percent of patients developed hypotension that required intervention, 6% requiring high-dose vasopressors. Eight percent were intubated, and 16% received anticytokine therapy—15% with tocilizumab and 11% with corticosteroids.

Investigators did not observe a relationship between dose and neurological events. However, they did detect a higher probability of CRS with the higher doses of tisagenlecleucel.

They also noted that dose and exposure were independent.

Dr Schuster indicated that these data are the basis for global regulatory submissions.

Manufacture of tisagenlecleucel was centralized, and investigators believe the trial shows the feasibility of global distribution of CAR T-cell therapy using cryopreserved apheresis and centralized manufacturing.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the sponsor of the trial, is now able to commercially manufacture the CAR T cells in 22 days.

Dr Schuster disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Novartis and Celgene.

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved in the US to treat children and young adults with leukemia is also producing high response rates in lymphoma, according to investigators of the JULIET trial.

They reported that tisagenlecleucel (formerly CTL019) produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 53% and a complete response (CR) rate of 40% in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Additionally, researchers say the stability in the response rate at 3 and 6 months—38% and 37%, respectively—indicates the durability of the therapy.

At 3 months, 32% of patients who achieved CR remained in CR. At 6 months, 30% remained in CR.

Researchers believe these results confirm the durable clinical benefit reported previously.

Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented the JULIET data at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 577).

“Only about half of relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients are eligible for transplant,” Dr Schuster said. “[O]f those patients, only about a half respond to salvage chemotherapy, and a significant number of patients relapse post-transplant. So there is really a large unmet need for these patients, and CAR T-cell therapy is a potential agent [for them].”

The JULIET trial was a global, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluating tisagenlecleucel in DLBCL patients. Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™) consists of CAR T cells with a CD19 antigen-binding domain, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta signaling domain.

The trial was conducted at 27 sites in 10 countries across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. There were 2 centralized manufacturing sites, one in Europe and one in the US.

Patients had to be 18 years or older, have had 2 or more prior lines of therapy for DLBCL, and have progressive disease or be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT). They could not have had any prior anti-CD19 therapy, and they could not have any central nervous system involvement.

The primary endpoint was best ORR using Lugano criteria with assessment by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety.

Study design and enrollment

Patients were screened and underwent apheresis with cryopreservation of their leukapheresis products during screening, which “allowed for enrollment of all eligible patients,” Dr Schuster said.

Patients could receive bridging chemotherapy while they awaited the manufacture of the CAR T cells.

“What’s important to note is that, early on in the trial, there was a shortage of manufacturing capacity, and this led to a longer-than-anticipated interval between enrollment and treatment,” Dr Schuster said. “This interval decreased as manufacturing capacity improved throughout the trial.”

When their CAR T cells were ready, patients were restaged, lymphodepleted, and received the tisagenlecleucel infusion. The dose ranged from 0.6 x 10⁸ to 6.0 x 10⁸ CAR-positive T cells.

The infusion could be conducted on an inpatient or outpatient basis at the investigator’s discretion, Dr Schuster said.

As of the data cutoff in March 2017, investigators enrolled 147 patients and infused 99 with tisagenlecleucel.

Forty-three patients discontinued before infusion, 9 because of an inability to manufacture the T-cell product and 34 due to death (n=16), physician decision (n=12), patient decision (n=3), adverse event (n=2), and protocol deviation (n=1). Five patients were pending infusion.

There were 81 patients with at least 3 months of follow-up or earlier disease progression evaluable for response.

Patient characteristics

Patients were a median age of 56 (range, 22–76), and 23% were 65 or older. All had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 80% had DLBCL, and 19% had transformed follicular lymphoma.

Fifteen percent had double or triple hits in CMYC, BCL2, and BCL6 genes, and 52% had germinal center B-cell type disease.

Forty-four percent had 2 prior lines of therapy, 31% had 3 prior lines of therapy, and 19% had 4 to 6 prior lines of therapy. All were either refractory to or relapsed from their last therapy.

Forty-seven percent had undergone prior auto-SCT.

Eighty-nine of the 99 patients infused with tisagenlecleucel received bridging therapy, and 92 received lymphodepleting therapy.

Twenty-six patients were infused as outpatients, and 20 remained as outpatients for 3 or more days after the infusion.

Efficacy

The trial met its primary endpoint with an ORR of 53% tested against the null hypothesis of 20% or less. Forty percent of patients achieved a CR, and 14% had a partial response.

The ORR was consistent across all subgroups, including age, sex, lines of prior antineoplastic therapy, cell of origin, and rearranged MYC/BCL2/BCL6.

“The durability of response, however, which is really the message, is shown by the stability between 3- and 6-month response rates, 38% and 37%, respectively,” Dr Schuster said. “The response rate at 3 months is really indicative of the long-term benefit of this treatment approach.”

The investigators observed no apparent relationship between tumor response at month 3 and dose. And they observed responses at all dose levels.

The very early response may be due, to a certain extent, to the chemotherapy, according to Dr Schuster.

“The effect of the T cells becomes evident as you follow these patients over time,” he said.

The median duration of response and overall response have not been reached. And 74% of patients were relapse-free at 6 months.

“Importantly, almost all the complete responders at month 3 remained in complete response,” Dr Schuster said.

Safety

Adverse events of special interest that occurred within 8 weeks of the infusion included:

• Cytokine release syndrome (CRS)—58% all grades, 15% grade 3, 8% grade 4
• Neurologic events—21% all grades, 8% grade 3, 4% grade 4
• Prolonged cytopenia—36% all grades, 15% grade 3, 12% grade 4
• Infections—34% all grades, 18% grade 3, 2% grade 4
• Febrile neutropenia—13% all grades, 11% grade 3, 2% grade 4

No deaths occurred due to tisagenlecleucel, CRS, or cerebral edema.

