Aggressive Lymphomas

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued draft guidance recommending against tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) as a treatment for adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Courtesy Novartis

Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was recently approved by the European Commission to treat adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is also European Commission–approved to treat patients up to age 25 years who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse posttransplant, or in second or later relapse.

In September 2018, the National Health Service (NHS) in England announced tisagenlecleucel will be made available for these ALL patients through the Cancer Drugs Fund.

However, in draft guidance issued Sept. 19, NICE recommended against using tisagenlecleucel for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy. NICE noted that there is no standard treatment for this patient group, and that salvage chemotherapy is the most common treatment option.

Although the latest results from the JULIET trial suggest tisagenlecleucel can produce responses in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, there are no data comparing tisagenlecleucel with salvage chemotherapy. Additionally, tisagenlecleucel cannot be considered a life-extending treatment at the end of life, according to NICE criteria.

All cost-effectiveness estimates for tisagenlecleucel are above the range NICE normally considers acceptable, and tisagenlecleucel does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

The list price for tisagenlecleucel is 282,000 pounds. However, Novartis, the company developing tisagenlecleucel, has a confidential commercial arrangement with the NHS that lowers the price of tisagenlecleucel for the ALL indication. This arrangement would apply if tisagenlecleucel were recommended for the DLBCL indication.

In August, NICE issued a similar draft guidance document recommending against use of another CAR T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta). Axicabtagene ciloleucel is approved in Europe for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL or primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

[email protected]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued draft guidance recommending against tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) as a treatment for adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Courtesy Novartis

Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was recently approved by the European Commission to treat adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is also European Commission–approved to treat patients up to age 25 years who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse posttransplant, or in second or later relapse.

In September 2018, the National Health Service (NHS) in England announced tisagenlecleucel will be made available for these ALL patients through the Cancer Drugs Fund.

However, in draft guidance issued Sept. 19, NICE recommended against using tisagenlecleucel for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy. NICE noted that there is no standard treatment for this patient group, and that salvage chemotherapy is the most common treatment option.

Although the latest results from the JULIET trial suggest tisagenlecleucel can produce responses in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, there are no data comparing tisagenlecleucel with salvage chemotherapy. Additionally, tisagenlecleucel cannot be considered a life-extending treatment at the end of life, according to NICE criteria.

All cost-effectiveness estimates for tisagenlecleucel are above the range NICE normally considers acceptable, and tisagenlecleucel does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

The list price for tisagenlecleucel is 282,000 pounds. However, Novartis, the company developing tisagenlecleucel, has a confidential commercial arrangement with the NHS that lowers the price of tisagenlecleucel for the ALL indication. This arrangement would apply if tisagenlecleucel were recommended for the DLBCL indication.

In August, NICE issued a similar draft guidance document recommending against use of another CAR T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta). Axicabtagene ciloleucel is approved in Europe for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL or primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

[email protected]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued draft guidance recommending against tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) as a treatment for adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Courtesy Novartis

Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was recently approved by the European Commission to treat adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is also European Commission–approved to treat patients up to age 25 years who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse posttransplant, or in second or later relapse.

In September 2018, the National Health Service (NHS) in England announced tisagenlecleucel will be made available for these ALL patients through the Cancer Drugs Fund.

However, in draft guidance issued Sept. 19, NICE recommended against using tisagenlecleucel for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy. NICE noted that there is no standard treatment for this patient group, and that salvage chemotherapy is the most common treatment option.

Although the latest results from the JULIET trial suggest tisagenlecleucel can produce responses in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, there are no data comparing tisagenlecleucel with salvage chemotherapy. Additionally, tisagenlecleucel cannot be considered a life-extending treatment at the end of life, according to NICE criteria.

All cost-effectiveness estimates for tisagenlecleucel are above the range NICE normally considers acceptable, and tisagenlecleucel does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

The list price for tisagenlecleucel is 282,000 pounds. However, Novartis, the company developing tisagenlecleucel, has a confidential commercial arrangement with the NHS that lowers the price of tisagenlecleucel for the ALL indication. This arrangement would apply if tisagenlecleucel were recommended for the DLBCL indication.

In August, NICE issued a similar draft guidance document recommending against use of another CAR T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta). Axicabtagene ciloleucel is approved in Europe for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL or primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

[email protected]

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended that the European Commission (EC) approve a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

AbbVie is seeking EC approval for venetoclax in combination with rituximab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The EC typically makes an approval decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion.

The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Venetoclax is already EC-approved as monotherapy for:

• Adults with CLL who have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation and are unsuitable for or have failed treatment with a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor
• Adults with CLL who do not have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation but have failed both chemoimmunotherapy and a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor.

The CHMP’s recommendation to approve venetoclax in combination with rituximab is supported by the phase 3 MURANO trial. Results from MURANO were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.17; P<0.0001).

According to an independent review committee, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.20; P<0.0001).

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reaction (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reaction (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter transformation.

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended that the European Commission (EC) approve a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

AbbVie is seeking EC approval for venetoclax in combination with rituximab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The EC typically makes an approval decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion.

The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Venetoclax is already EC-approved as monotherapy for:

• Adults with CLL who have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation and are unsuitable for or have failed treatment with a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor
• Adults with CLL who do not have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation but have failed both chemoimmunotherapy and a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor.

The CHMP’s recommendation to approve venetoclax in combination with rituximab is supported by the phase 3 MURANO trial. Results from MURANO were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.17; P<0.0001).

According to an independent review committee, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.20; P<0.0001).

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reaction (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reaction (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter transformation.

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended that the European Commission (EC) approve a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

AbbVie is seeking EC approval for venetoclax in combination with rituximab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The EC typically makes an approval decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion.

The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Venetoclax is already EC-approved as monotherapy for:

• Adults with CLL who have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation and are unsuitable for or have failed treatment with a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor
• Adults with CLL who do not have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation but have failed both chemoimmunotherapy and a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor.

The CHMP’s recommendation to approve venetoclax in combination with rituximab is supported by the phase 3 MURANO trial. Results from MURANO were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.17; P<0.0001).

