Aggressive Lymphomas

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have better outcomes if they receive rituximab (Rituxan) maintenance therapy after induction therapy, albeit with the trade-off of higher risk of neutropenia, according to results of a meta-analysis reported in HemaSphere.

Investigators led by Liat Vidal, MD, of Tel-Aviv University, analyzed data from six randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy including 858 patients with MCL who had a complete or partial response to induction therapy. The maintenance therapy was rituximab in five trials and bortezomib (Velcade) in one trial. The median duration of follow-up was 26-59 months across trials.

Main results showed that, compared with patients who were simply observed or given maintenance interferon-alfa, those given maintenance rituximab had a significantly reduced risk of progression or death (pooled hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.73) and a nonsignificantly reduced risk of death (pHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06).

Rituximab maintenance therapy was associated with a doubling of the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (risk ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50-2.73). However, there was no significant difference between groups with respect to risks of infection, or grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocythemia.

None of the included trials reported on quality of life outcomes.

The lone trial of bortezomib maintenance did not find any significant event-free survival or overall survival benefit.

“Based on our results, rituximab maintenance is recommended after immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP or cytarabine-containing induction in the front-line setting for transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and after R-CHOP in the relapse setting. It is unclear if maintenance is of benefit after different induction chemotherapy such as bendamustine or fludarabine,” Dr. Vidal and coauthors conclude. “By contrast, current data does not support improved outcomes with bortezomib maintenance for MCL patients.”

Dr. Vidal disclosed that she is an employee of Syneos Health. The study received no funding.

SOURCE: Vidal L et al. HemaSphere. 2018 Aug;2(4):e136.

Patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have better outcomes if they receive rituximab (Rituxan) maintenance therapy after induction therapy, albeit with the trade-off of higher risk of neutropenia, according to results of a meta-analysis reported in HemaSphere.

Investigators led by Liat Vidal, MD, of Tel-Aviv University, analyzed data from six randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy including 858 patients with MCL who had a complete or partial response to induction therapy. The maintenance therapy was rituximab in five trials and bortezomib (Velcade) in one trial. The median duration of follow-up was 26-59 months across trials.

Main results showed that, compared with patients who were simply observed or given maintenance interferon-alfa, those given maintenance rituximab had a significantly reduced risk of progression or death (pooled hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.73) and a nonsignificantly reduced risk of death (pHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06).

Rituximab maintenance therapy was associated with a doubling of the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (risk ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50-2.73). However, there was no significant difference between groups with respect to risks of infection, or grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocythemia.

None of the included trials reported on quality of life outcomes.

The lone trial of bortezomib maintenance did not find any significant event-free survival or overall survival benefit.

“Based on our results, rituximab maintenance is recommended after immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP or cytarabine-containing induction in the front-line setting for transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and after R-CHOP in the relapse setting. It is unclear if maintenance is of benefit after different induction chemotherapy such as bendamustine or fludarabine,” Dr. Vidal and coauthors conclude. “By contrast, current data does not support improved outcomes with bortezomib maintenance for MCL patients.”

Dr. Vidal disclosed that she is an employee of Syneos Health. The study received no funding.

SOURCE: Vidal L et al. HemaSphere. 2018 Aug;2(4):e136.

Patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have better outcomes if they receive rituximab (Rituxan) maintenance therapy after induction therapy, albeit with the trade-off of higher risk of neutropenia, according to results of a meta-analysis reported in HemaSphere.

Investigators led by Liat Vidal, MD, of Tel-Aviv University, analyzed data from six randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy including 858 patients with MCL who had a complete or partial response to induction therapy. The maintenance therapy was rituximab in five trials and bortezomib (Velcade) in one trial. The median duration of follow-up was 26-59 months across trials.

Main results showed that, compared with patients who were simply observed or given maintenance interferon-alfa, those given maintenance rituximab had a significantly reduced risk of progression or death (pooled hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.73) and a nonsignificantly reduced risk of death (pHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06).

Rituximab maintenance therapy was associated with a doubling of the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (risk ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50-2.73). However, there was no significant difference between groups with respect to risks of infection, or grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocythemia.

None of the included trials reported on quality of life outcomes.