Fifty-seven patients developed CRS. The median time to onset of CRS was 3 days (range, 1–9), and the median duration of CRS was 7 days (range, 2–30).

Twenty-eight percent of patients developed hypotension that required intervention, 6% requiring high-dose vasopressors. Eight percent were intubated, and 16% received anticytokine therapy—15% with tocilizumab and 11% with corticosteroids.

Investigators did not observe a relationship between dose and neurological events. However, they did detect a higher probability of CRS with the higher doses of tisagenlecleucel.

They also noted that dose and exposure were independent.

Dr Schuster indicated that these data are the basis for global regulatory submissions.

Manufacture of tisagenlecleucel was centralized, and investigators believe the trial shows the feasibility of global distribution of CAR T-cell therapy using cryopreserved apheresis and centralized manufacturing.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the sponsor of the trial, is now able to commercially manufacture the CAR T cells in 22 days.

Dr Schuster disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Novartis and Celgene.

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved in the US to treat children and young adults with leukemia is also producing high response rates in lymphoma, according to investigators of the JULIET trial.

They reported that tisagenlecleucel (formerly CTL019) produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 53% and a complete response (CR) rate of 40% in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Additionally, researchers say the stability in the response rate at 3 and 6 months—38% and 37%, respectively—indicates the durability of the therapy.

At 3 months, 32% of patients who achieved CR remained in CR. At 6 months, 30% remained in CR.

Researchers believe these results confirm the durable clinical benefit reported previously.

Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented the JULIET data at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 577).

“Only about half of relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients are eligible for transplant,” Dr Schuster said. “[O]f those patients, only about a half respond to salvage chemotherapy, and a significant number of patients relapse post-transplant. So there is really a large unmet need for these patients, and CAR T-cell therapy is a potential agent [for them].”

The JULIET trial was a global, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluating tisagenlecleucel in DLBCL patients. Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™) consists of CAR T cells with a CD19 antigen-binding domain, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta signaling domain.

The trial was conducted at 27 sites in 10 countries across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. There were 2 centralized manufacturing sites, one in Europe and one in the US.

Patients had to be 18 years or older, have had 2 or more prior lines of therapy for DLBCL, and have progressive disease or be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT). They could not have had any prior anti-CD19 therapy, and they could not have any central nervous system involvement.

The primary endpoint was best ORR using Lugano criteria with assessment by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety.

Study design and enrollment

Patients were screened and underwent apheresis with cryopreservation of their leukapheresis products during screening, which “allowed for enrollment of all eligible patients,” Dr Schuster said.

Patients could receive bridging chemotherapy while they awaited the manufacture of the CAR T cells.

“What’s important to note is that, early on in the trial, there was a shortage of manufacturing capacity, and this led to a longer-than-anticipated interval between enrollment and treatment,” Dr Schuster said. “This interval decreased as manufacturing capacity improved throughout the trial.”

When their CAR T cells were ready, patients were restaged, lymphodepleted, and received the tisagenlecleucel infusion. The dose ranged from 0.6 x 10⁸ to 6.0 x 10⁸ CAR-positive T cells.

The infusion could be conducted on an inpatient or outpatient basis at the investigator’s discretion, Dr Schuster said.

As of the data cutoff in March 2017, investigators enrolled 147 patients and infused 99 with tisagenlecleucel.

Forty-three patients discontinued before infusion, 9 because of an inability to manufacture the T-cell product and 34 due to death (n=16), physician decision (n=12), patient decision (n=3), adverse event (n=2), and protocol deviation (n=1). Five patients were pending infusion.

There were 81 patients with at least 3 months of follow-up or earlier disease progression evaluable for response.

Patient characteristics

Patients were a median age of 56 (range, 22–76), and 23% were 65 or older. All had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 80% had DLBCL, and 19% had transformed follicular lymphoma.

Fifteen percent had double or triple hits in CMYC, BCL2, and BCL6 genes, and 52% had germinal center B-cell type disease.

Forty-four percent had 2 prior lines of therapy, 31% had 3 prior lines of therapy, and 19% had 4 to 6 prior lines of therapy. All were either refractory to or relapsed from their last therapy.

Forty-seven percent had undergone prior auto-SCT.

Eighty-nine of the 99 patients infused with tisagenlecleucel received bridging therapy, and 92 received lymphodepleting therapy.

Twenty-six patients were infused as outpatients, and 20 remained as outpatients for 3 or more days after the infusion.

Efficacy

The trial met its primary endpoint with an ORR of 53% tested against the null hypothesis of 20% or less. Forty percent of patients achieved a CR, and 14% had a partial response.

The ORR was consistent across all subgroups, including age, sex, lines of prior antineoplastic therapy, cell of origin, and rearranged MYC/BCL2/BCL6.

“The durability of response, however, which is really the message, is shown by the stability between 3- and 6-month response rates, 38% and 37%, respectively,” Dr Schuster said. “The response rate at 3 months is really indicative of the long-term benefit of this treatment approach.”

The investigators observed no apparent relationship between tumor response at month 3 and dose. And they observed responses at all dose levels.

The very early response may be due, to a certain extent, to the chemotherapy, according to Dr Schuster.

“The effect of the T cells becomes evident as you follow these patients over time,” he said.

The median duration of response and overall response have not been reached. And 74% of patients were relapse-free at 6 months.

“Importantly, almost all the complete responders at month 3 remained in complete response,” Dr Schuster said.

Safety

Adverse events of special interest that occurred within 8 weeks of the infusion included:

• Cytokine release syndrome (CRS)—58% all grades, 15% grade 3, 8% grade 4
• Neurologic events—21% all grades, 8% grade 3, 4% grade 4
• Prolonged cytopenia—36% all grades, 15% grade 3, 12% grade 4
• Infections—34% all grades, 18% grade 3, 2% grade 4
• Febrile neutropenia—13% all grades, 11% grade 3, 2% grade 4

No deaths occurred due to tisagenlecleucel, CRS, or cerebral edema.