According to an independent review committee, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.20; P<0.0001).

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reaction (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reaction (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter transformation.

Micrograph showing CLL

New research has linked stress levels to markers of progressive disease in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Researchers found that CLL patients who reported more stress also had higher absolute lymphocyte counts and elevated levels of three other markers of more advanced disease—tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα), interleukin 16 (IL-16), and chemokine ligand 3 (CCL3).

“All four variables we measured are related to prognosis in CLL patients, so they have a lot of relevance,” said study author Barbara L. Andersen, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus.

She and her colleagues described this research in Cancer.

The study involved 96 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL who were entering a phase 2 trial of ibrutinib (NCT01589302). Data collection for this study was done before patients received their first dose of ibrutinib.

All patients completed a survey that measured CLL-related stress. They were asked questions like how often they had intrusive thoughts about their disease, how often they tried to avoid thinking about it, and how often they felt jumpy and easily startled.

The researchers used blood samples to determine patients’ absolute lymphocyte counts and to measure levels of eight cytokines known to promote unhealthy levels of inflammation—IL-6, IL-10, IL-16, TNFα, a proliferation‐inducing ligand (APRIL), B‐cell activating factor (BAFF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and CCL3.

In an analysis controlling for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, the presence of 17p deletion, and correlates of inflammation, higher stress was significantly associated with higher:

• Absolute lymphocyte counts (P<0.05)
• Levels of TNFα (P<0.05)
• Levels of IL‐16 (P<0.01)
• Levels of CCL3 (P<0.05).

“The fact that stress shows an effect on CLL even after we controlled for other factors suggests it may be relevant to the course of CLL,” Dr. Andersen said.

She added that the researchers are still following these patients and will examine the relationship between stress and disease markers throughout treatment.

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, Pharmacylics (the company developing ibrutinib), and a Pelotonia Idea Award from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Micrograph showing CLL

New research has linked stress levels to markers of progressive disease in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Researchers found that CLL patients who reported more stress also had higher absolute lymphocyte counts and elevated levels of three other markers of more advanced disease—tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα), interleukin 16 (IL-16), and chemokine ligand 3 (CCL3).

“All four variables we measured are related to prognosis in CLL patients, so they have a lot of relevance,” said study author Barbara L. Andersen, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus.

She and her colleagues described this research in Cancer.

The study involved 96 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL who were entering a phase 2 trial of ibrutinib (NCT01589302). Data collection for this study was done before patients received their first dose of ibrutinib.

All patients completed a survey that measured CLL-related stress. They were asked questions like how often they had intrusive thoughts about their disease, how often they tried to avoid thinking about it, and how often they felt jumpy and easily startled.

The researchers used blood samples to determine patients’ absolute lymphocyte counts and to measure levels of eight cytokines known to promote unhealthy levels of inflammation—IL-6, IL-10, IL-16, TNFα, a proliferation‐inducing ligand (APRIL), B‐cell activating factor (BAFF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and CCL3.

In an analysis controlling for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, the presence of 17p deletion, and correlates of inflammation, higher stress was significantly associated with higher:

• Absolute lymphocyte counts (P<0.05)
• Levels of TNFα (P<0.05)
• Levels of IL‐16 (P<0.01)
• Levels of CCL3 (P<0.05).

“The fact that stress shows an effect on CLL even after we controlled for other factors suggests it may be relevant to the course of CLL,” Dr. Andersen said.

She added that the researchers are still following these patients and will examine the relationship between stress and disease markers throughout treatment.

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, Pharmacylics (the company developing ibrutinib), and a Pelotonia Idea Award from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Micrograph showing CLL

New research has linked stress levels to markers of progressive disease in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Researchers found that CLL patients who reported more stress also had higher absolute lymphocyte counts and elevated levels of three other markers of more advanced disease—tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα), interleukin 16 (IL-16), and chemokine ligand 3 (CCL3).

“All four variables we measured are related to prognosis in CLL patients, so they have a lot of relevance,” said study author Barbara L. Andersen, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus.

She and her colleagues described this research in Cancer.

The study involved 96 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL who were entering a phase 2 trial of ibrutinib (NCT01589302). Data collection for this study was done before patients received their first dose of ibrutinib.

All patients completed a survey that measured CLL-related stress. They were asked questions like how often they had intrusive thoughts about their disease, how often they tried to avoid thinking about it, and how often they felt jumpy and easily startled.

The researchers used blood samples to determine patients’ absolute lymphocyte counts and to measure levels of eight cytokines known to promote unhealthy levels of inflammation—IL-6, IL-10, IL-16, TNFα, a proliferation‐inducing ligand (APRIL), B‐cell activating factor (BAFF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and CCL3.

In an analysis controlling for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, the presence of 17p deletion, and correlates of inflammation, higher stress was significantly associated with higher:

• Absolute lymphocyte counts (P<0.05)
• Levels of TNFα (P<0.05)
• Levels of IL‐16 (P<0.01)
• Levels of CCL3 (P<0.05).

“The fact that stress shows an effect on CLL even after we controlled for other factors suggests it may be relevant to the course of CLL,” Dr. Andersen said.

She added that the researchers are still following these patients and will examine the relationship between stress and disease markers throughout treatment.

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, Pharmacylics (the company developing ibrutinib), and a Pelotonia Idea Award from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Photo from Novartis

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guidance saying it cannot recommend tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) as a treatment for adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was recently approved by the European Commission (EC) to treat adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is also EC-approved to treat patients up to 25 years of age who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post-transplant, or in second or later relapse.

Earlier this month, the National Health Service (NHS) of England announced that tisagenlecleucel will be made available for these ALL patients through the Cancer Drugs Fund.

However, NICE’s new draft guidance, issued September 19, says tisagenlecleucel cannot be made available for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

NICE noted that there is no standard treatment for this patient group, and salvage chemotherapy is the most common treatment option.

Although the latest results from the JULIET trial¹ suggest tisagenlecleucel can produce responses in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, there are no data comparing tisagenlecleucel with salvage chemotherapy.

In addition, tisagenlecleucel cannot be considered a life-extending treatment at the end of life, according to NICE criteria.