The lone trial of bortezomib maintenance did not find any significant event-free survival or overall survival benefit.

“Based on our results, rituximab maintenance is recommended after immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP or cytarabine-containing induction in the front-line setting for transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and after R-CHOP in the relapse setting. It is unclear if maintenance is of benefit after different induction chemotherapy such as bendamustine or fludarabine,” Dr. Vidal and coauthors conclude. “By contrast, current data does not support improved outcomes with bortezomib maintenance for MCL patients.”

Dr. Vidal disclosed that she is an employee of Syneos Health. The study received no funding.

SOURCE: Vidal L et al. HemaSphere. 2018 Aug;2(4):e136.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to a 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Joseph Mock, MD, of the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and his colleagues.

Their report was published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting, but the authors suggested this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria,” the researchers wrote. “These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice.”

The researchers conducted a review of patients treated within the University of Virginia Health System between January 2012 and May 2016.

The team identified 70 patients, with an average age of 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%), mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (1%).

Bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis.

However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3 or higher, occurred in 19% of patients (n=13). Seven of these patients were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, 4 were taking antiplatelet agents alone, 1 was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and 1 was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding were antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the 2 medications, interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL), and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR, > 1.5).

In a multivariate analysis, only the following factors were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding:

• Concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulant use—hazard ratio=20.0 (95% CI, 2.1-200.0; P=0.0005) vs no antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy
• Elevated INR—hazard ratio=4.6 (95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P=0.0409).

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, the team said their findings confirm “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.”

They noted that this study was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive.”

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to a 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Joseph Mock, MD, of the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and his colleagues.

Their report was published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting, but the authors suggested this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria,” the researchers wrote. “These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice.”

The researchers conducted a review of patients treated within the University of Virginia Health System between January 2012 and May 2016.

The team identified 70 patients, with an average age of 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%), mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (1%).

Bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis.

However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3 or higher, occurred in 19% of patients (n=13). Seven of these patients were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, 4 were taking antiplatelet agents alone, 1 was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and 1 was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding were antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the 2 medications, interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL), and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR, > 1.5).

In a multivariate analysis, only the following factors were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding:

• Concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulant use—hazard ratio=20.0 (95% CI, 2.1-200.0; P=0.0005) vs no antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy
• Elevated INR—hazard ratio=4.6 (95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P=0.0409).

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, the team said their findings confirm “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.”

They noted that this study was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive.”

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to a 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Joseph Mock, MD, of the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and his colleagues.

Their report was published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting, but the authors suggested this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria,” the researchers wrote. “These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice.”

The researchers conducted a review of patients treated within the University of Virginia Health System between January 2012 and May 2016.

The team identified 70 patients, with an average age of 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%), mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (1%).

Bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis.

However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3 or higher, occurred in 19% of patients (n=13). Seven of these patients were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, 4 were taking antiplatelet agents alone, 1 was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and 1 was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding were antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the 2 medications, interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL), and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR, > 1.5).

In a multivariate analysis, only the following factors were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding:

• Concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulant use—hazard ratio=20.0 (95% CI, 2.1-200.0; P=0.0005) vs no antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy
• Elevated INR—hazard ratio=4.6 (95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P=0.0409).

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, the team said their findings confirm “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.”

They noted that this study was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive.”

University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland has launched a phase 1 clinical trial to study the safety of CAR T therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The trial will enroll 12-15 adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard therapies, according to a statement from University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center.

The principal investigator for the trial will be Paolo Caimi, MD, of UH Seidman and Case Western Reserve University.

UH Seidman, affiliated with Case Western Reserve University, is one of a handful of centers that has the ability to manufacture the CAR T cells from the patient’s own genetically modified T cells on site in the shared Case Western Reserve University National Center for Regenerative Medicine and the UH Seidman Cellular Therapy Laboratory, saving time for patients.

“Having the ability to make cells on-site means there will be a shorter turnaround time in having the cells available for the patient, compared to shipping them off-site,” said Dr. Caimi in the press statement.

[email protected]

University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland has launched a phase 1 clinical trial to study the safety of CAR T therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The trial will enroll 12-15 adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard therapies, according to a statement from University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center.