Fifty-seven patients developed CRS. The median time to onset of CRS was 3 days (range, 1–9), and the median duration of CRS was 7 days (range, 2–30).

Twenty-eight percent of patients developed hypotension that required intervention, 6% requiring high-dose vasopressors. Eight percent were intubated, and 16% received anticytokine therapy—15% with tocilizumab and 11% with corticosteroids.

Investigators did not observe a relationship between dose and neurological events. However, they did detect a higher probability of CRS with the higher doses of tisagenlecleucel.

They also noted that dose and exposure were independent.

Dr Schuster indicated that these data are the basis for global regulatory submissions.

Manufacture of tisagenlecleucel was centralized, and investigators believe the trial shows the feasibility of global distribution of CAR T-cell therapy using cryopreserved apheresis and centralized manufacturing.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the sponsor of the trial, is now able to commercially manufacture the CAR T cells in 22 days.

Dr Schuster disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Novartis and Celgene.

Lab mouse

New research suggests that C-reactive protein (CRP) drives multiple myeloma (MM) to destroy bone.

Researchers found that CRP accelerated the onset of bone destruction and made bone damage more severe in mouse models of MM.

The team also observed an association between elevated serum CRP levels and greater degree of bone damage in newly diagnosed MM patients.

The researchers therefore believe that CRP might be targeted to prevent or treat MM-associated bone disease.

Qing Yi, MD, PhD, of the Lerner Research Institute at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Science Translational Medicine.

The researchers noted that high levels of circulating CRP have been associated with poor prognosis in many cancers, including MM.

In a previous study, the team found that CRP enhanced MM cell proliferation under stressed conditions and protected MM cells from chemotherapy-induced apoptosis.

Now, the researchers have found that CRP activates MM cells to promote osteoclastogenesis and bone destruction.

In experiments with mouse models, the team found that CRP promoted MM-cell-mediated lytic bone disease. The researchers said CRP enhanced osteoclast differentiation and bone resorption activity.

In vitro experiments showed that CRP stimulates MM cells to produce osteoclast activators such as RANKL, MCP-1, and MIP-1a.

Further investigation revealed that CRP binds to CD32 on MM cells. This activates a pathway mediated by the kinase p38 MAPK and the transcription factor Twist, which increases MM cells’ production of osteolytic cytokines.

Finally, the researchers analyzed samples from newly diagnosed MM patients.

The team found that serum CRP levels “significantly and positively” correlated with the number of bone lesions patients had. And CRP was abundant in lesion biopsies from individuals with severe skeletal disease.

Lab mouse

New research suggests that C-reactive protein (CRP) drives multiple myeloma (MM) to destroy bone.

Researchers found that CRP accelerated the onset of bone destruction and made bone damage more severe in mouse models of MM.

The team also observed an association between elevated serum CRP levels and greater degree of bone damage in newly diagnosed MM patients.

The researchers therefore believe that CRP might be targeted to prevent or treat MM-associated bone disease.

Qing Yi, MD, PhD, of the Lerner Research Institute at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Science Translational Medicine.

The researchers noted that high levels of circulating CRP have been associated with poor prognosis in many cancers, including MM.

In a previous study, the team found that CRP enhanced MM cell proliferation under stressed conditions and protected MM cells from chemotherapy-induced apoptosis.

Now, the researchers have found that CRP activates MM cells to promote osteoclastogenesis and bone destruction.

In experiments with mouse models, the team found that CRP promoted MM-cell-mediated lytic bone disease. The researchers said CRP enhanced osteoclast differentiation and bone resorption activity.

In vitro experiments showed that CRP stimulates MM cells to produce osteoclast activators such as RANKL, MCP-1, and MIP-1a.

Further investigation revealed that CRP binds to CD32 on MM cells. This activates a pathway mediated by the kinase p38 MAPK and the transcription factor Twist, which increases MM cells’ production of osteolytic cytokines.

Finally, the researchers analyzed samples from newly diagnosed MM patients.

The team found that serum CRP levels “significantly and positively” correlated with the number of bone lesions patients had. And CRP was abundant in lesion biopsies from individuals with severe skeletal disease.

Lab mouse

New research suggests that C-reactive protein (CRP) drives multiple myeloma (MM) to destroy bone.

Researchers found that CRP accelerated the onset of bone destruction and made bone damage more severe in mouse models of MM.

The team also observed an association between elevated serum CRP levels and greater degree of bone damage in newly diagnosed MM patients.

The researchers therefore believe that CRP might be targeted to prevent or treat MM-associated bone disease.

Qing Yi, MD, PhD, of the Lerner Research Institute at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Science Translational Medicine.

The researchers noted that high levels of circulating CRP have been associated with poor prognosis in many cancers, including MM.

In a previous study, the team found that CRP enhanced MM cell proliferation under stressed conditions and protected MM cells from chemotherapy-induced apoptosis.

Now, the researchers have found that CRP activates MM cells to promote osteoclastogenesis and bone destruction.

In experiments with mouse models, the team found that CRP promoted MM-cell-mediated lytic bone disease. The researchers said CRP enhanced osteoclast differentiation and bone resorption activity.

In vitro experiments showed that CRP stimulates MM cells to produce osteoclast activators such as RANKL, MCP-1, and MIP-1a.

Further investigation revealed that CRP binds to CD32 on MM cells. This activates a pathway mediated by the kinase p38 MAPK and the transcription factor Twist, which increases MM cells’ production of osteolytic cytokines.

Finally, the researchers analyzed samples from newly diagnosed MM patients.