Furthermore, NICE said all cost-effectiveness estimates for tisagenlecleucel are above the range NICE normally considers acceptable, and tisagenlecleucel does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

The list price for tisagenlecleucel is £282,000. However, Novartis, the company developing tisagenlecleucel, has a confidential commercial arrangement with the NHS that lowers the price of tisagenlecleucel for the ALL indication. This arrangement would apply if tisagenlecleucel were recommended for the DLBCL indication.

All of the aforementioned issues aside, NICE said it does recognize that tisagenlecleucel has significant clinical benefits, and the agency welcomes further discussions on the CAR T-cell therapy’s cost-effectiveness.

NICE will consider comments on its draft guidance for tisagenlecleucel, together with any new evidence, at its next meeting on October 23, 2018.

Last month, NICE expressed similar sentiments about another CAR T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).

Axicabtagene ciloleucel is EC-approved to treat patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL or primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

However, NICE said it isn’t clear how much of a benefit axicabtagene ciloleucel may provide over salvage chemotherapy. Additionally, the cost of axicabtagene ciloleucel is too high for it to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources, and the therapy does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

1. Borchmann P et al. AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF JULIET, A GLOBAL PIVOTAL PHASE 2 TRIAL OF TISAGENLECLEUCEL IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED OR REFRACTORY (R/R) DIFFUSE LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA (DLBCL). EHA 2018. Abstract S799.

Photo from Novartis

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guidance saying it cannot recommend tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) as a treatment for adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was recently approved by the European Commission (EC) to treat adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is also EC-approved to treat patients up to 25 years of age who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post-transplant, or in second or later relapse.

Earlier this month, the National Health Service (NHS) of England announced that tisagenlecleucel will be made available for these ALL patients through the Cancer Drugs Fund.

However, NICE’s new draft guidance, issued September 19, says tisagenlecleucel cannot be made available for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

NICE noted that there is no standard treatment for this patient group, and salvage chemotherapy is the most common treatment option.

Although the latest results from the JULIET trial¹ suggest tisagenlecleucel can produce responses in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, there are no data comparing tisagenlecleucel with salvage chemotherapy.

In addition, tisagenlecleucel cannot be considered a life-extending treatment at the end of life, according to NICE criteria.

Furthermore, NICE said all cost-effectiveness estimates for tisagenlecleucel are above the range NICE normally considers acceptable, and tisagenlecleucel does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

The list price for tisagenlecleucel is £282,000. However, Novartis, the company developing tisagenlecleucel, has a confidential commercial arrangement with the NHS that lowers the price of tisagenlecleucel for the ALL indication. This arrangement would apply if tisagenlecleucel were recommended for the DLBCL indication.

All of the aforementioned issues aside, NICE said it does recognize that tisagenlecleucel has significant clinical benefits, and the agency welcomes further discussions on the CAR T-cell therapy’s cost-effectiveness.

NICE will consider comments on its draft guidance for tisagenlecleucel, together with any new evidence, at its next meeting on October 23, 2018.

Last month, NICE expressed similar sentiments about another CAR T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).

Axicabtagene ciloleucel is EC-approved to treat patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL or primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

However, NICE said it isn’t clear how much of a benefit axicabtagene ciloleucel may provide over salvage chemotherapy. Additionally, the cost of axicabtagene ciloleucel is too high for it to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources, and the therapy does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

1. Borchmann P et al. AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF JULIET, A GLOBAL PIVOTAL PHASE 2 TRIAL OF TISAGENLECLEUCEL IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED OR REFRACTORY (R/R) DIFFUSE LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA (DLBCL). EHA 2018. Abstract S799.

Photo from Novartis

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guidance saying it cannot recommend tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) as a treatment for adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was recently approved by the European Commission (EC) to treat adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is also EC-approved to treat patients up to 25 years of age who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post-transplant, or in second or later relapse.

Earlier this month, the National Health Service (NHS) of England announced that tisagenlecleucel will be made available for these ALL patients through the Cancer Drugs Fund.

However, NICE’s new draft guidance, issued September 19, says tisagenlecleucel cannot be made available for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

NICE noted that there is no standard treatment for this patient group, and salvage chemotherapy is the most common treatment option.

Although the latest results from the JULIET trial¹ suggest tisagenlecleucel can produce responses in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, there are no data comparing tisagenlecleucel with salvage chemotherapy.

In addition, tisagenlecleucel cannot be considered a life-extending treatment at the end of life, according to NICE criteria.

Furthermore, NICE said all cost-effectiveness estimates for tisagenlecleucel are above the range NICE normally considers acceptable, and tisagenlecleucel does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

The list price for tisagenlecleucel is £282,000. However, Novartis, the company developing tisagenlecleucel, has a confidential commercial arrangement with the NHS that lowers the price of tisagenlecleucel for the ALL indication. This arrangement would apply if tisagenlecleucel were recommended for the DLBCL indication.

All of the aforementioned issues aside, NICE said it does recognize that tisagenlecleucel has significant clinical benefits, and the agency welcomes further discussions on the CAR T-cell therapy’s cost-effectiveness.

NICE will consider comments on its draft guidance for tisagenlecleucel, together with any new evidence, at its next meeting on October 23, 2018.

Last month, NICE expressed similar sentiments about another CAR T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).

Axicabtagene ciloleucel is EC-approved to treat patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL or primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

However, NICE said it isn’t clear how much of a benefit axicabtagene ciloleucel may provide over salvage chemotherapy. Additionally, the cost of axicabtagene ciloleucel is too high for it to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources, and the therapy does not meet criteria for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund.

1. Borchmann P et al. AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF JULIET, A GLOBAL PIVOTAL PHASE 2 TRIAL OF TISAGENLECLEUCEL IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED OR REFRACTORY (R/R) DIFFUSE LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA (DLBCL). EHA 2018. Abstract S799.

Photo from Penn Medicine

Proton therapy can help mitigate toxicity in adults with mediastinal lymphomas, but the treatment should only be used in patients expected to derive the most benefit, according to new guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group.