The principal investigator for the trial will be Paolo Caimi, MD, of UH Seidman and Case Western Reserve University.

UH Seidman, affiliated with Case Western Reserve University, is one of a handful of centers that has the ability to manufacture the CAR T cells from the patient’s own genetically modified T cells on site in the shared Case Western Reserve University National Center for Regenerative Medicine and the UH Seidman Cellular Therapy Laboratory, saving time for patients.

“Having the ability to make cells on-site means there will be a shorter turnaround time in having the cells available for the patient, compared to shipping them off-site,” said Dr. Caimi in the press statement.

[email protected]

University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland has launched a phase 1 clinical trial to study the safety of CAR T therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The trial will enroll 12-15 adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard therapies, according to a statement from University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center.

The principal investigator for the trial will be Paolo Caimi, MD, of UH Seidman and Case Western Reserve University.

UH Seidman, affiliated with Case Western Reserve University, is one of a handful of centers that has the ability to manufacture the CAR T cells from the patient’s own genetically modified T cells on site in the shared Case Western Reserve University National Center for Regenerative Medicine and the UH Seidman Cellular Therapy Laboratory, saving time for patients.

“Having the ability to make cells on-site means there will be a shorter turnaround time in having the cells available for the patient, compared to shipping them off-site,” said Dr. Caimi in the press statement.

[email protected]

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to an almost 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Paul R. Kunk, MD, of University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and his colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting but the authors suggested that this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria. These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice,” the researchers wrote.

They conducted a review of patients attending their center and associated regional clinics between January 2012 and May 2016. They identified 70 patients, average age 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%) and mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (1%).

The analysis showed that bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis. However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3, occurred in 13 patients (19%), a figure that the authors noted was greater than the rate of around 7% reported by clinical trials.

Of these patients, seven were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, four were taking antiplatelets alone, one was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and one was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding included antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the two medications or interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (greater than 1.5).

However, in a multivariate analysis, only combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant use (hazard ratio, 20.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-200.0; P less than .01) and an elevated INR (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P less than .01) remained statistically significant.

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, they said their findings confirmed “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.

“As ibrutinib increases in use, it is paramount to increase awareness of the known adverse events. This is especially important given the association of ibrutinib use with atrial fibrillation,” they wrote.

They noted that their trial was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive,” they noted.

SOURCE: Kunk PR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.07.287.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to an almost 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Paul R. Kunk, MD, of University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and his colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting but the authors suggested that this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria. These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice,” the researchers wrote.

They conducted a review of patients attending their center and associated regional clinics between January 2012 and May 2016. They identified 70 patients, average age 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%) and mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (1%).

The analysis showed that bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis. However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3, occurred in 13 patients (19%), a figure that the authors noted was greater than the rate of around 7% reported by clinical trials.

Of these patients, seven were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, four were taking antiplatelets alone, one was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and one was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding included antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the two medications or interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (greater than 1.5).

However, in a multivariate analysis, only combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant use (hazard ratio, 20.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-200.0; P less than .01) and an elevated INR (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P less than .01) remained statistically significant.

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, they said their findings confirmed “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.

“As ibrutinib increases in use, it is paramount to increase awareness of the known adverse events. This is especially important given the association of ibrutinib use with atrial fibrillation,” they wrote.

They noted that their trial was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive,” they noted.

SOURCE: Kunk PR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.07.287.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to an almost 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Paul R. Kunk, MD, of University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and his colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting but the authors suggested that this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria. These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice,” the researchers wrote.

They conducted a review of patients attending their center and associated regional clinics between January 2012 and May 2016. They identified 70 patients, average age 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%) and mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (1%).

The analysis showed that bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis. However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3, occurred in 13 patients (19%), a figure that the authors noted was greater than the rate of around 7% reported by clinical trials.

Of these patients, seven were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, four were taking antiplatelets alone, one was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and one was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding included antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the two medications or interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (greater than 1.5).

However, in a multivariate analysis, only combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant use (hazard ratio, 20.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-200.0; P less than .01) and an elevated INR (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P less than .01) remained statistically significant.

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, they said their findings confirmed “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.