The team found that serum CRP levels “significantly and positively” correlated with the number of bone lesions patients had. And CRP was abundant in lesion biopsies from individuals with severe skeletal disease.

Photo by Bill Branson

A survey of nearly 300 US medical providers revealed that many were open to helping children with cancer access medical marijuana (MM).

However, most of the providers surveyed did not know state-specific regulations pertaining to MM.

Providers who were legally eligible to certify (ETC) for MM were less open to endorsing its use.

The lack of standards on formulations, dosing, and potency of MM was identified as the greatest barrier to recommending MM for children with cancer.

Kelly Michelson, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago in Illinois, and her colleagues reported these findings in Pediatrics.

The researchers used a 32-item survey to assess MM practices, knowledge, attitudes, and barriers for pediatric oncology providers in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington.

The survey was sent to providers at Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Seattle Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, and Lurie Children’s Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders.

There were 288 respondents, and 33% were legally ETC for MM. Eighty-six percent of ETC providers were physicians, and 14% were nurse practitioners or physician assistants.

Of the non-ETC providers, 89% were nurses, 8% were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 2% were psychosocial providers, and 2% were “other” providers.

Thirty percent of all providers said they had received at least 1 request for MM in the previous month. And 14% of these providers facilitated patient access to MM.

Ninety-two percent of providers said they were willing to help pediatric cancer patients access MM. Fifty-seven percent of providers approved of patients smoking MM, 89% approved of oral formulations, 67% approved of using MM as cancer-directed therapy, and 92% approved of using MM to manage symptoms.

Fifty-nine percent of providers knew that MM is against federal laws, and 86% knew that their state had legalized MM, but only 5% knew state-specific regulations.

ETC providers were less likely to report willingness to help patients access MM. These providers were also less likely to approve of MM use by smoking, oral formulations, as cancer-directed therapy, or to manage symptoms.

“It is not surprising that providers who are eligible to certify for medical marijuana were more cautious about recommending it, given that their licensure could be jeopardized due to federal prohibition,” Dr Michelson said.

“Institutional policies also may have influenced their attitudes. Lurie Children’s, for example, prohibits pediatric providers from facilitating medical marijuana access in accordance with the federal law, even though it is legal in Illinois.”

Most providers considered MM more permissible for use in children with advanced cancer or near the end of life than in earlier stages of cancer treatment. This is consistent with the current American Academy of Pediatrics position that sanctions MM use for “children with life-limiting or seriously debilitating conditions.”

Only 2% of providers reported that MM was never appropriate for a child with cancer.

Most providers (63%) were not concerned about substance abuse in children who receive MM or about being prosecuted for helping patients access MM (80%).

The greatest concern (listed by 46% of providers) was the absence of standards around prescribing MM to children with cancer.

“In addition to unclear dosage guidelines, the lack of high quality scientific data that medical marijuana benefits outweigh possible harm is a huge concern for providers accustomed to evidence-based practice,” Dr Michelson said. “We need rigorously designed clinical trials on the use of medical marijuana in children with cancer.”

Photo by Bill Branson

A survey of nearly 300 US medical providers revealed that many were open to helping children with cancer access medical marijuana (MM).

However, most of the providers surveyed did not know state-specific regulations pertaining to MM.

Providers who were legally eligible to certify (ETC) for MM were less open to endorsing its use.

The lack of standards on formulations, dosing, and potency of MM was identified as the greatest barrier to recommending MM for children with cancer.

Kelly Michelson, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago in Illinois, and her colleagues reported these findings in Pediatrics.

The researchers used a 32-item survey to assess MM practices, knowledge, attitudes, and barriers for pediatric oncology providers in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington.

The survey was sent to providers at Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Seattle Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, and Lurie Children’s Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders.

There were 288 respondents, and 33% were legally ETC for MM. Eighty-six percent of ETC providers were physicians, and 14% were nurse practitioners or physician assistants.

Of the non-ETC providers, 89% were nurses, 8% were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 2% were psychosocial providers, and 2% were “other” providers.

Thirty percent of all providers said they had received at least 1 request for MM in the previous month. And 14% of these providers facilitated patient access to MM.

Ninety-two percent of providers said they were willing to help pediatric cancer patients access MM. Fifty-seven percent of providers approved of patients smoking MM, 89% approved of oral formulations, 67% approved of using MM as cancer-directed therapy, and 92% approved of using MM to manage symptoms.

Fifty-nine percent of providers knew that MM is against federal laws, and 86% knew that their state had legalized MM, but only 5% knew state-specific regulations.

ETC providers were less likely to report willingness to help patients access MM. These providers were also less likely to approve of MM use by smoking, oral formulations, as cancer-directed therapy, or to manage symptoms.

“It is not surprising that providers who are eligible to certify for medical marijuana were more cautious about recommending it, given that their licensure could be jeopardized due to federal prohibition,” Dr Michelson said.

“Institutional policies also may have influenced their attitudes. Lurie Children’s, for example, prohibits pediatric providers from facilitating medical marijuana access in accordance with the federal law, even though it is legal in Illinois.”

Most providers considered MM more permissible for use in children with advanced cancer or near the end of life than in earlier stages of cancer treatment. This is consistent with the current American Academy of Pediatrics position that sanctions MM use for “children with life-limiting or seriously debilitating conditions.”

Only 2% of providers reported that MM was never appropriate for a child with cancer.

Most providers (63%) were not concerned about substance abuse in children who receive MM or about being prosecuted for helping patients access MM (80%).

The greatest concern (listed by 46% of providers) was the absence of standards around prescribing MM to children with cancer.

“In addition to unclear dosage guidelines, the lack of high quality scientific data that medical marijuana benefits outweigh possible harm is a huge concern for providers accustomed to evidence-based practice,” Dr Michelson said. “We need rigorously designed clinical trials on the use of medical marijuana in children with cancer.”