The guidelines note that proton therapy reduces the radiation dose to organs at risk in certain clinical presentations, such as when the mediastinal target is on both sides of the heart.

However, the advantages of proton therapy are not always clear in other situations, such as when the target spans the right side of the heart or when the target is above the heart with no axillary involvement.

“The limited availability of proton therapy calls for case selection based on a clear understanding of which cases will derive most benefit from proton therapy as compared to advanced photon techniques,” said guideline author Bouthaina Dabaja, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and her colleagues.

The group’s guidelines were published in Blood.

The guidelines note that proton therapy—like intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy—presents an opportunity for more conformal dose distribution and better sparing of organs at risk.

Proton therapy can greatly benefit certain patients with mediastinal disease, including:

• Young female patients in whom proton therapy would reduce the breast dose and decrease the risk of secondary breast cancer
• Patients at high risk of radiation-related toxicity due to previous treatment
• Patients with disease spanning below the origin of the left main stem coronary artery that is anterior to, posterior to, or on the left side of the heart.

“The relation of disease to organs at risk determines the situations in which proton therapy is most beneficial,” the experts said in the guidelines.

However, the consideration of proton therapy needs to factor in the complexities of proton therapy planning, the need to manage uncertainties, and the “evolving nature of the technology,” which includes the development of pencil beam scanning.

While passive scattering proton therapy is the least complex delivery technique, it is challenging because beams can conform only to one side of the target. In contrast, active mode pencil beam scanning proton therapy potentially provides better conformality and sparing of organs at risk.

“Because treatment involves delivery of individual controlled spots, inhomogenous doses can be created deliberately,” the guideline authors said.

However, “motion management is of prime importance” with pencil beam scanning proton therapy, which is more sensitive to density changes in the beam path than is passive scattering proton therapy.

To that end, physicians should pay close attention to evaluating intrafractional movement, which is frequently tied to the breathing cycle.

Dr. Dabaja and her coauthors reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

Photo from Penn Medicine

Proton therapy can help mitigate toxicity in adults with mediastinal lymphomas, but the treatment should only be used in patients expected to derive the most benefit, according to new guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group.

The guidelines note that proton therapy reduces the radiation dose to organs at risk in certain clinical presentations, such as when the mediastinal target is on both sides of the heart.

However, the advantages of proton therapy are not always clear in other situations, such as when the target spans the right side of the heart or when the target is above the heart with no axillary involvement.

“The limited availability of proton therapy calls for case selection based on a clear understanding of which cases will derive most benefit from proton therapy as compared to advanced photon techniques,” said guideline author Bouthaina Dabaja, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and her colleagues.

The group’s guidelines were published in Blood.

The guidelines note that proton therapy—like intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy—presents an opportunity for more conformal dose distribution and better sparing of organs at risk.

Proton therapy can greatly benefit certain patients with mediastinal disease, including:

• Young female patients in whom proton therapy would reduce the breast dose and decrease the risk of secondary breast cancer
• Patients at high risk of radiation-related toxicity due to previous treatment
• Patients with disease spanning below the origin of the left main stem coronary artery that is anterior to, posterior to, or on the left side of the heart.

“The relation of disease to organs at risk determines the situations in which proton therapy is most beneficial,” the experts said in the guidelines.

However, the consideration of proton therapy needs to factor in the complexities of proton therapy planning, the need to manage uncertainties, and the “evolving nature of the technology,” which includes the development of pencil beam scanning.

While passive scattering proton therapy is the least complex delivery technique, it is challenging because beams can conform only to one side of the target. In contrast, active mode pencil beam scanning proton therapy potentially provides better conformality and sparing of organs at risk.

“Because treatment involves delivery of individual controlled spots, inhomogenous doses can be created deliberately,” the guideline authors said.

However, “motion management is of prime importance” with pencil beam scanning proton therapy, which is more sensitive to density changes in the beam path than is passive scattering proton therapy.

To that end, physicians should pay close attention to evaluating intrafractional movement, which is frequently tied to the breathing cycle.

Dr. Dabaja and her coauthors reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

Photo from Penn Medicine

Proton therapy can help mitigate toxicity in adults with mediastinal lymphomas, but the treatment should only be used in patients expected to derive the most benefit, according to new guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group.

The guidelines note that proton therapy reduces the radiation dose to organs at risk in certain clinical presentations, such as when the mediastinal target is on both sides of the heart.

However, the advantages of proton therapy are not always clear in other situations, such as when the target spans the right side of the heart or when the target is above the heart with no axillary involvement.

“The limited availability of proton therapy calls for case selection based on a clear understanding of which cases will derive most benefit from proton therapy as compared to advanced photon techniques,” said guideline author Bouthaina Dabaja, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and her colleagues.

The group’s guidelines were published in Blood.

The guidelines note that proton therapy—like intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy—presents an opportunity for more conformal dose distribution and better sparing of organs at risk.

Proton therapy can greatly benefit certain patients with mediastinal disease, including:

• Young female patients in whom proton therapy would reduce the breast dose and decrease the risk of secondary breast cancer
• Patients at high risk of radiation-related toxicity due to previous treatment
• Patients with disease spanning below the origin of the left main stem coronary artery that is anterior to, posterior to, or on the left side of the heart.

“The relation of disease to organs at risk determines the situations in which proton therapy is most beneficial,” the experts said in the guidelines.

However, the consideration of proton therapy needs to factor in the complexities of proton therapy planning, the need to manage uncertainties, and the “evolving nature of the technology,” which includes the development of pencil beam scanning.

While passive scattering proton therapy is the least complex delivery technique, it is challenging because beams can conform only to one side of the target. In contrast, active mode pencil beam scanning proton therapy potentially provides better conformality and sparing of organs at risk.

“Because treatment involves delivery of individual controlled spots, inhomogenous doses can be created deliberately,” the guideline authors said.

However, “motion management is of prime importance” with pencil beam scanning proton therapy, which is more sensitive to density changes in the beam path than is passive scattering proton therapy.

To that end, physicians should pay close attention to evaluating intrafractional movement, which is frequently tied to the breathing cycle.