“As ibrutinib increases in use, it is paramount to increase awareness of the known adverse events. This is especially important given the association of ibrutinib use with atrial fibrillation,” they wrote.

They noted that their trial was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive,” they noted.

SOURCE: Kunk PR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.07.287.

Photo by Luis Alvaz

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.

The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.

Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.

The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.

With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).

Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.

More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:

• Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
• NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
• NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
• NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.

However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.

“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. 

Photo by Luis Alvaz

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.

The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.

Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.

The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.

With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).

Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.

More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:

• Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
• NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
• NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
• NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.

However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.

“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. 

Photo by Luis Alvaz

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.

The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.

Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.

The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.

With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).

Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.

More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:

• Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
• NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
• NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
• NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.

However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.

“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. 

Photo by Bill Branson

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on CLL to include “significant” developments in treatment.

The new guidelines were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford in the UK, and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible, patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who cannot take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients can also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended.

TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib plus rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote.

However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplant should be considered as an option for patients who have failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have Richter’s transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5% to 10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum, which was involved in development as well, is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on CLL to include “significant” developments in treatment.

The new guidelines were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford in the UK, and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible, patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who cannot take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients can also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended.

TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib plus rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote.

However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplant should be considered as an option for patients who have failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have Richter’s transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5% to 10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum, which was involved in development as well, is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on CLL to include “significant” developments in treatment.

The new guidelines were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford in the UK, and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible, patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who cannot take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients can also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended.

TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib plus rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote.

However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplant should be considered as an option for patients who have failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have Richter’s transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5% to 10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum, which was involved in development as well, is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

Having health insurance can mean the difference between life and death for US patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), according to research published in Blood.

The study showed that patients with private health insurance had nearly 2-fold better survival outcomes than patients without insurance or those who were covered by Medicare or Medicaid.

A review of records on more than 43,000 FL patients showed that, compared with patients under age 65 with private insurance, the hazard ratios (HR) for death among patients in the same age bracket were 1.96 for those with no insurance, 1.83 for those with Medicaid, and 1.96 for those with Medicare (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“Our study finds that insurance status contributes to survival disparities in FL,” Christopher R. Flowers, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

“Future studies on outcomes in FL should include insurance status as an important predictor. Further research on prognosis for FL should examine the impact of public policy, such as the passage of the [Affordable Care Act], on FL outcomes, as well as examine other factors that influence access to care, such as individual-level socioeconomic status, regular primary care visits, access to prescription medications, and care affordability.”

Earlier research showed that patients with Medicaid or no insurance were more likely than privately insured patients to be diagnosed with cancers at advanced stages, and some patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas have been shown to have insurance-related disparities in treatments and outcomes.

To see whether the same could be true for patients with indolent-histology lymphomas such as FL, Dr Flowers and his colleagues extracted data from the National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry sponsored jointly by the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society.

The investigators identified 43,648 patients, age 18 and older, who were diagnosed with FL from 2004 through 2014. The team looked at patients ages 18 to 64 as well as patients age 65 and older to account for changes in insurance with Medicare eligibility.

Overall survival among patients younger than 65 was significantly worse for patients with public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) or no insurance in Cox proportional hazard models controlling for available data on sociodemographic factors and prognostic indicators.

However, compared with patients age 65 and older with private insurance, only patients with Medicare as their sole source of insurance had significantly worse overall survival (HR, 1.28; P<0.0001).

Patients who were uninsured or had Medicaid were more likely than others to have lower socioeconomic status, present with advanced-stage disease, have systemic symptoms, and have multiple comorbidities that persisted after controlling for known sociodemographic and prognostic factors.

The investigators found that, among patients under age 65, those with a comorbidity score of 1 had an HR for death of 1.71, compared with patients with no comorbidities, and patients with a score of 2 or greater had an HR of 3.1 (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“The findings of the study indicate that improving access to affordable, quality healthcare may reduce disparities in survival for those currently lacking coverage,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by Emory University, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr Flowers reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Spectrum, Celgene, and several other companies. The other authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

Having health insurance can mean the difference between life and death for US patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), according to research published in Blood.