Photo by Bill Branson

A survey of nearly 300 US medical providers revealed that many were open to helping children with cancer access medical marijuana (MM).

However, most of the providers surveyed did not know state-specific regulations pertaining to MM.

Providers who were legally eligible to certify (ETC) for MM were less open to endorsing its use.

The lack of standards on formulations, dosing, and potency of MM was identified as the greatest barrier to recommending MM for children with cancer.

Kelly Michelson, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago in Illinois, and her colleagues reported these findings in Pediatrics.

The researchers used a 32-item survey to assess MM practices, knowledge, attitudes, and barriers for pediatric oncology providers in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington.

The survey was sent to providers at Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Seattle Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, and Lurie Children’s Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders.

There were 288 respondents, and 33% were legally ETC for MM. Eighty-six percent of ETC providers were physicians, and 14% were nurse practitioners or physician assistants.

Of the non-ETC providers, 89% were nurses, 8% were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 2% were psychosocial providers, and 2% were “other” providers.

Thirty percent of all providers said they had received at least 1 request for MM in the previous month. And 14% of these providers facilitated patient access to MM.

Ninety-two percent of providers said they were willing to help pediatric cancer patients access MM. Fifty-seven percent of providers approved of patients smoking MM, 89% approved of oral formulations, 67% approved of using MM as cancer-directed therapy, and 92% approved of using MM to manage symptoms.

Fifty-nine percent of providers knew that MM is against federal laws, and 86% knew that their state had legalized MM, but only 5% knew state-specific regulations.

ETC providers were less likely to report willingness to help patients access MM. These providers were also less likely to approve of MM use by smoking, oral formulations, as cancer-directed therapy, or to manage symptoms.

“It is not surprising that providers who are eligible to certify for medical marijuana were more cautious about recommending it, given that their licensure could be jeopardized due to federal prohibition,” Dr Michelson said.

“Institutional policies also may have influenced their attitudes. Lurie Children’s, for example, prohibits pediatric providers from facilitating medical marijuana access in accordance with the federal law, even though it is legal in Illinois.”

Most providers considered MM more permissible for use in children with advanced cancer or near the end of life than in earlier stages of cancer treatment. This is consistent with the current American Academy of Pediatrics position that sanctions MM use for “children with life-limiting or seriously debilitating conditions.”

Only 2% of providers reported that MM was never appropriate for a child with cancer.

Most providers (63%) were not concerned about substance abuse in children who receive MM or about being prosecuted for helping patients access MM (80%).

The greatest concern (listed by 46% of providers) was the absence of standards around prescribing MM to children with cancer.

“In addition to unclear dosage guidelines, the lack of high quality scientific data that medical marijuana benefits outweigh possible harm is a huge concern for providers accustomed to evidence-based practice,” Dr Michelson said. “We need rigorously designed clinical trials on the use of medical marijuana in children with cancer.”

Q) My patient has multiple sclerosis and complains of feeling weaker, but denies urinary symptoms. Why have I been told to check for urinary tract infection and not just administer steroids?

Bladder complications are extremely common in patients living with multiple sclerosis (MS), occurring in around 80% of this population.¹ These complications—which include urinary urgency, failure to fully empty the bladder, incontinence, and difficulty getting to a toilet in time—can increase risk for urinary tract infection (UTI). And because many patients with MS also have sensory problems (eg, ­neurogenic bladder), they do not always present with the hallmark UTI symptoms of burning or pain with urination.

Often, presenting symptoms include generalized weakness, increased spasticity, or intensified neurologic issues. These can lead patients to believe they are having a relapse, when in fact, a UTI is causing a pseudoexacerbation of their baseline neurologic issues. In addition, frequent nocturia can disrupt sleep and further contribute to MS-related fatigue. Patients may self-induce dehydration by limiting their daytime fluid intake in an effort to avoid bathroom visits.¹

In partnership with urology colleagues, you can help mitigate bladder complications in patients with MS; this can entail use of medication or interventions such as in-and-out or straight catheterization, timed voids, Botox, or pelvic floor physical therapy. Behavior modifications—ie, minimizing caffeine intake, limiting alcohol consumption, and stopping fluids early in the evening—can also be beneficial.^1,2

Before initiating bladder medication, it is important to review potential adverse effects with the patient. It’s also crucial to ensure that patients are fully emptying their bladders before starting anticholinergic medications, as these can worsen retention.

Which treatment should you choose? Insurance companies tend to prefer generic, older-generation anticholinergics, but bear in mind that these can cause or contribute to cognitive issues (which many patients with MS already have).³ Another medication, such as mirabegron, may be preferable; it’s less likely than anticholinergics to cause dry mouth, which may help with compliance. Also, be aware that anticholinergics can cause blurred vision, which might lead patients to believe they are having optic neuritis or another MS-related visual change.⁴

That said, it is possible for patients to have a relapse and a UTI simultaneously. Due to potential adverse effects, it is essential to balance the risks and benefits of steroid therapy. Steroids could worsen an untreated infection and may not be appropriate for the patient’s symptoms or chief complaint.

Addressing bladder symptoms can not only help prevent UTIs but can also improve skin integrity, sleep quality, independence, and overall quality of life. A thorough exam and history-taking can alleviate secondary and tertiary urinary complications, as well as avoid unnecessary use of corticosteroids. -DRB

Denise R. Bruen, MSN, APRN-BC, MSCN
University of Virgina, Charlottesville

Q) My patient has multiple sclerosis and complains of feeling weaker, but denies urinary symptoms. Why have I been told to check for urinary tract infection and not just administer steroids?

Bladder complications are extremely common in patients living with multiple sclerosis (MS), occurring in around 80% of this population.¹ These complications—which include urinary urgency, failure to fully empty the bladder, incontinence, and difficulty getting to a toilet in time—can increase risk for urinary tract infection (UTI). And because many patients with MS also have sensory problems (eg, ­neurogenic bladder), they do not always present with the hallmark UTI symptoms of burning or pain with urination.