Dr. Dabaja and her coauthors reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

follicular lymphoma

A subset of follicular lymphoma (FL) patients managed with watchful waiting are vulnerable to organ dysfunction and transformation, according to research published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

In a retrospective study, about 24% of FL patients managed with watchful waiting developed significant organ dysfunction or transformation at first progression over 8.2 years of follow-up.

Organ dysfunction and transformation were associated with significantly worse overall survival (OS) that could not be predicted based on baseline characteristics.

Gwynivere A. Davies, MD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, and her colleagues conducted this study using  data from the Alberta Lymphoma Database. The team gathered data on patients with grade 1-3a FL who were diagnosed between 1994 and 2011.

The investigators identified 238 patients who were initially managed with watchful waiting. The patients had a median age of 54.1 years (range, 24.7-69.9) at diagnosis, and 83.2% were advanced stage.

The 10-year OS rate for these patients was 81.2%. At a median follow-up of 98.5 months, 71% (n=169) of patients had progressed and required therapy.

At the time of progression, 24.4% of patients (n=58) had organ dysfunction and/or transformation. The median time to organ dysfunction/transformation was 29.9 months.

These adverse outcomes were significantly associated with inferior OS. The 10-year OS rate was 65.4% for patients with transformation at progression and 83.2% for those without transformation (P=0.0017).

The 10-year OS rate was 71.5% for those with organ dysfunction at progression and 82.7% for those without organ dysfunction (P=0.028).

Comparison to treated patients

The investigators also looked at a comparison group of 236 FL patients managed with immediate rituximab-based chemotherapy (R-chemo), most of whom were scheduled to receive (72.9%) rituximab maintenance. Their median age was 52.1 (range, 27.3-65.4), and most (82.6%) had advanced stage disease.

At a median follow-up of 100.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached. The 10-year OS rate was 84%.

The 10-year PFS rate after first R-chemo was 57.1% for patients who received immediate R-chemo (n=236) and 50.5% for patients who were initially managed with watchful waiting and proceeded to R-chemo (n=133; P=0.506). This was not affected by rituximab maintenance.

The investigators noted that OS measured from diagnosis was not affected by initial watchful waiting.

However, in a landmark analysis, OS was inferior when measured from R-chemo at first progression for watchful waiting recipients compared to patients who received immediate R-chemo. The 10-year OS rates were 74.4% and 84.0%, respectively (P=0.02).

The risk of transformation at first progression was significantly different between the groups. At 10 years, the rate of transformation was 25.5% in the watchful waiting group and 6.3% in the immediate R-chemo group (P<0.0001).

The investigators said these findings, taken together, suggest changes may be warranted for FL patients managed with watchful waiting.

“Consideration should be given to implementing standardized follow-up imaging, with early initiation of rituximab-based therapy if there is evidence of progression in an attempt to prevent these potentially clinically impactful events [i.e., organ dysfunction and transformation],” Dr. Davies and her coauthors wrote.

Dr. Davies reported no financial disclosures. Her coauthors reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead Sciences, Lundbeck, Roche, AbbVie, Amgen, Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier Laboratories, and Merck.

follicular lymphoma

A subset of follicular lymphoma (FL) patients managed with watchful waiting are vulnerable to organ dysfunction and transformation, according to research published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

In a retrospective study, about 24% of FL patients managed with watchful waiting developed significant organ dysfunction or transformation at first progression over 8.2 years of follow-up.

Organ dysfunction and transformation were associated with significantly worse overall survival (OS) that could not be predicted based on baseline characteristics.

Gwynivere A. Davies, MD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, and her colleagues conducted this study using  data from the Alberta Lymphoma Database. The team gathered data on patients with grade 1-3a FL who were diagnosed between 1994 and 2011.

The investigators identified 238 patients who were initially managed with watchful waiting. The patients had a median age of 54.1 years (range, 24.7-69.9) at diagnosis, and 83.2% were advanced stage.

The 10-year OS rate for these patients was 81.2%. At a median follow-up of 98.5 months, 71% (n=169) of patients had progressed and required therapy.

At the time of progression, 24.4% of patients (n=58) had organ dysfunction and/or transformation. The median time to organ dysfunction/transformation was 29.9 months.

These adverse outcomes were significantly associated with inferior OS. The 10-year OS rate was 65.4% for patients with transformation at progression and 83.2% for those without transformation (P=0.0017).

The 10-year OS rate was 71.5% for those with organ dysfunction at progression and 82.7% for those without organ dysfunction (P=0.028).

Comparison to treated patients

The investigators also looked at a comparison group of 236 FL patients managed with immediate rituximab-based chemotherapy (R-chemo), most of whom were scheduled to receive (72.9%) rituximab maintenance. Their median age was 52.1 (range, 27.3-65.4), and most (82.6%) had advanced stage disease.

At a median follow-up of 100.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached. The 10-year OS rate was 84%.

The 10-year PFS rate after first R-chemo was 57.1% for patients who received immediate R-chemo (n=236) and 50.5% for patients who were initially managed with watchful waiting and proceeded to R-chemo (n=133; P=0.506). This was not affected by rituximab maintenance.

The investigators noted that OS measured from diagnosis was not affected by initial watchful waiting.

However, in a landmark analysis, OS was inferior when measured from R-chemo at first progression for watchful waiting recipients compared to patients who received immediate R-chemo. The 10-year OS rates were 74.4% and 84.0%, respectively (P=0.02).

The risk of transformation at first progression was significantly different between the groups. At 10 years, the rate of transformation was 25.5% in the watchful waiting group and 6.3% in the immediate R-chemo group (P<0.0001).

The investigators said these findings, taken together, suggest changes may be warranted for FL patients managed with watchful waiting.

“Consideration should be given to implementing standardized follow-up imaging, with early initiation of rituximab-based therapy if there is evidence of progression in an attempt to prevent these potentially clinically impactful events [i.e., organ dysfunction and transformation],” Dr. Davies and her coauthors wrote.

Dr. Davies reported no financial disclosures. Her coauthors reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead Sciences, Lundbeck, Roche, AbbVie, Amgen, Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier Laboratories, and Merck.

follicular lymphoma

A subset of follicular lymphoma (FL) patients managed with watchful waiting are vulnerable to organ dysfunction and transformation, according to research published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

In a retrospective study, about 24% of FL patients managed with watchful waiting developed significant organ dysfunction or transformation at first progression over 8.2 years of follow-up.

Organ dysfunction and transformation were associated with significantly worse overall survival (OS) that could not be predicted based on baseline characteristics.

Gwynivere A. Davies, MD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, and her colleagues conducted this study using  data from the Alberta Lymphoma Database. The team gathered data on patients with grade 1-3a FL who were diagnosed between 1994 and 2011.

The investigators identified 238 patients who were initially managed with watchful waiting. The patients had a median age of 54.1 years (range, 24.7-69.9) at diagnosis, and 83.2% were advanced stage.

The 10-year OS rate for these patients was 81.2%. At a median follow-up of 98.5 months, 71% (n=169) of patients had progressed and required therapy.

At the time of progression, 24.4% of patients (n=58) had organ dysfunction and/or transformation. The median time to organ dysfunction/transformation was 29.9 months.

These adverse outcomes were significantly associated with inferior OS. The 10-year OS rate was 65.4% for patients with transformation at progression and 83.2% for those without transformation (P=0.0017).

The 10-year OS rate was 71.5% for those with organ dysfunction at progression and 82.7% for those without organ dysfunction (P=0.028).

Comparison to treated patients

The investigators also looked at a comparison group of 236 FL patients managed with immediate rituximab-based chemotherapy (R-chemo), most of whom were scheduled to receive (72.9%) rituximab maintenance. Their median age was 52.1 (range, 27.3-65.4), and most (82.6%) had advanced stage disease.

At a median follow-up of 100.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached. The 10-year OS rate was 84%.

The 10-year PFS rate after first R-chemo was 57.1% for patients who received immediate R-chemo (n=236) and 50.5% for patients who were initially managed with watchful waiting and proceeded to R-chemo (n=133; P=0.506). This was not affected by rituximab maintenance.

The investigators noted that OS measured from diagnosis was not affected by initial watchful waiting.

However, in a landmark analysis, OS was inferior when measured from R-chemo at first progression for watchful waiting recipients compared to patients who received immediate R-chemo. The 10-year OS rates were 74.4% and 84.0%, respectively (P=0.02).

The risk of transformation at first progression was significantly different between the groups. At 10 years, the rate of transformation was 25.5% in the watchful waiting group and 6.3% in the immediate R-chemo group (P<0.0001).

The investigators said these findings, taken together, suggest changes may be warranted for FL patients managed with watchful waiting.

“Consideration should be given to implementing standardized follow-up imaging, with early initiation of rituximab-based therapy if there is evidence of progression in an attempt to prevent these potentially clinically impactful events [i.e., organ dysfunction and transformation],” Dr. Davies and her coauthors wrote.

Dr. Davies reported no financial disclosures. Her coauthors reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead Sciences, Lundbeck, Roche, AbbVie, Amgen, Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier Laboratories, and Merck.

Proton therapy can help mitigate toxicity in adults with mediastinal lymphomas, but only when this modality offers a clear advantage over intensity-modulated radiotherapy, according to new guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group.

Proton therapy reduces radiation dose to organs at risk in certain clinical presentations, such as when the mediastinal target is on both sides of the heart. The advantages are not always clear in other situations, such as when the target spans the right side of the heart, or when the target is above the heart with no axillary involvement, according to guideline authors Bouthaina Dabaja, MD, professor and section chief of hematology in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and her colleagues.

“The limited availability of proton therapy calls for case selection based on a clear understanding of which cases will derive most benefit from proton therapy as compared to advanced photon techniques,” Dr. Dabaja and her coauthors said in the guidelines, which were published in the journal Blood (doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-03-837633).

Along with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, proton therapy presents “another opportunity” for more conformal dose distribution and better sparing of organs at risk, according to the consensus recommendations. Proton therapy can greatly benefit certain patients with mediastinal disease. These include young female patients to reduce breast dose and risk of a secondary breast cancer, patients at high risk of radiation-related toxicity due to previous treatment, and patients with disease spanning below the origin of the left main stem coronary artery that is anterior to, posterior to, or on the left side of the heart.

“The relation of disease to organs at risk determines the situations in which proton therapy is most beneficial,” the experts said in the guidelines. However, the consideration of proton therapy needs to factor the complexities of proton therapy planning, the need to manage uncertainties, and the “evolving nature of the technology,” which includes the development of pencil beam scanning.

While passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) is the least complex delivery technique, it is challenging because beams can conform only to one side of the target; by contrast, the experts said, active mode pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) potentially provides better conformity and sparing of organs at risk.

“Because treatment involves delivery of individual controlled spots, inhomogenous doses can be created deliberately,” the guideline authors said in their report.

However, motion management is “of prime importance” with PBSPT, which is more sensitive to density changes in the beam path as compared to PSPT, they added. Toward that end, physicians should pay close attention to evaluating intrafractional movement, which is frequently tied to the breathing cycle.

The guidelines list a total of 11 authors representing The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Florida, Jacksonville; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; University of Louisiana, Baton Rouge; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague; Motol University Hospital, Czech Republic; St. Thomas and Guy Hospital, London; Institut Curie, Paris; and Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen.

Dr. Dabaja and her guideline coauthors reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

Proton therapy can help mitigate toxicity in adults with mediastinal lymphomas, but only when this modality offers a clear advantage over intensity-modulated radiotherapy, according to new guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group.

Proton therapy reduces radiation dose to organs at risk in certain clinical presentations, such as when the mediastinal target is on both sides of the heart. The advantages are not always clear in other situations, such as when the target spans the right side of the heart, or when the target is above the heart with no axillary involvement, according to guideline authors Bouthaina Dabaja, MD, professor and section chief of hematology in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and her colleagues.

“The limited availability of proton therapy calls for case selection based on a clear understanding of which cases will derive most benefit from proton therapy as compared to advanced photon techniques,” Dr. Dabaja and her coauthors said in the guidelines, which were published in the journal Blood (doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-03-837633).

Along with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, proton therapy presents “another opportunity” for more conformal dose distribution and better sparing of organs at risk, according to the consensus recommendations. Proton therapy can greatly benefit certain patients with mediastinal disease. These include young female patients to reduce breast dose and risk of a secondary breast cancer, patients at high risk of radiation-related toxicity due to previous treatment, and patients with disease spanning below the origin of the left main stem coronary artery that is anterior to, posterior to, or on the left side of the heart.

“The relation of disease to organs at risk determines the situations in which proton therapy is most beneficial,” the experts said in the guidelines. However, the consideration of proton therapy needs to factor the complexities of proton therapy planning, the need to manage uncertainties, and the “evolving nature of the technology,” which includes the development of pencil beam scanning.

While passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) is the least complex delivery technique, it is challenging because beams can conform only to one side of the target; by contrast, the experts said, active mode pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) potentially provides better conformity and sparing of organs at risk.

“Because treatment involves delivery of individual controlled spots, inhomogenous doses can be created deliberately,” the guideline authors said in their report.

However, motion management is “of prime importance” with PBSPT, which is more sensitive to density changes in the beam path as compared to PSPT, they added. Toward that end, physicians should pay close attention to evaluating intrafractional movement, which is frequently tied to the breathing cycle.

The guidelines list a total of 11 authors representing The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Florida, Jacksonville; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; University of Louisiana, Baton Rouge; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague; Motol University Hospital, Czech Republic; St. Thomas and Guy Hospital, London; Institut Curie, Paris; and Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen.

Dr. Dabaja and her guideline coauthors reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

Proton therapy can help mitigate toxicity in adults with mediastinal lymphomas, but only when this modality offers a clear advantage over intensity-modulated radiotherapy, according to new guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group.

Proton therapy reduces radiation dose to organs at risk in certain clinical presentations, such as when the mediastinal target is on both sides of the heart. The advantages are not always clear in other situations, such as when the target spans the right side of the heart, or when the target is above the heart with no axillary involvement, according to guideline authors Bouthaina Dabaja, MD, professor and section chief of hematology in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and her colleagues.

“The limited availability of proton therapy calls for case selection based on a clear understanding of which cases will derive most benefit from proton therapy as compared to advanced photon techniques,” Dr. Dabaja and her coauthors said in the guidelines, which were published in the journal Blood (doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-03-837633).

Along with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, proton therapy presents “another opportunity” for more conformal dose distribution and better sparing of organs at risk, according to the consensus recommendations. Proton therapy can greatly benefit certain patients with mediastinal disease. These include young female patients to reduce breast dose and risk of a secondary breast cancer, patients at high risk of radiation-related toxicity due to previous treatment, and patients with disease spanning below the origin of the left main stem coronary artery that is anterior to, posterior to, or on the left side of the heart.

“The relation of disease to organs at risk determines the situations in which proton therapy is most beneficial,” the experts said in the guidelines. However, the consideration of proton therapy needs to factor the complexities of proton therapy planning, the need to manage uncertainties, and the “evolving nature of the technology,” which includes the development of pencil beam scanning.

While passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) is the least complex delivery technique, it is challenging because beams can conform only to one side of the target; by contrast, the experts said, active mode pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) potentially provides better conformity and sparing of organs at risk.

“Because treatment involves delivery of individual controlled spots, inhomogenous doses can be created deliberately,” the guideline authors said in their report.

However, motion management is “of prime importance” with PBSPT, which is more sensitive to density changes in the beam path as compared to PSPT, they added. Toward that end, physicians should pay close attention to evaluating intrafractional movement, which is frequently tied to the breathing cycle.

The guidelines list a total of 11 authors representing The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Florida, Jacksonville; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; University of Louisiana, Baton Rouge; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague; Motol University Hospital, Czech Republic; St. Thomas and Guy Hospital, London; Institut Curie, Paris; and Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen.

Dr. Dabaja and her guideline coauthors reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for venetoclax tablets (Venclexta) to include data on minimal residual disease.

The drug’s prescribing information will now include details on minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received venetoclax in combination with rituximab in the phase 3 MURANO trial.

The combination of venetoclax and rituximab was approved by the FDA in June 2018 for the treatment of patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who received at least one prior therapy.

The MURANO trial (NCT02005471), which supported the FDA approval, included 389 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL. They were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab or bendamustine plus rituximab (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:1107-20).

Researchers evaluated MRD in patients who achieved a partial response or better. MRD was assessed using allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction; the definition of MRD negativity was less than one CLL cell per 10,000 lymphocytes.

The researchers assessed MRD in the peripheral blood after about 9 months on therapy (3 months after the last dose of rituximab). At that time, 53% (103/194) of patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm were MRD negative, as were 12% (23/195) of patients in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

The researchers also assessed MRD in the peripheral blood of patients with a complete response or complete response with incomplete marrow recovery. MRD negativity was achieved by 3% (6/194) of these patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm and 2% (3/195) in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie outside of the United States.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for venetoclax tablets (Venclexta) to include data on minimal residual disease.

The drug’s prescribing information will now include details on minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received venetoclax in combination with rituximab in the phase 3 MURANO trial.

The combination of venetoclax and rituximab was approved by the FDA in June 2018 for the treatment of patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who received at least one prior therapy.

The MURANO trial (NCT02005471), which supported the FDA approval, included 389 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL. They were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab or bendamustine plus rituximab (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:1107-20).

Researchers evaluated MRD in patients who achieved a partial response or better. MRD was assessed using allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction; the definition of MRD negativity was less than one CLL cell per 10,000 lymphocytes.

The researchers assessed MRD in the peripheral blood after about 9 months on therapy (3 months after the last dose of rituximab). At that time, 53% (103/194) of patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm were MRD negative, as were 12% (23/195) of patients in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

The researchers also assessed MRD in the peripheral blood of patients with a complete response or complete response with incomplete marrow recovery. MRD negativity was achieved by 3% (6/194) of these patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm and 2% (3/195) in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie outside of the United States.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for venetoclax tablets (Venclexta) to include data on minimal residual disease.

The drug’s prescribing information will now include details on minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received venetoclax in combination with rituximab in the phase 3 MURANO trial.

The combination of venetoclax and rituximab was approved by the FDA in June 2018 for the treatment of patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who received at least one prior therapy.

The MURANO trial (NCT02005471), which supported the FDA approval, included 389 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL. They were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab or bendamustine plus rituximab (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:1107-20).

Researchers evaluated MRD in patients who achieved a partial response or better. MRD was assessed using allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction; the definition of MRD negativity was less than one CLL cell per 10,000 lymphocytes.

The researchers assessed MRD in the peripheral blood after about 9 months on therapy (3 months after the last dose of rituximab). At that time, 53% (103/194) of patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm were MRD negative, as were 12% (23/195) of patients in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

The researchers also assessed MRD in the peripheral blood of patients with a complete response or complete response with incomplete marrow recovery. MRD negativity was achieved by 3% (6/194) of these patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm and 2% (3/195) in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie outside of the United States.

[email protected]

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the label for venetoclax tablets (Venclexta^®) to include data on minimal residual disease (MRD).

The drug’s prescribing information now includes details on MRD negativity in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received venetoclax in combination with rituximab in the phase 3 MURANO trial.

The combination of venetoclax and rituximab was FDA approved in June for the treatment of patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who received at least one prior therapy.

The MURANO trial (NCT02005471), which supported the FDA approval, included 389 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL.

The patients were randomized to receive:

• Venetoclax at 400 mg daily for 24 months (after a 5-week ramp-up period) plus rituximab at 375 mg/m² on day 1 for the first cycle and at 500 mg/m²  on day 1 for cycles 2 to 6 (n=194)
• Bendamustine at 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 for 6 cycles plus rituximab at the same schedule as the venetoclax arm (n=195).

Researchers evaluated MRD in patients who achieved a partial response or better. MRD was assessed using allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction, and the definition of MRD negativity was less than one CLL cell per 10,000 lymphocytes.

The researchers assessed MRD in the peripheral blood 3 months after the last dose of rituximab. At that time, 53% (103/194) of patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm were MRD negative, as were 12% (23/195) of patients in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

The researchers also assessed MRD in the peripheral blood of patients with a complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi). MRD negativity was achieved by 3% (6/194) of these patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm and 2% (3/195) in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

Three percent (3/106) of patients in the venetoclax arm who achieved CR/CRi were MRD negative in both the peripheral blood and the bone marrow.

“The rates of MRD negativity seen with Venclexta plus rituximab are very encouraging,” said MURANO investigator John Seymour, MBBS, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Additional results from the MURANO trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March and are included in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the U.S. and by AbbVie outside the U.S.

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the label for venetoclax tablets (Venclexta^®) to include data on minimal residual disease (MRD).

The drug’s prescribing information now includes details on MRD negativity in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received venetoclax in combination with rituximab in the phase 3 MURANO trial.

The combination of venetoclax and rituximab was FDA approved in June for the treatment of patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who received at least one prior therapy.

The MURANO trial (NCT02005471), which supported the FDA approval, included 389 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL.

The patients were randomized to receive:

• Venetoclax at 400 mg daily for 24 months (after a 5-week ramp-up period) plus rituximab at 375 mg/m² on day 1 for the first cycle and at 500 mg/m²  on day 1 for cycles 2 to 6 (n=194)
• Bendamustine at 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 for 6 cycles plus rituximab at the same schedule as the venetoclax arm (n=195).

Researchers evaluated MRD in patients who achieved a partial response or better. MRD was assessed using allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction, and the definition of MRD negativity was less than one CLL cell per 10,000 lymphocytes.

The researchers assessed MRD in the peripheral blood 3 months after the last dose of rituximab. At that time, 53% (103/194) of patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm were MRD negative, as were 12% (23/195) of patients in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

The researchers also assessed MRD in the peripheral blood of patients with a complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi). MRD negativity was achieved by 3% (6/194) of these patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm and 2% (3/195) in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

Three percent (3/106) of patients in the venetoclax arm who achieved CR/CRi were MRD negative in both the peripheral blood and the bone marrow.

“The rates of MRD negativity seen with Venclexta plus rituximab are very encouraging,” said MURANO investigator John Seymour, MBBS, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Additional results from the MURANO trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March and are included in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the U.S. and by AbbVie outside the U.S.

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the label for venetoclax tablets (Venclexta^®) to include data on minimal residual disease (MRD).

The drug’s prescribing information now includes details on MRD negativity in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received venetoclax in combination with rituximab in the phase 3 MURANO trial.

The combination of venetoclax and rituximab was FDA approved in June for the treatment of patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who received at least one prior therapy.

The MURANO trial (NCT02005471), which supported the FDA approval, included 389 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL.

The patients were randomized to receive:

• Venetoclax at 400 mg daily for 24 months (after a 5-week ramp-up period) plus rituximab at 375 mg/m² on day 1 for the first cycle and at 500 mg/m²  on day 1 for cycles 2 to 6 (n=194)
• Bendamustine at 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 for 6 cycles plus rituximab at the same schedule as the venetoclax arm (n=195).

Researchers evaluated MRD in patients who achieved a partial response or better. MRD was assessed using allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction, and the definition of MRD negativity was less than one CLL cell per 10,000 lymphocytes.

The researchers assessed MRD in the peripheral blood 3 months after the last dose of rituximab. At that time, 53% (103/194) of patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm were MRD negative, as were 12% (23/195) of patients in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

The researchers also assessed MRD in the peripheral blood of patients with a complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi). MRD negativity was achieved by 3% (6/194) of these patients in the venetoclax-rituximab arm and 2% (3/195) in the bendamustine-rituximab arm.

Three percent (3/106) of patients in the venetoclax arm who achieved CR/CRi were MRD negative in both the peripheral blood and the bone marrow.

“The rates of MRD negativity seen with Venclexta plus rituximab are very encouraging,” said MURANO investigator John Seymour, MBBS, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Additional results from the MURANO trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March and are included in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the U.S. and by AbbVie outside the U.S.