The study showed that patients with private health insurance had nearly 2-fold better survival outcomes than patients without insurance or those who were covered by Medicare or Medicaid.

A review of records on more than 43,000 FL patients showed that, compared with patients under age 65 with private insurance, the hazard ratios (HR) for death among patients in the same age bracket were 1.96 for those with no insurance, 1.83 for those with Medicaid, and 1.96 for those with Medicare (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“Our study finds that insurance status contributes to survival disparities in FL,” Christopher R. Flowers, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

“Future studies on outcomes in FL should include insurance status as an important predictor. Further research on prognosis for FL should examine the impact of public policy, such as the passage of the [Affordable Care Act], on FL outcomes, as well as examine other factors that influence access to care, such as individual-level socioeconomic status, regular primary care visits, access to prescription medications, and care affordability.”

Earlier research showed that patients with Medicaid or no insurance were more likely than privately insured patients to be diagnosed with cancers at advanced stages, and some patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas have been shown to have insurance-related disparities in treatments and outcomes.

To see whether the same could be true for patients with indolent-histology lymphomas such as FL, Dr Flowers and his colleagues extracted data from the National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry sponsored jointly by the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society.

The investigators identified 43,648 patients, age 18 and older, who were diagnosed with FL from 2004 through 2014. The team looked at patients ages 18 to 64 as well as patients age 65 and older to account for changes in insurance with Medicare eligibility.

Overall survival among patients younger than 65 was significantly worse for patients with public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) or no insurance in Cox proportional hazard models controlling for available data on sociodemographic factors and prognostic indicators.

However, compared with patients age 65 and older with private insurance, only patients with Medicare as their sole source of insurance had significantly worse overall survival (HR, 1.28; P<0.0001).

Patients who were uninsured or had Medicaid were more likely than others to have lower socioeconomic status, present with advanced-stage disease, have systemic symptoms, and have multiple comorbidities that persisted after controlling for known sociodemographic and prognostic factors.

The investigators found that, among patients under age 65, those with a comorbidity score of 1 had an HR for death of 1.71, compared with patients with no comorbidities, and patients with a score of 2 or greater had an HR of 3.1 (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“The findings of the study indicate that improving access to affordable, quality healthcare may reduce disparities in survival for those currently lacking coverage,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by Emory University, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr Flowers reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Spectrum, Celgene, and several other companies. The other authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

Having health insurance can mean the difference between life and death for US patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), according to research published in Blood.

The study showed that patients with private health insurance had nearly 2-fold better survival outcomes than patients without insurance or those who were covered by Medicare or Medicaid.

A review of records on more than 43,000 FL patients showed that, compared with patients under age 65 with private insurance, the hazard ratios (HR) for death among patients in the same age bracket were 1.96 for those with no insurance, 1.83 for those with Medicaid, and 1.96 for those with Medicare (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“Our study finds that insurance status contributes to survival disparities in FL,” Christopher R. Flowers, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

“Future studies on outcomes in FL should include insurance status as an important predictor. Further research on prognosis for FL should examine the impact of public policy, such as the passage of the [Affordable Care Act], on FL outcomes, as well as examine other factors that influence access to care, such as individual-level socioeconomic status, regular primary care visits, access to prescription medications, and care affordability.”

Earlier research showed that patients with Medicaid or no insurance were more likely than privately insured patients to be diagnosed with cancers at advanced stages, and some patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas have been shown to have insurance-related disparities in treatments and outcomes.

To see whether the same could be true for patients with indolent-histology lymphomas such as FL, Dr Flowers and his colleagues extracted data from the National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry sponsored jointly by the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society.

The investigators identified 43,648 patients, age 18 and older, who were diagnosed with FL from 2004 through 2014. The team looked at patients ages 18 to 64 as well as patients age 65 and older to account for changes in insurance with Medicare eligibility.

Overall survival among patients younger than 65 was significantly worse for patients with public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) or no insurance in Cox proportional hazard models controlling for available data on sociodemographic factors and prognostic indicators.

However, compared with patients age 65 and older with private insurance, only patients with Medicare as their sole source of insurance had significantly worse overall survival (HR, 1.28; P<0.0001).

Patients who were uninsured or had Medicaid were more likely than others to have lower socioeconomic status, present with advanced-stage disease, have systemic symptoms, and have multiple comorbidities that persisted after controlling for known sociodemographic and prognostic factors.

The investigators found that, among patients under age 65, those with a comorbidity score of 1 had an HR for death of 1.71, compared with patients with no comorbidities, and patients with a score of 2 or greater had an HR of 3.1 (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“The findings of the study indicate that improving access to affordable, quality healthcare may reduce disparities in survival for those currently lacking coverage,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by Emory University, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr Flowers reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Spectrum, Celgene, and several other companies. The other authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma have 10-100 times the risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) seen in the general population, according to a retrospective cohort study.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar patients largely untreated with autotransplant.

Exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation – both used in autotransplant – is known to increase risk of these treatment-related myeloid neoplasms, according to Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and his colleagues. Concern about this complication has been growing as long-term survivorship after transplant improves.

The investigators analyzed data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Analyses were based on 9,028 patients undergoing autotransplant during 1995-2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (916 patients), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (3,546 patients), or plasma cell myeloma (4,566 patients). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant. More aggressive transplantation protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome: Risk was higher for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 4.0); patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen; patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma who received three or more lines of chemotherapy versus just one line (HR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively); and patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent transplantation in 2005-2010 versus 1995-1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database with the same lymphoma and plasma cell myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent autotransplant, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5-10 times higher than the background level in the population. But the study autotransplant cohort had a risk of AML that was 10-50 times higher, and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for the autotransplant, but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr. Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown. “One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased posttransplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” they wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age … and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (i.e., marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by several U.S. government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Radivoyevitch T et al. Leuk Res. 2018 Jul 19. pii: S0145-2126(18)30160-7.

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma have 10-100 times the risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) seen in the general population, according to a retrospective cohort study.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar patients largely untreated with autotransplant.

Exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation – both used in autotransplant – is known to increase risk of these treatment-related myeloid neoplasms, according to Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and his colleagues. Concern about this complication has been growing as long-term survivorship after transplant improves.

The investigators analyzed data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Analyses were based on 9,028 patients undergoing autotransplant during 1995-2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (916 patients), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (3,546 patients), or plasma cell myeloma (4,566 patients). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant. More aggressive transplantation protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome: Risk was higher for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 4.0); patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen; patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma who received three or more lines of chemotherapy versus just one line (HR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively); and patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent transplantation in 2005-2010 versus 1995-1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database with the same lymphoma and plasma cell myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent autotransplant, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5-10 times higher than the background level in the population. But the study autotransplant cohort had a risk of AML that was 10-50 times higher, and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for the autotransplant, but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr. Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown. “One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased posttransplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” they wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age … and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (i.e., marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by several U.S. government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Radivoyevitch T et al. Leuk Res. 2018 Jul 19. pii: S0145-2126(18)30160-7.

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma have 10-100 times the risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) seen in the general population, according to a retrospective cohort study.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar patients largely untreated with autotransplant.

Exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation – both used in autotransplant – is known to increase risk of these treatment-related myeloid neoplasms, according to Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and his colleagues. Concern about this complication has been growing as long-term survivorship after transplant improves.

The investigators analyzed data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Analyses were based on 9,028 patients undergoing autotransplant during 1995-2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (916 patients), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (3,546 patients), or plasma cell myeloma (4,566 patients). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant. More aggressive transplantation protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome: Risk was higher for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 4.0); patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen; patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma who received three or more lines of chemotherapy versus just one line (HR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively); and patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent transplantation in 2005-2010 versus 1995-1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database with the same lymphoma and plasma cell myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent autotransplant, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5-10 times higher than the background level in the population. But the study autotransplant cohort had a risk of AML that was 10-50 times higher, and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for the autotransplant, but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr. Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown. “One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased posttransplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” they wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age … and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (i.e., marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by several U.S. government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Radivoyevitch T et al. Leuk Res. 2018 Jul 19. pii: S0145-2126(18)30160-7.

Micrograph showing CLL

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) should be routinely monitored for melanoma, according to researchers.

A study of 470 CLL patients showed they have a significantly higher risk of invasive melanoma than the general population.

Most of the melanomas reported in this study were detected via routine surveillance, and most were discovered before they reached an advanced stage.

Clive Zent, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, and his colleagues described this study in Leukemia Research.

The researchers analyzed data on 470 CLL patients followed for 2849 person-years. Eighteen of these patients developed 22 melanomas. This included 14 cases of invasive melanoma in 13 patients.

The rate of invasive melanoma was significantly higher in this CLL cohort than the rate observed in the age- and sex-matched general population. The standardized incidence ratio was 6.32.

“We do not for sure know why CLL patients are more susceptible to melanoma, but the most likely cause is a suppressed immune system,” Dr Zent noted.

“Normally, in people with healthy immune systems, malignant skin cells might be detected and destroyed before they become a problem. But in CLL patients, failure of this control system increases the rate at which cancer cells can grow into tumors and also the likelihood that they will become invasive or spread to distant sites.”

Detection and management

Fifteen of the 22 melanomas (68.2%) in the CLL cohort were detected via surveillance in a dermatology clinic, and 2 (9.1%) were detected at the CLL/lymphoma clinic.

Three cases of melanoma (14.3%) were detected within the first year of a patient’s CLL diagnosis.

Seven melanomas (33.3%) were detected at pathologic stage 0, 8 (38.1%) at stage I, 2 (9.5%) at stage II, 3 (14.3%) at stage III, and 1 (4.8%) at stage IV. Detailed data were not available for the remaining case.

Melanomas were managed with wide local excision (n=19), sentinel node biopsies (n=6), Mohs surgery (n=1), drugs (n=2), palliative care (n=1), and comfort care (n=1).

The 4 patients who received drugs, palliative care, or comfort care had advanced melanoma.

The patient who received palliative care was still alive at 2.4 years of follow-up. The patient who received comfort care died of metastatic melanoma 1.4 years after diagnosis.

The third patient with advanced melanoma received 2 cycles of dacarbazine and palliative radiation to lung and brain metastases. This patient died 3.6 years after melanoma diagnosis.

The fourth patient received ipilimumab for the melanoma while also receiving ibrutinib to treat her CLL. When the ipilimumab failed, the patient proceeded to pembrolizumab and achieved a near-complete response within 3 months. Then, an intensely hypermetabolic abdominal node was detected and successfully treated with radiation.

The patient continued on pembrolizumab, and her melanoma was in sustained remission at last follow-up, after 23 cycles of pembrolizumab. Her CLL was still responding to ibrutinib at that point as well.

Based on these data, Dr Zent and his colleagues recommend routine melanoma screening for CLL patients. The team believes such surveillance might decrease morbidity and mortality in these patients, although more research is needed to confirm this theory.

Micrograph showing CLL

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) should be routinely monitored for melanoma, according to researchers.

A study of 470 CLL patients showed they have a significantly higher risk of invasive melanoma than the general population.

Most of the melanomas reported in this study were detected via routine surveillance, and most were discovered before they reached an advanced stage.

Clive Zent, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, and his colleagues described this study in Leukemia Research.

The researchers analyzed data on 470 CLL patients followed for 2849 person-years. Eighteen of these patients developed 22 melanomas. This included 14 cases of invasive melanoma in 13 patients.

The rate of invasive melanoma was significantly higher in this CLL cohort than the rate observed in the age- and sex-matched general population. The standardized incidence ratio was 6.32.

“We do not for sure know why CLL patients are more susceptible to melanoma, but the most likely cause is a suppressed immune system,” Dr Zent noted.

“Normally, in people with healthy immune systems, malignant skin cells might be detected and destroyed before they become a problem. But in CLL patients, failure of this control system increases the rate at which cancer cells can grow into tumors and also the likelihood that they will become invasive or spread to distant sites.”

Detection and management

Fifteen of the 22 melanomas (68.2%) in the CLL cohort were detected via surveillance in a dermatology clinic, and 2 (9.1%) were detected at the CLL/lymphoma clinic.

Three cases of melanoma (14.3%) were detected within the first year of a patient’s CLL diagnosis.

Seven melanomas (33.3%) were detected at pathologic stage 0, 8 (38.1%) at stage I, 2 (9.5%) at stage II, 3 (14.3%) at stage III, and 1 (4.8%) at stage IV. Detailed data were not available for the remaining case.

Melanomas were managed with wide local excision (n=19), sentinel node biopsies (n=6), Mohs surgery (n=1), drugs (n=2), palliative care (n=1), and comfort care (n=1).

The 4 patients who received drugs, palliative care, or comfort care had advanced melanoma.

The patient who received palliative care was still alive at 2.4 years of follow-up. The patient who received comfort care died of metastatic melanoma 1.4 years after diagnosis.

The third patient with advanced melanoma received 2 cycles of dacarbazine and palliative radiation to lung and brain metastases. This patient died 3.6 years after melanoma diagnosis.

The fourth patient received ipilimumab for the melanoma while also receiving ibrutinib to treat her CLL. When the ipilimumab failed, the patient proceeded to pembrolizumab and achieved a near-complete response within 3 months. Then, an intensely hypermetabolic abdominal node was detected and successfully treated with radiation.

The patient continued on pembrolizumab, and her melanoma was in sustained remission at last follow-up, after 23 cycles of pembrolizumab. Her CLL was still responding to ibrutinib at that point as well.

Based on these data, Dr Zent and his colleagues recommend routine melanoma screening for CLL patients. The team believes such surveillance might decrease morbidity and mortality in these patients, although more research is needed to confirm this theory.

Micrograph showing CLL

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) should be routinely monitored for melanoma, according to researchers.

A study of 470 CLL patients showed they have a significantly higher risk of invasive melanoma than the general population.

Most of the melanomas reported in this study were detected via routine surveillance, and most were discovered before they reached an advanced stage.

Clive Zent, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, and his colleagues described this study in Leukemia Research.

The researchers analyzed data on 470 CLL patients followed for 2849 person-years. Eighteen of these patients developed 22 melanomas. This included 14 cases of invasive melanoma in 13 patients.

The rate of invasive melanoma was significantly higher in this CLL cohort than the rate observed in the age- and sex-matched general population. The standardized incidence ratio was 6.32.

“We do not for sure know why CLL patients are more susceptible to melanoma, but the most likely cause is a suppressed immune system,” Dr Zent noted.

“Normally, in people with healthy immune systems, malignant skin cells might be detected and destroyed before they become a problem. But in CLL patients, failure of this control system increases the rate at which cancer cells can grow into tumors and also the likelihood that they will become invasive or spread to distant sites.”

Detection and management

Fifteen of the 22 melanomas (68.2%) in the CLL cohort were detected via surveillance in a dermatology clinic, and 2 (9.1%) were detected at the CLL/lymphoma clinic.

Three cases of melanoma (14.3%) were detected within the first year of a patient’s CLL diagnosis.

Seven melanomas (33.3%) were detected at pathologic stage 0, 8 (38.1%) at stage I, 2 (9.5%) at stage II, 3 (14.3%) at stage III, and 1 (4.8%) at stage IV. Detailed data were not available for the remaining case.

Melanomas were managed with wide local excision (n=19), sentinel node biopsies (n=6), Mohs surgery (n=1), drugs (n=2), palliative care (n=1), and comfort care (n=1).

The 4 patients who received drugs, palliative care, or comfort care had advanced melanoma.

The patient who received palliative care was still alive at 2.4 years of follow-up. The patient who received comfort care died of metastatic melanoma 1.4 years after diagnosis.

The third patient with advanced melanoma received 2 cycles of dacarbazine and palliative radiation to lung and brain metastases. This patient died 3.6 years after melanoma diagnosis.

The fourth patient received ipilimumab for the melanoma while also receiving ibrutinib to treat her CLL. When the ipilimumab failed, the patient proceeded to pembrolizumab and achieved a near-complete response within 3 months. Then, an intensely hypermetabolic abdominal node was detected and successfully treated with radiation.

The patient continued on pembrolizumab, and her melanoma was in sustained remission at last follow-up, after 23 cycles of pembrolizumab. Her CLL was still responding to ibrutinib at that point as well.

Based on these data, Dr Zent and his colleagues recommend routine melanoma screening for CLL patients. The team believes such surveillance might decrease morbidity and mortality in these patients, although more research is needed to confirm this theory.