Often, presenting symptoms include generalized weakness, increased spasticity, or intensified neurologic issues. These can lead patients to believe they are having a relapse, when in fact, a UTI is causing a pseudoexacerbation of their baseline neurologic issues. In addition, frequent nocturia can disrupt sleep and further contribute to MS-related fatigue. Patients may self-induce dehydration by limiting their daytime fluid intake in an effort to avoid bathroom visits.¹

In partnership with urology colleagues, you can help mitigate bladder complications in patients with MS; this can entail use of medication or interventions such as in-and-out or straight catheterization, timed voids, Botox, or pelvic floor physical therapy. Behavior modifications—ie, minimizing caffeine intake, limiting alcohol consumption, and stopping fluids early in the evening—can also be beneficial.^1,2

Before initiating bladder medication, it is important to review potential adverse effects with the patient. It’s also crucial to ensure that patients are fully emptying their bladders before starting anticholinergic medications, as these can worsen retention.

Which treatment should you choose? Insurance companies tend to prefer generic, older-generation anticholinergics, but bear in mind that these can cause or contribute to cognitive issues (which many patients with MS already have).³ Another medication, such as mirabegron, may be preferable; it’s less likely than anticholinergics to cause dry mouth, which may help with compliance. Also, be aware that anticholinergics can cause blurred vision, which might lead patients to believe they are having optic neuritis or another MS-related visual change.⁴

That said, it is possible for patients to have a relapse and a UTI simultaneously. Due to potential adverse effects, it is essential to balance the risks and benefits of steroid therapy. Steroids could worsen an untreated infection and may not be appropriate for the patient’s symptoms or chief complaint.

Addressing bladder symptoms can not only help prevent UTIs but can also improve skin integrity, sleep quality, independence, and overall quality of life. A thorough exam and history-taking can alleviate secondary and tertiary urinary complications, as well as avoid unnecessary use of corticosteroids. -DRB

Denise R. Bruen, MSN, APRN-BC, MSCN
University of Virgina, Charlottesville

Q) My patient has multiple sclerosis and complains of feeling weaker, but denies urinary symptoms. Why have I been told to check for urinary tract infection and not just administer steroids?

Bladder complications are extremely common in patients living with multiple sclerosis (MS), occurring in around 80% of this population.¹ These complications—which include urinary urgency, failure to fully empty the bladder, incontinence, and difficulty getting to a toilet in time—can increase risk for urinary tract infection (UTI). And because many patients with MS also have sensory problems (eg, ­neurogenic bladder), they do not always present with the hallmark UTI symptoms of burning or pain with urination.

Often, presenting symptoms include generalized weakness, increased spasticity, or intensified neurologic issues. These can lead patients to believe they are having a relapse, when in fact, a UTI is causing a pseudoexacerbation of their baseline neurologic issues. In addition, frequent nocturia can disrupt sleep and further contribute to MS-related fatigue. Patients may self-induce dehydration by limiting their daytime fluid intake in an effort to avoid bathroom visits.¹

In partnership with urology colleagues, you can help mitigate bladder complications in patients with MS; this can entail use of medication or interventions such as in-and-out or straight catheterization, timed voids, Botox, or pelvic floor physical therapy. Behavior modifications—ie, minimizing caffeine intake, limiting alcohol consumption, and stopping fluids early in the evening—can also be beneficial.^1,2

Before initiating bladder medication, it is important to review potential adverse effects with the patient. It’s also crucial to ensure that patients are fully emptying their bladders before starting anticholinergic medications, as these can worsen retention.

Which treatment should you choose? Insurance companies tend to prefer generic, older-generation anticholinergics, but bear in mind that these can cause or contribute to cognitive issues (which many patients with MS already have).³ Another medication, such as mirabegron, may be preferable; it’s less likely than anticholinergics to cause dry mouth, which may help with compliance. Also, be aware that anticholinergics can cause blurred vision, which might lead patients to believe they are having optic neuritis or another MS-related visual change.⁴

That said, it is possible for patients to have a relapse and a UTI simultaneously. Due to potential adverse effects, it is essential to balance the risks and benefits of steroid therapy. Steroids could worsen an untreated infection and may not be appropriate for the patient’s symptoms or chief complaint.

Addressing bladder symptoms can not only help prevent UTIs but can also improve skin integrity, sleep quality, independence, and overall quality of life. A thorough exam and history-taking can alleviate secondary and tertiary urinary complications, as well as avoid unnecessary use of corticosteroids. -DRB

Denise R. Bruen, MSN, APRN-BC, MSCN
University of Virgina, Charlottesville

Clinical question: Does exposure to a patient with a multidrug-resistant organism result in colonization of a health care provider?

Background: Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are growing threats in our hospitals, particularly vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and resistant gram-negative bacteria. The role of the health care team in preventing infection transmission is paramount. If a team member who is caring for a patient with an MDRO or handling lab specimens becomes colonized with these bacteria, he or she could potentially transmit them to the next patient.

Dr. Sata is a medical instructor, Duke University Hospital.

Clinical question: Does exposure to a patient with a multidrug-resistant organism result in colonization of a health care provider?

Background: Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are growing threats in our hospitals, particularly vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and resistant gram-negative bacteria. The role of the health care team in preventing infection transmission is paramount. If a team member who is caring for a patient with an MDRO or handling lab specimens becomes colonized with these bacteria, he or she could potentially transmit them to the next patient.

Dr. Sata is a medical instructor, Duke University Hospital.

Clinical question: Does exposure to a patient with a multidrug-resistant organism result in colonization of a health care provider?

Background: Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are growing threats in our hospitals, particularly vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and resistant gram-negative bacteria. The role of the health care team in preventing infection transmission is paramount. If a team member who is caring for a patient with an MDRO or handling lab specimens becomes colonized with these bacteria, he or she could potentially transmit them to the next patient.

Dr. Sata is a medical instructor, Duke University Hospital.

The total number of health insurance plans selected on HealthCare.gov increased by 68% during weeks 5 and 6 of the 2018 open season, compared with the total at the end of week 4, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The 1.89 million plans that consumers selected over the 2-week period ending Dec. 9 brought this year’s total to 4.68 million after 6 weeks. That’s 16.5% higher than last year’s 6-week total of 4.02 million, but the difference has been getting smaller: After week 2 (enrollment figures were released only biweekly last year), the 2018 open season’s tally was higher than the 2017 open season’s week 2 tally by almost 47%, but after 4 weeks, the difference was only 30%, the CMS data show.

[email protected]

The total number of health insurance plans selected on HealthCare.gov increased by 68% during weeks 5 and 6 of the 2018 open season, compared with the total at the end of week 4, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The 1.89 million plans that consumers selected over the 2-week period ending Dec. 9 brought this year’s total to 4.68 million after 6 weeks. That’s 16.5% higher than last year’s 6-week total of 4.02 million, but the difference has been getting smaller: After week 2 (enrollment figures were released only biweekly last year), the 2018 open season’s tally was higher than the 2017 open season’s week 2 tally by almost 47%, but after 4 weeks, the difference was only 30%, the CMS data show.

[email protected]

The total number of health insurance plans selected on HealthCare.gov increased by 68% during weeks 5 and 6 of the 2018 open season, compared with the total at the end of week 4, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The 1.89 million plans that consumers selected over the 2-week period ending Dec. 9 brought this year’s total to 4.68 million after 6 weeks. That’s 16.5% higher than last year’s 6-week total of 4.02 million, but the difference has been getting smaller: After week 2 (enrollment figures were released only biweekly last year), the 2018 open season’s tally was higher than the 2017 open season’s week 2 tally by almost 47%, but after 4 weeks, the difference was only 30%, the CMS data show.

[email protected]

Stent-graft coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) is often performed during TEVAR treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies and, consequently, debranching of the LSA is frequently performed in such settings. The carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB) is undoubtedly the cervical bypass option preferred by most surgeons for this purpose.^1,2 The technique was first described by Lyons and Galbraith in 1957,³ and popularized by Diethrich et al. who reported their large experience in a well-known article published 10 years later.⁴ In the ensuing decades, CSB became the overwhelming favorite of surgeons everywhere performing LSA revascularization for management of arterial occlusive disease and, more recently, in the context of zone-2 TEVAR. Well- documented good results would seem to justify such preference,⁵ but some level of concern has been voiced consistently over the years about some technical complexities and potential complications such as phrenic nerve and thoracic duct injuries.⁶ My own personal experience substantiated these reservations early on, prompting adoption of an alternative operative solution with use of the carotid-axillary bypass (CAB),⁷ an operation first reported by Shumacker in 1973.⁸ In my hands, it has produced equivalent results to the carotid-subclavian technique in terms of efficacy and durability, and with the additional appeal of distinct practical advantages – mainly because the axillary artery tends to be an easier vessel to expose and handle, and through the avoidance of complications resulting from damage to anatomical structures that are often in harm’s way when exposing the LSA.

Technical aspects

Courtesy of Dr. Criado

End-to-side anastomoses proximally and distally are constructed in routine manner (Fig. 2). We do not use carotid shunting for this procedure.

Occasionally one may want to combine a carotid endarterectomy with the cervical bypass, in which case the proximal vascular graft anastomosis is constructed at the endarterectomy site (Fig. 3). Close attention must be paid to careful length-tailoring the conduit to achieve the desirable gently curving course without undue tension or redundancy.

Proximal ligation of the LSA, often performed during the CSB, cannot be a component of the carotid-axillary operation because of inaccessibility. Some experts look upon this as a disadvantage, but I tend to view such limitation as advantageous because it eliminates the potential for a misplaced ligation distal to the left vertebral artery origin which present-day CTA studies show it to be the case more frequently than previously suspected. If interruption of the LSA is deemed necessary, it is arguably best to use an endovascular (retrograde trans-brachial) approach with precise deployment of a vascular plug device under angiographic guidance (Fig. 4). ■

Dr. Criado is at MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore.

References

1. J Endovasc Ther 2002;9(suppl 2):1132-1138.

2. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013;2:247-260.

3. Ann Surg 1957;146:487-494.

4. Am J Surg 1967;114:800-808.

5. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:555-560.

6. Ann Vasc Surg 2008;22:70-78.

7. J Vasc Surg 1995;22:717-723.

8. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1973;136:447-8.

9. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:1106-1112.

Stent-graft coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) is often performed during TEVAR treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies and, consequently, debranching of the LSA is frequently performed in such settings. The carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB) is undoubtedly the cervical bypass option preferred by most surgeons for this purpose.^1,2 The technique was first described by Lyons and Galbraith in 1957,³ and popularized by Diethrich et al. who reported their large experience in a well-known article published 10 years later.⁴ In the ensuing decades, CSB became the overwhelming favorite of surgeons everywhere performing LSA revascularization for management of arterial occlusive disease and, more recently, in the context of zone-2 TEVAR. Well- documented good results would seem to justify such preference,⁵ but some level of concern has been voiced consistently over the years about some technical complexities and potential complications such as phrenic nerve and thoracic duct injuries.⁶ My own personal experience substantiated these reservations early on, prompting adoption of an alternative operative solution with use of the carotid-axillary bypass (CAB),⁷ an operation first reported by Shumacker in 1973.⁸ In my hands, it has produced equivalent results to the carotid-subclavian technique in terms of efficacy and durability, and with the additional appeal of distinct practical advantages – mainly because the axillary artery tends to be an easier vessel to expose and handle, and through the avoidance of complications resulting from damage to anatomical structures that are often in harm’s way when exposing the LSA.

Technical aspects

Courtesy of Dr. Criado

End-to-side anastomoses proximally and distally are constructed in routine manner (Fig. 2). We do not use carotid shunting for this procedure.

Occasionally one may want to combine a carotid endarterectomy with the cervical bypass, in which case the proximal vascular graft anastomosis is constructed at the endarterectomy site (Fig. 3). Close attention must be paid to careful length-tailoring the conduit to achieve the desirable gently curving course without undue tension or redundancy.

Proximal ligation of the LSA, often performed during the CSB, cannot be a component of the carotid-axillary operation because of inaccessibility. Some experts look upon this as a disadvantage, but I tend to view such limitation as advantageous because it eliminates the potential for a misplaced ligation distal to the left vertebral artery origin which present-day CTA studies show it to be the case more frequently than previously suspected. If interruption of the LSA is deemed necessary, it is arguably best to use an endovascular (retrograde trans-brachial) approach with precise deployment of a vascular plug device under angiographic guidance (Fig. 4). ■

Dr. Criado is at MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore.

References

1. J Endovasc Ther 2002;9(suppl 2):1132-1138.

2. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013;2:247-260.

3. Ann Surg 1957;146:487-494.

4. Am J Surg 1967;114:800-808.

5. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:555-560.

6. Ann Vasc Surg 2008;22:70-78.

7. J Vasc Surg 1995;22:717-723.

8. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1973;136:447-8.

9. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:1106-1112.

Stent-graft coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) is often performed during TEVAR treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies and, consequently, debranching of the LSA is frequently performed in such settings. The carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB) is undoubtedly the cervical bypass option preferred by most surgeons for this purpose.^1,2 The technique was first described by Lyons and Galbraith in 1957,³ and popularized by Diethrich et al. who reported their large experience in a well-known article published 10 years later.⁴ In the ensuing decades, CSB became the overwhelming favorite of surgeons everywhere performing LSA revascularization for management of arterial occlusive disease and, more recently, in the context of zone-2 TEVAR. Well- documented good results would seem to justify such preference,⁵ but some level of concern has been voiced consistently over the years about some technical complexities and potential complications such as phrenic nerve and thoracic duct injuries.⁶ My own personal experience substantiated these reservations early on, prompting adoption of an alternative operative solution with use of the carotid-axillary bypass (CAB),⁷ an operation first reported by Shumacker in 1973.⁸ In my hands, it has produced equivalent results to the carotid-subclavian technique in terms of efficacy and durability, and with the additional appeal of distinct practical advantages – mainly because the axillary artery tends to be an easier vessel to expose and handle, and through the avoidance of complications resulting from damage to anatomical structures that are often in harm’s way when exposing the LSA.

Technical aspects

Courtesy of Dr. Criado

End-to-side anastomoses proximally and distally are constructed in routine manner (Fig. 2). We do not use carotid shunting for this procedure.

Occasionally one may want to combine a carotid endarterectomy with the cervical bypass, in which case the proximal vascular graft anastomosis is constructed at the endarterectomy site (Fig. 3). Close attention must be paid to careful length-tailoring the conduit to achieve the desirable gently curving course without undue tension or redundancy.

Proximal ligation of the LSA, often performed during the CSB, cannot be a component of the carotid-axillary operation because of inaccessibility. Some experts look upon this as a disadvantage, but I tend to view such limitation as advantageous because it eliminates the potential for a misplaced ligation distal to the left vertebral artery origin which present-day CTA studies show it to be the case more frequently than previously suspected. If interruption of the LSA is deemed necessary, it is arguably best to use an endovascular (retrograde trans-brachial) approach with precise deployment of a vascular plug device under angiographic guidance (Fig. 4). ■

Dr. Criado is at MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore.

References

1. J Endovasc Ther 2002;9(suppl 2):1132-1138.

2. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013;2:247-260.

3. Ann Surg 1957;146:487-494.

4. Am J Surg 1967;114:800-808.

5. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:555-560.

6. Ann Vasc Surg 2008;22:70-78.

7. J Vasc Surg 1995;22:717-723.

8. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1973;136:447-8.

9. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:1106-1112.

When faced with a poorly performing or nonfunctional peritoneal dialysis catheter, there is a very simple trick to make laparoscopic exploration easier. Prep the catheter into the field and take extra care to prep the cover of the catheter. It is usually easier to remove the extended portion of the catheter (A) and just leave the shorter piece (B).

Courtesy Dr. Rigberg

Dr. Rigberg is Clinical Professor of Surgery and Program Director, University of California, Los Angeles, Division of Vascular Surgery, and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist.

When faced with a poorly performing or nonfunctional peritoneal dialysis catheter, there is a very simple trick to make laparoscopic exploration easier. Prep the catheter into the field and take extra care to prep the cover of the catheter. It is usually easier to remove the extended portion of the catheter (A) and just leave the shorter piece (B).

Courtesy Dr. Rigberg

Dr. Rigberg is Clinical Professor of Surgery and Program Director, University of California, Los Angeles, Division of Vascular Surgery, and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist.

When faced with a poorly performing or nonfunctional peritoneal dialysis catheter, there is a very simple trick to make laparoscopic exploration easier. Prep the catheter into the field and take extra care to prep the cover of the catheter. It is usually easier to remove the extended portion of the catheter (A) and just leave the shorter piece (B).

Courtesy Dr. Rigberg

Dr. Rigberg is Clinical Professor of Surgery and Program Director, University of California, Los Angeles, Division of Vascular Surgery, and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist.