User login
5F9 plus rituximab take a bite out of drug-resistant NHL
AMSTERDAM – The novel monoclonal antibody , thereby thwarting a mechanism that non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) use to evade immune surveillance, investigators report.
Among 97 patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive or indolent lymphomas in a phase 1b/2 trial who were treated with Hu5F9 (5F9) plus rituximab, the objective response rate (ORR) was 45%, reported Mark Roschewski, MD, of the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research in Bethesda, Md.
5F9 is an immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets CD47, the “don’t eat me” signal that inhibits macrophages from carrying out their crucial phagocytosis role.
“Rituximab, through its activity on the Fc receptor, places an extrinsic ‘eat me’ signal, so when you give these two things together you’re blocking the ‘don’t eat me’ signal and you’re placing the ‘eat me’ signal, and then the cell becomes susceptible to phagocytosis,” he said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
5F9 is the first agent in its class and the most advanced in clinical trials, but several similar agents are also in development. As previously reported, a similar molecule labeled TTI-621 has shown early activity in the treatment of T-cell lymphomas.
In an interview, Dr. Roschewski explained that the therapeutic approach shows promise for the treatment of NHL and nonmalignant diseases.
“This target isn’t even specific to cancer. There is rationale for using this to treat infections or other conditions. Basically, anything that your innate immune system should normally chew up, if that cell has always been evading it using that signal, this removes that [evasion] mechanism,” he said.
In preclinical studies, 5F9 showed the most activity against NHL and acute myeloid leukemia, he noted.
Results of the phase 1b portion of the study were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (2018;379:1711-21). At the EHA Congress, Dr. Roschewski reported on extended follow-up of the phase 1b cohort and preliminary phase 2 data.
In phase 2, the investigators enrolled patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that was either primary refractory to standard therapy or relapsed/refractory after two or more prior lines of therapy and who were not eligible for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. They also enrolled a smaller cohort of patients with the indolent lymphoma histologies follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) whose disease was relapsed or refractory to at least two prior lines.
Dr. Roschewski reported on pooled data for 115 patients enrolled in phases 1b and 2: 70 with DLBCL, 41 with FL, and 4 with MZL.
The patients were heavily pretreated with a median of three prior lines of therapy. Of the patients with DLBCL, 59% had primary refractory disease, and 89% of the patients with DLBCL in phase 2 were not eligible for CAR T-cell therapy.
Among all patients in this analysis, 85% had disease that was refractory to a prior rituximab-containing regimen, and the majority had disease that was refractory to the last rituximab-containing regimen.
Among 97 patients evaluable for response (59 with DLBCL, 35 with FL, and 3 with MZL), the ORR was 45%, including 19% CR and 27% partial responses (PR). An additional 17% of patients had stable disease, and 38% experienced disease progression.
The ORR for DLBCL patients was 35%, consisting of 15% CR and 20% PR. An additional 12% of patients with DLBCL had stable disease, and 53% experienced progression.
Of the patients with indolent lymphomas, the ORR was 61%, including 24% CR and 37% PR. Of this group, 24% had stable disease, and 16% had disease progression.
For all patients, the median time to response was 1.8 months (range 1.6-7.3 months).
Efficacy among patients with DLBCL was similar across subtypes and for patients with primary refractory vs. acquired refractory disease. The responses also were similar irrespective of prior lines of therapy.
Patients tolerated the combination well, with no maximum tolerated dose at up to 45 mg/kg of 5F9, and no significant dose-related toxicities.
Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common adverse events included expected on-target anemia, caused by clearance of aging red blood cells, which are cleared by the CD47-blocking effects of 5F9. This anemia can be mitigated with an initial priming dose of 1 mg/kg 5FP that causes a transient mild decline in hemoglobin and a temporary reticulocytosis that soon resolves. Hemoglobin levels return to baseline even with continued 5F9 at doses much higher than the priming dose, Dr. Roschewski said.
Other adverse events were infusion reactions and related symptoms. There were no autoimmune adverse events, and just 8 of the 115 patients available for the safety analysis (7%) had to discontinue therapy.
Enrollment in the phase 2 trial is continuing, and a 30-mg/kg maintenance dose of 5F9 has been selected for a trial in patients with DLBCL who are either ineligible for CAR T-cell therapy or have disease that progressed on three or more prior lines of therapy.
The study is funded by Forty Seven and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Dr. Roschewski reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Roschewski M et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S867.
AMSTERDAM – The novel monoclonal antibody , thereby thwarting a mechanism that non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) use to evade immune surveillance, investigators report.
Among 97 patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive or indolent lymphomas in a phase 1b/2 trial who were treated with Hu5F9 (5F9) plus rituximab, the objective response rate (ORR) was 45%, reported Mark Roschewski, MD, of the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research in Bethesda, Md.
5F9 is an immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets CD47, the “don’t eat me” signal that inhibits macrophages from carrying out their crucial phagocytosis role.
“Rituximab, through its activity on the Fc receptor, places an extrinsic ‘eat me’ signal, so when you give these two things together you’re blocking the ‘don’t eat me’ signal and you’re placing the ‘eat me’ signal, and then the cell becomes susceptible to phagocytosis,” he said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
5F9 is the first agent in its class and the most advanced in clinical trials, but several similar agents are also in development. As previously reported, a similar molecule labeled TTI-621 has shown early activity in the treatment of T-cell lymphomas.
In an interview, Dr. Roschewski explained that the therapeutic approach shows promise for the treatment of NHL and nonmalignant diseases.
“This target isn’t even specific to cancer. There is rationale for using this to treat infections or other conditions. Basically, anything that your innate immune system should normally chew up, if that cell has always been evading it using that signal, this removes that [evasion] mechanism,” he said.
In preclinical studies, 5F9 showed the most activity against NHL and acute myeloid leukemia, he noted.
Results of the phase 1b portion of the study were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (2018;379:1711-21). At the EHA Congress, Dr. Roschewski reported on extended follow-up of the phase 1b cohort and preliminary phase 2 data.
In phase 2, the investigators enrolled patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that was either primary refractory to standard therapy or relapsed/refractory after two or more prior lines of therapy and who were not eligible for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. They also enrolled a smaller cohort of patients with the indolent lymphoma histologies follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) whose disease was relapsed or refractory to at least two prior lines.
Dr. Roschewski reported on pooled data for 115 patients enrolled in phases 1b and 2: 70 with DLBCL, 41 with FL, and 4 with MZL.
The patients were heavily pretreated with a median of three prior lines of therapy. Of the patients with DLBCL, 59% had primary refractory disease, and 89% of the patients with DLBCL in phase 2 were not eligible for CAR T-cell therapy.
Among all patients in this analysis, 85% had disease that was refractory to a prior rituximab-containing regimen, and the majority had disease that was refractory to the last rituximab-containing regimen.
Among 97 patients evaluable for response (59 with DLBCL, 35 with FL, and 3 with MZL), the ORR was 45%, including 19% CR and 27% partial responses (PR). An additional 17% of patients had stable disease, and 38% experienced disease progression.
The ORR for DLBCL patients was 35%, consisting of 15% CR and 20% PR. An additional 12% of patients with DLBCL had stable disease, and 53% experienced progression.
Of the patients with indolent lymphomas, the ORR was 61%, including 24% CR and 37% PR. Of this group, 24% had stable disease, and 16% had disease progression.
For all patients, the median time to response was 1.8 months (range 1.6-7.3 months).
Efficacy among patients with DLBCL was similar across subtypes and for patients with primary refractory vs. acquired refractory disease. The responses also were similar irrespective of prior lines of therapy.
Patients tolerated the combination well, with no maximum tolerated dose at up to 45 mg/kg of 5F9, and no significant dose-related toxicities.
Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common adverse events included expected on-target anemia, caused by clearance of aging red blood cells, which are cleared by the CD47-blocking effects of 5F9. This anemia can be mitigated with an initial priming dose of 1 mg/kg 5FP that causes a transient mild decline in hemoglobin and a temporary reticulocytosis that soon resolves. Hemoglobin levels return to baseline even with continued 5F9 at doses much higher than the priming dose, Dr. Roschewski said.
Other adverse events were infusion reactions and related symptoms. There were no autoimmune adverse events, and just 8 of the 115 patients available for the safety analysis (7%) had to discontinue therapy.
Enrollment in the phase 2 trial is continuing, and a 30-mg/kg maintenance dose of 5F9 has been selected for a trial in patients with DLBCL who are either ineligible for CAR T-cell therapy or have disease that progressed on three or more prior lines of therapy.
The study is funded by Forty Seven and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Dr. Roschewski reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Roschewski M et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S867.
AMSTERDAM – The novel monoclonal antibody , thereby thwarting a mechanism that non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) use to evade immune surveillance, investigators report.
Among 97 patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive or indolent lymphomas in a phase 1b/2 trial who were treated with Hu5F9 (5F9) plus rituximab, the objective response rate (ORR) was 45%, reported Mark Roschewski, MD, of the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research in Bethesda, Md.
5F9 is an immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets CD47, the “don’t eat me” signal that inhibits macrophages from carrying out their crucial phagocytosis role.
“Rituximab, through its activity on the Fc receptor, places an extrinsic ‘eat me’ signal, so when you give these two things together you’re blocking the ‘don’t eat me’ signal and you’re placing the ‘eat me’ signal, and then the cell becomes susceptible to phagocytosis,” he said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
5F9 is the first agent in its class and the most advanced in clinical trials, but several similar agents are also in development. As previously reported, a similar molecule labeled TTI-621 has shown early activity in the treatment of T-cell lymphomas.
In an interview, Dr. Roschewski explained that the therapeutic approach shows promise for the treatment of NHL and nonmalignant diseases.
“This target isn’t even specific to cancer. There is rationale for using this to treat infections or other conditions. Basically, anything that your innate immune system should normally chew up, if that cell has always been evading it using that signal, this removes that [evasion] mechanism,” he said.
In preclinical studies, 5F9 showed the most activity against NHL and acute myeloid leukemia, he noted.
Results of the phase 1b portion of the study were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (2018;379:1711-21). At the EHA Congress, Dr. Roschewski reported on extended follow-up of the phase 1b cohort and preliminary phase 2 data.
In phase 2, the investigators enrolled patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that was either primary refractory to standard therapy or relapsed/refractory after two or more prior lines of therapy and who were not eligible for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. They also enrolled a smaller cohort of patients with the indolent lymphoma histologies follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) whose disease was relapsed or refractory to at least two prior lines.
Dr. Roschewski reported on pooled data for 115 patients enrolled in phases 1b and 2: 70 with DLBCL, 41 with FL, and 4 with MZL.
The patients were heavily pretreated with a median of three prior lines of therapy. Of the patients with DLBCL, 59% had primary refractory disease, and 89% of the patients with DLBCL in phase 2 were not eligible for CAR T-cell therapy.
Among all patients in this analysis, 85% had disease that was refractory to a prior rituximab-containing regimen, and the majority had disease that was refractory to the last rituximab-containing regimen.
Among 97 patients evaluable for response (59 with DLBCL, 35 with FL, and 3 with MZL), the ORR was 45%, including 19% CR and 27% partial responses (PR). An additional 17% of patients had stable disease, and 38% experienced disease progression.
The ORR for DLBCL patients was 35%, consisting of 15% CR and 20% PR. An additional 12% of patients with DLBCL had stable disease, and 53% experienced progression.
Of the patients with indolent lymphomas, the ORR was 61%, including 24% CR and 37% PR. Of this group, 24% had stable disease, and 16% had disease progression.
For all patients, the median time to response was 1.8 months (range 1.6-7.3 months).
Efficacy among patients with DLBCL was similar across subtypes and for patients with primary refractory vs. acquired refractory disease. The responses also were similar irrespective of prior lines of therapy.
Patients tolerated the combination well, with no maximum tolerated dose at up to 45 mg/kg of 5F9, and no significant dose-related toxicities.
Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common adverse events included expected on-target anemia, caused by clearance of aging red blood cells, which are cleared by the CD47-blocking effects of 5F9. This anemia can be mitigated with an initial priming dose of 1 mg/kg 5FP that causes a transient mild decline in hemoglobin and a temporary reticulocytosis that soon resolves. Hemoglobin levels return to baseline even with continued 5F9 at doses much higher than the priming dose, Dr. Roschewski said.
Other adverse events were infusion reactions and related symptoms. There were no autoimmune adverse events, and just 8 of the 115 patients available for the safety analysis (7%) had to discontinue therapy.
Enrollment in the phase 2 trial is continuing, and a 30-mg/kg maintenance dose of 5F9 has been selected for a trial in patients with DLBCL who are either ineligible for CAR T-cell therapy or have disease that progressed on three or more prior lines of therapy.
The study is funded by Forty Seven and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Dr. Roschewski reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Roschewski M et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S867.
REPORTING FROM EHA CONGRESS
Key clinical point: The combination of Hu5F9 and rituximab shows activity in heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory lymphomas.
Major finding: Among all evaluable patients, the objective response rate was 45%. The objective response rate for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was 35%.
Study details: A pooled analysis of data from phase 1b/2 studies in patients with aggressive and indolent lymphomas. Among 97 patients evaluable for response, there were 59 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 35 with follicular lymphoma, and 3 with marginal zone lymphoma.
Disclosures: The study is funded by Forty Seven and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Dr. Roschewski reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Roschewski M et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S867.
‘Encouraging’ responses seen with durvalumab plus R-CHOP in DLBCL
CHICAGO – A six-drug combination produced complete responses in previously untreated, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients in a phase 2 trial.
Induction with durvalumab and R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) produced complete response rates of 54% in the entire cohort and 41% in patients with double- or triple-hit lymphoma. Immune-related adverse events (AEs) were common with this regimen, but no unexpected AEs occurred, according to researchers.
Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Treatment
The phase 2 trial (NCT03003520) was designed to assess durvalumab plus R-CHOP as well as durvalumab plus R-CHOP and lenalidomide (R2-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated, high-risk DLBCL. However, the R2-CHOP arm was closed early.
In cycle one, all patients received durvalumab plus R-CHOP. For subsequent cycles, patients with activated B-cell (ABC) DLBCL were assigned to durvalumab plus R2-CHOP, while patients with non-ABC DLBCL continued on durvalumab plus R-CHOP.
The R2-CHOP arm was closed early due to safety issues observed in trials combining checkpoint inhibitors with immunomodulatory agents. A partial clinical hold was placed on the R2-CHOP arm, but patients could continue on the regimen if they experienced a clinical benefit. Any patients with ABC DLBCL who were enrolled after the partial hold received treatment with durvalumab plus R-CHOP.
Induction was given for up to eight cycles and was followed by consolidation with durvalumab alone for up to 12 months from the start of induction.
Patient characteristics
The researchers presented data on 43 patients in the durvalumab plus R-CHOP arm. The patients’ median age was 62 years, and 61% were men.
“I think it’s worth noting that 46% of patients in the durvalumab plus R-CHOP group had very high-risk features, including double-hit or triple-hit genetic features,” said Justin Kline, MD, of the University of Chicago Medicine who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
Specifically, 30% of patients had double-hit lymphoma, and 16% had triple-hit lymphoma. Most patients had a high-intermediate-risk (49%) or high-risk (21%) International Prognostic Index score, and 79% of patients had Ann Arbor stage IV disease.
Efficacy
As of Aug. 2, 2018, 70% of patients had completed induction, 2% had completed consolidation, 44% remained on treatment, and 54% had discontinued therapy. The most common reasons for stopping treatment were progression (16%), AEs (14%), and consent withdrawal (12%).
“The combination of durvalumab plus R-CHOP demonstrated encouraging response rates … in subjects with high-risk DLBCL, including double- and triple-hit lymphomas,” Dr. Kline said.
The complete response rate was 54% (20/37) at the end of induction and 68% (n = 25) at the end of consolidation. The partial response rate at the end of consolidation was 30% (n = 11).
In patients with double- or triple-hit lymphoma, the complete response rate at the end of induction was 41% (7/17). The overall response rate in this group was 88% (n = 15).
Safety
“The safety profile was as expected for the components of the combination, and no new safety signals were observed,” Dr. Kline said.
He noted that AEs of special interest, or immune-related AEs, occurred in 61% of patients, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2.
AEs of special interest included diarrhea (28%), rash (23%), infusion-related reactions (16%), dermatitis (12%), hypothyroidism (5%), myocarditis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (2%), and hepatitis (2%).
Grade 3 or 4 AEs of special interest included infusion-related reactions (5%), rash (2%), diarrhea (2%), and hepatitis (2%).
The safety and efficacy results support further evaluation of durvalumab plus R-CHOP, although it will be important to identify DLBCL patients who are more likely to derive a clinical benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade, Dr. Kline said.
“This early study showed that the combination is feasible,” Dr. Nowakowski added. “I think, down the road, we’ll need to identify patients who can actually benefit from this combination. We definitely have clinical evidence of exceptional responses to PD-1 blockade.”
The trial was sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Nowakowski reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, MorphoSys, and NanoString Technologies. Dr. Kline reported relationships with Cardinal Health, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Kite/Gilead, ITeos Therapeutics, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Nowakowski GS et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7520.
CHICAGO – A six-drug combination produced complete responses in previously untreated, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients in a phase 2 trial.
Induction with durvalumab and R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) produced complete response rates of 54% in the entire cohort and 41% in patients with double- or triple-hit lymphoma. Immune-related adverse events (AEs) were common with this regimen, but no unexpected AEs occurred, according to researchers.
Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Treatment
The phase 2 trial (NCT03003520) was designed to assess durvalumab plus R-CHOP as well as durvalumab plus R-CHOP and lenalidomide (R2-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated, high-risk DLBCL. However, the R2-CHOP arm was closed early.
In cycle one, all patients received durvalumab plus R-CHOP. For subsequent cycles, patients with activated B-cell (ABC) DLBCL were assigned to durvalumab plus R2-CHOP, while patients with non-ABC DLBCL continued on durvalumab plus R-CHOP.
The R2-CHOP arm was closed early due to safety issues observed in trials combining checkpoint inhibitors with immunomodulatory agents. A partial clinical hold was placed on the R2-CHOP arm, but patients could continue on the regimen if they experienced a clinical benefit. Any patients with ABC DLBCL who were enrolled after the partial hold received treatment with durvalumab plus R-CHOP.
Induction was given for up to eight cycles and was followed by consolidation with durvalumab alone for up to 12 months from the start of induction.
Patient characteristics
The researchers presented data on 43 patients in the durvalumab plus R-CHOP arm. The patients’ median age was 62 years, and 61% were men.
“I think it’s worth noting that 46% of patients in the durvalumab plus R-CHOP group had very high-risk features, including double-hit or triple-hit genetic features,” said Justin Kline, MD, of the University of Chicago Medicine who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
Specifically, 30% of patients had double-hit lymphoma, and 16% had triple-hit lymphoma. Most patients had a high-intermediate-risk (49%) or high-risk (21%) International Prognostic Index score, and 79% of patients had Ann Arbor stage IV disease.
Efficacy
As of Aug. 2, 2018, 70% of patients had completed induction, 2% had completed consolidation, 44% remained on treatment, and 54% had discontinued therapy. The most common reasons for stopping treatment were progression (16%), AEs (14%), and consent withdrawal (12%).
“The combination of durvalumab plus R-CHOP demonstrated encouraging response rates … in subjects with high-risk DLBCL, including double- and triple-hit lymphomas,” Dr. Kline said.
The complete response rate was 54% (20/37) at the end of induction and 68% (n = 25) at the end of consolidation. The partial response rate at the end of consolidation was 30% (n = 11).
In patients with double- or triple-hit lymphoma, the complete response rate at the end of induction was 41% (7/17). The overall response rate in this group was 88% (n = 15).
Safety
“The safety profile was as expected for the components of the combination, and no new safety signals were observed,” Dr. Kline said.
He noted that AEs of special interest, or immune-related AEs, occurred in 61% of patients, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2.
AEs of special interest included diarrhea (28%), rash (23%), infusion-related reactions (16%), dermatitis (12%), hypothyroidism (5%), myocarditis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (2%), and hepatitis (2%).
Grade 3 or 4 AEs of special interest included infusion-related reactions (5%), rash (2%), diarrhea (2%), and hepatitis (2%).
The safety and efficacy results support further evaluation of durvalumab plus R-CHOP, although it will be important to identify DLBCL patients who are more likely to derive a clinical benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade, Dr. Kline said.
“This early study showed that the combination is feasible,” Dr. Nowakowski added. “I think, down the road, we’ll need to identify patients who can actually benefit from this combination. We definitely have clinical evidence of exceptional responses to PD-1 blockade.”
The trial was sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Nowakowski reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, MorphoSys, and NanoString Technologies. Dr. Kline reported relationships with Cardinal Health, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Kite/Gilead, ITeos Therapeutics, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Nowakowski GS et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7520.
CHICAGO – A six-drug combination produced complete responses in previously untreated, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients in a phase 2 trial.
Induction with durvalumab and R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) produced complete response rates of 54% in the entire cohort and 41% in patients with double- or triple-hit lymphoma. Immune-related adverse events (AEs) were common with this regimen, but no unexpected AEs occurred, according to researchers.
Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Treatment
The phase 2 trial (NCT03003520) was designed to assess durvalumab plus R-CHOP as well as durvalumab plus R-CHOP and lenalidomide (R2-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated, high-risk DLBCL. However, the R2-CHOP arm was closed early.
In cycle one, all patients received durvalumab plus R-CHOP. For subsequent cycles, patients with activated B-cell (ABC) DLBCL were assigned to durvalumab plus R2-CHOP, while patients with non-ABC DLBCL continued on durvalumab plus R-CHOP.
The R2-CHOP arm was closed early due to safety issues observed in trials combining checkpoint inhibitors with immunomodulatory agents. A partial clinical hold was placed on the R2-CHOP arm, but patients could continue on the regimen if they experienced a clinical benefit. Any patients with ABC DLBCL who were enrolled after the partial hold received treatment with durvalumab plus R-CHOP.
Induction was given for up to eight cycles and was followed by consolidation with durvalumab alone for up to 12 months from the start of induction.
Patient characteristics
The researchers presented data on 43 patients in the durvalumab plus R-CHOP arm. The patients’ median age was 62 years, and 61% were men.
“I think it’s worth noting that 46% of patients in the durvalumab plus R-CHOP group had very high-risk features, including double-hit or triple-hit genetic features,” said Justin Kline, MD, of the University of Chicago Medicine who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
Specifically, 30% of patients had double-hit lymphoma, and 16% had triple-hit lymphoma. Most patients had a high-intermediate-risk (49%) or high-risk (21%) International Prognostic Index score, and 79% of patients had Ann Arbor stage IV disease.
Efficacy
As of Aug. 2, 2018, 70% of patients had completed induction, 2% had completed consolidation, 44% remained on treatment, and 54% had discontinued therapy. The most common reasons for stopping treatment were progression (16%), AEs (14%), and consent withdrawal (12%).
“The combination of durvalumab plus R-CHOP demonstrated encouraging response rates … in subjects with high-risk DLBCL, including double- and triple-hit lymphomas,” Dr. Kline said.
The complete response rate was 54% (20/37) at the end of induction and 68% (n = 25) at the end of consolidation. The partial response rate at the end of consolidation was 30% (n = 11).
In patients with double- or triple-hit lymphoma, the complete response rate at the end of induction was 41% (7/17). The overall response rate in this group was 88% (n = 15).
Safety
“The safety profile was as expected for the components of the combination, and no new safety signals were observed,” Dr. Kline said.
He noted that AEs of special interest, or immune-related AEs, occurred in 61% of patients, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2.
AEs of special interest included diarrhea (28%), rash (23%), infusion-related reactions (16%), dermatitis (12%), hypothyroidism (5%), myocarditis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (2%), and hepatitis (2%).
Grade 3 or 4 AEs of special interest included infusion-related reactions (5%), rash (2%), diarrhea (2%), and hepatitis (2%).
The safety and efficacy results support further evaluation of durvalumab plus R-CHOP, although it will be important to identify DLBCL patients who are more likely to derive a clinical benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade, Dr. Kline said.
“This early study showed that the combination is feasible,” Dr. Nowakowski added. “I think, down the road, we’ll need to identify patients who can actually benefit from this combination. We definitely have clinical evidence of exceptional responses to PD-1 blockade.”
The trial was sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Nowakowski reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, MorphoSys, and NanoString Technologies. Dr. Kline reported relationships with Cardinal Health, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Kite/Gilead, ITeos Therapeutics, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Nowakowski GS et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7520.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Chemo-free Smart Start regimen looks promising in poor-prognosis DLBCL
CHICAGO – A chemotherapy-free regimen has produced promising early response and survival outcomes in patients with a particularly poor-prognosis subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The overall response rate was 86% after two cycles of combined rituximab, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib – or RLI – in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the non–germinal center (non-GCB) subtype, said Jason Westin, MD, of the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The response rate increased to 96% after subsequent cycles of RLI plus standard chemotherapy, said Dr.Westin, who added that the rates of progression-free and overall survival at 1 year were also 96% in the investigator initiated, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study, called Smart Start.
That looks quite favorable, compared with what’s been achieved in previous studies in this poor-prognosis group of patients, Dr. Westin said during a podium presentation of Smart Start data, though he cautioned against direct comparison to historical studies and added that further follow-up is needed.
“Our survival outcomes appear excellent with about a year’s worth of follow-up,” he said during his presentation. “I’d say the novel/novel combinations, with and without chemotherapy, are feasible for large cell, and next step studies are warranted.”
Jasmine M. Zain, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, said these results so far raise the possibility of an effective chemotherapy-free treatment regimen for aggressive lymphomas.
“This regimen, particularly for non-GCB subtypes, is extremely promising,” Dr. Zain said during a podium discussion of the study. “I think we were all oohing and aahing over the results, and it could possibly even be practice changing.”
Moving to a nonchemotherapy regimen could raise new questions for treatment of non-GCB and possibly also GCB subtypes of DLBCL, such as when the treatments could be stopped, or whether a maintenance approach would be useful, she added.
The Smart Start study enrolled a total of 60 patients with non-GCB DLBCL. The patients received RLI for two 21-day cycles, followed by another six cycles of RLI plus chemotherapy, which was either EPOCH or CHOP, at the investigators’ discretion.
“With a median follow-up of 362 days, we’ve had three progression events,” Dr. Westin said in his discussion of the preliminary efficacy results.
Adverse events were similar to what would be expected for standard chemotherapy, according to Dr. Westin, except for rash, which was seen mainly in cycles one and two.
There were two deaths on study protocol, including one fatal fungal infection that investigators attributed to high dose corticosteroids and RLI. There were no subsequent fungal infections after a protocol amendment prohibiting corticosteroids during the RLI-only cycles, according to the investigators’ report.
The high response rates following the initial lead-in phase made investigators wonder what would happen without subsequent chemotherapy, Dr. Westin told attendees during his oral presentation. In one case, a 74-year-old man did complete the two lead-in cycles of RLI and declined further therapy.
“He’s now nearly 2 years out, without any additional therapy, and has not relapsed to date,” Dr. Westin said. “This is, again, with 6 weeks worth of RLI therapy.”
Final results and minimal residual disease data from the Smart Start study will be presented at a conference later in 2019, Dr. Westin said.
The study received research support and funding from the ASCO Conquer Cancer Foundation. The trial drug and support were provided by Celgene and Janssen. Dr. Westin reported disclosures related to Celgene, Genentech/Abbvie, Kite Pharma, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, ProNAi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
SOURCE: Westin J et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7508.
CHICAGO – A chemotherapy-free regimen has produced promising early response and survival outcomes in patients with a particularly poor-prognosis subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The overall response rate was 86% after two cycles of combined rituximab, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib – or RLI – in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the non–germinal center (non-GCB) subtype, said Jason Westin, MD, of the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The response rate increased to 96% after subsequent cycles of RLI plus standard chemotherapy, said Dr.Westin, who added that the rates of progression-free and overall survival at 1 year were also 96% in the investigator initiated, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study, called Smart Start.
That looks quite favorable, compared with what’s been achieved in previous studies in this poor-prognosis group of patients, Dr. Westin said during a podium presentation of Smart Start data, though he cautioned against direct comparison to historical studies and added that further follow-up is needed.
“Our survival outcomes appear excellent with about a year’s worth of follow-up,” he said during his presentation. “I’d say the novel/novel combinations, with and without chemotherapy, are feasible for large cell, and next step studies are warranted.”
Jasmine M. Zain, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, said these results so far raise the possibility of an effective chemotherapy-free treatment regimen for aggressive lymphomas.
“This regimen, particularly for non-GCB subtypes, is extremely promising,” Dr. Zain said during a podium discussion of the study. “I think we were all oohing and aahing over the results, and it could possibly even be practice changing.”
Moving to a nonchemotherapy regimen could raise new questions for treatment of non-GCB and possibly also GCB subtypes of DLBCL, such as when the treatments could be stopped, or whether a maintenance approach would be useful, she added.
The Smart Start study enrolled a total of 60 patients with non-GCB DLBCL. The patients received RLI for two 21-day cycles, followed by another six cycles of RLI plus chemotherapy, which was either EPOCH or CHOP, at the investigators’ discretion.
“With a median follow-up of 362 days, we’ve had three progression events,” Dr. Westin said in his discussion of the preliminary efficacy results.
Adverse events were similar to what would be expected for standard chemotherapy, according to Dr. Westin, except for rash, which was seen mainly in cycles one and two.
There were two deaths on study protocol, including one fatal fungal infection that investigators attributed to high dose corticosteroids and RLI. There were no subsequent fungal infections after a protocol amendment prohibiting corticosteroids during the RLI-only cycles, according to the investigators’ report.
The high response rates following the initial lead-in phase made investigators wonder what would happen without subsequent chemotherapy, Dr. Westin told attendees during his oral presentation. In one case, a 74-year-old man did complete the two lead-in cycles of RLI and declined further therapy.
“He’s now nearly 2 years out, without any additional therapy, and has not relapsed to date,” Dr. Westin said. “This is, again, with 6 weeks worth of RLI therapy.”
Final results and minimal residual disease data from the Smart Start study will be presented at a conference later in 2019, Dr. Westin said.
The study received research support and funding from the ASCO Conquer Cancer Foundation. The trial drug and support were provided by Celgene and Janssen. Dr. Westin reported disclosures related to Celgene, Genentech/Abbvie, Kite Pharma, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, ProNAi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
SOURCE: Westin J et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7508.
CHICAGO – A chemotherapy-free regimen has produced promising early response and survival outcomes in patients with a particularly poor-prognosis subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The overall response rate was 86% after two cycles of combined rituximab, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib – or RLI – in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the non–germinal center (non-GCB) subtype, said Jason Westin, MD, of the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The response rate increased to 96% after subsequent cycles of RLI plus standard chemotherapy, said Dr.Westin, who added that the rates of progression-free and overall survival at 1 year were also 96% in the investigator initiated, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study, called Smart Start.
That looks quite favorable, compared with what’s been achieved in previous studies in this poor-prognosis group of patients, Dr. Westin said during a podium presentation of Smart Start data, though he cautioned against direct comparison to historical studies and added that further follow-up is needed.
“Our survival outcomes appear excellent with about a year’s worth of follow-up,” he said during his presentation. “I’d say the novel/novel combinations, with and without chemotherapy, are feasible for large cell, and next step studies are warranted.”
Jasmine M. Zain, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, said these results so far raise the possibility of an effective chemotherapy-free treatment regimen for aggressive lymphomas.
“This regimen, particularly for non-GCB subtypes, is extremely promising,” Dr. Zain said during a podium discussion of the study. “I think we were all oohing and aahing over the results, and it could possibly even be practice changing.”
Moving to a nonchemotherapy regimen could raise new questions for treatment of non-GCB and possibly also GCB subtypes of DLBCL, such as when the treatments could be stopped, or whether a maintenance approach would be useful, she added.
The Smart Start study enrolled a total of 60 patients with non-GCB DLBCL. The patients received RLI for two 21-day cycles, followed by another six cycles of RLI plus chemotherapy, which was either EPOCH or CHOP, at the investigators’ discretion.
“With a median follow-up of 362 days, we’ve had three progression events,” Dr. Westin said in his discussion of the preliminary efficacy results.
Adverse events were similar to what would be expected for standard chemotherapy, according to Dr. Westin, except for rash, which was seen mainly in cycles one and two.
There were two deaths on study protocol, including one fatal fungal infection that investigators attributed to high dose corticosteroids and RLI. There were no subsequent fungal infections after a protocol amendment prohibiting corticosteroids during the RLI-only cycles, according to the investigators’ report.
The high response rates following the initial lead-in phase made investigators wonder what would happen without subsequent chemotherapy, Dr. Westin told attendees during his oral presentation. In one case, a 74-year-old man did complete the two lead-in cycles of RLI and declined further therapy.
“He’s now nearly 2 years out, without any additional therapy, and has not relapsed to date,” Dr. Westin said. “This is, again, with 6 weeks worth of RLI therapy.”
Final results and minimal residual disease data from the Smart Start study will be presented at a conference later in 2019, Dr. Westin said.
The study received research support and funding from the ASCO Conquer Cancer Foundation. The trial drug and support were provided by Celgene and Janssen. Dr. Westin reported disclosures related to Celgene, Genentech/Abbvie, Kite Pharma, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, ProNAi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
SOURCE: Westin J et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7508.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
SC-PEG comparable to pegaspargase in young ALL/LL patients
CHICAGO – Calaspargase pegol (SC-PEG) produces similar outcomes as standard pegaspargase in pediatric and young adult patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), according to a phase 2 trial.
Patients who received SC-PEG every 3 weeks had similar serum asparaginase activity (SAA), toxicities, and survival rates as patients who received standard pegaspargase every 2 weeks.
Lynda M. Vrooman, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The trial (NCT01574274) enrolled 239 patients, 230 with ALL and 9 with LL. Most patients had B-cell (n = 207) disease. The patients’ median age was 5.2 years (range, 1.0-20.9 years).
“There were no differences in presenting features by randomization,” Dr. Vrooman noted.
The patients were randomized to receive pegaspargase (n = 120) or SC-PEG (n = 119), a pegylated asparaginase formulation with longer half-life. SC-PEG was given at 2,500 IU/m2 every 3 weeks, and pegaspargase was given at 2,500 IU/m2 every 2 weeks.
Either asparaginase product was given as part of a 4-week induction regimen (vincristine, prednisone, doxorubicin, and methotrexate), a 3-week intensification regimen (intrathecal chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy) for central nervous system disease, and a 27-week second consolidation regimen (mercaptopurine, methotrexate, and, in high-risk patients, doxorubicin).
SAA
The researchers observed significantly longer SAA with SC-PEG during induction but not after.
During induction, at 25 days after the first asparaginase dose, 88% of patients on SC-PEG and 17% of those on pegaspargase had SAA of at least 0.10 IU/mL (P less than .001). Post-induction, at week 25, 100% of patients in each group had a nadir SAA of at least 0.10 IU/mL.
“The high nadir serum asparaginase activity levels observed for both preparations suggest dosing strategies could be further optimized,” Dr. Vrooman noted.
Safety
There were no significant differences in adverse events between the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms during or after induction.
Adverse events during induction (in the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms, respectively) included grade 2 or higher asparaginase allergy (0% and 1%), grade 2 or higher pancreatitis (3% in both), grade 2 or higher thrombosis (3% and 9%), grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia (3% and 1%), grade 3 or higher bacterial infection (12% and 9%), and grade 3 or higher fungal infection (4% and 5%).
Adverse events after induction (in the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms, respectively) included grade 2 or higher asparaginase allergy (17% and 14%), grade 2 or higher pancreatitis (15% in both), grade 2 or higher thrombosis (18% and 13%), grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia (4% and 3%), grade 3 or higher bacterial infection (12% and 15%), grade 3 or higher fungal infection (2% and 1%), grade 2 or higher bone fracture (3% and 8%), and grade 2 or higher osteonecrosis (3% and 4%).
Response and survival
The complete response rate was 95% (109/115) in the SC-PEG arm and 99% (114/115) in the pegaspargase arm. Rates of induction failure were 3% (n = 4) and 1% (n = 1), respectively, and rates of relapse were 3% (n = 5) and 8% (n = 10), respectively.
There were two induction deaths and two remission deaths in the SC-PEG arm but no induction or remission deaths in the pegaspargase arm.
The median follow-up was 4 years. The 4-year event-free survival rate was 87.7% with SC-PEG and 90.2% with pegaspargase (P = .78). The 4-year overall survival rate was 94.8% and 95.6%, respectively (P = .74).
In closing, Dr. Vrooman said these data suggest SC-PEG provides similar results as standard pegaspargase. She noted that these data informed the U.S. approval of SC-PEG for pediatric and young adult ALL.
This trial was sponsored by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in collaboration with Shire and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Vrooman said she had no relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Vrooman LM et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 10006.
CHICAGO – Calaspargase pegol (SC-PEG) produces similar outcomes as standard pegaspargase in pediatric and young adult patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), according to a phase 2 trial.
Patients who received SC-PEG every 3 weeks had similar serum asparaginase activity (SAA), toxicities, and survival rates as patients who received standard pegaspargase every 2 weeks.
Lynda M. Vrooman, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The trial (NCT01574274) enrolled 239 patients, 230 with ALL and 9 with LL. Most patients had B-cell (n = 207) disease. The patients’ median age was 5.2 years (range, 1.0-20.9 years).
“There were no differences in presenting features by randomization,” Dr. Vrooman noted.
The patients were randomized to receive pegaspargase (n = 120) or SC-PEG (n = 119), a pegylated asparaginase formulation with longer half-life. SC-PEG was given at 2,500 IU/m2 every 3 weeks, and pegaspargase was given at 2,500 IU/m2 every 2 weeks.
Either asparaginase product was given as part of a 4-week induction regimen (vincristine, prednisone, doxorubicin, and methotrexate), a 3-week intensification regimen (intrathecal chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy) for central nervous system disease, and a 27-week second consolidation regimen (mercaptopurine, methotrexate, and, in high-risk patients, doxorubicin).
SAA
The researchers observed significantly longer SAA with SC-PEG during induction but not after.
During induction, at 25 days after the first asparaginase dose, 88% of patients on SC-PEG and 17% of those on pegaspargase had SAA of at least 0.10 IU/mL (P less than .001). Post-induction, at week 25, 100% of patients in each group had a nadir SAA of at least 0.10 IU/mL.
“The high nadir serum asparaginase activity levels observed for both preparations suggest dosing strategies could be further optimized,” Dr. Vrooman noted.
Safety
There were no significant differences in adverse events between the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms during or after induction.
Adverse events during induction (in the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms, respectively) included grade 2 or higher asparaginase allergy (0% and 1%), grade 2 or higher pancreatitis (3% in both), grade 2 or higher thrombosis (3% and 9%), grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia (3% and 1%), grade 3 or higher bacterial infection (12% and 9%), and grade 3 or higher fungal infection (4% and 5%).
Adverse events after induction (in the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms, respectively) included grade 2 or higher asparaginase allergy (17% and 14%), grade 2 or higher pancreatitis (15% in both), grade 2 or higher thrombosis (18% and 13%), grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia (4% and 3%), grade 3 or higher bacterial infection (12% and 15%), grade 3 or higher fungal infection (2% and 1%), grade 2 or higher bone fracture (3% and 8%), and grade 2 or higher osteonecrosis (3% and 4%).
Response and survival
The complete response rate was 95% (109/115) in the SC-PEG arm and 99% (114/115) in the pegaspargase arm. Rates of induction failure were 3% (n = 4) and 1% (n = 1), respectively, and rates of relapse were 3% (n = 5) and 8% (n = 10), respectively.
There were two induction deaths and two remission deaths in the SC-PEG arm but no induction or remission deaths in the pegaspargase arm.
The median follow-up was 4 years. The 4-year event-free survival rate was 87.7% with SC-PEG and 90.2% with pegaspargase (P = .78). The 4-year overall survival rate was 94.8% and 95.6%, respectively (P = .74).
In closing, Dr. Vrooman said these data suggest SC-PEG provides similar results as standard pegaspargase. She noted that these data informed the U.S. approval of SC-PEG for pediatric and young adult ALL.
This trial was sponsored by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in collaboration with Shire and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Vrooman said she had no relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Vrooman LM et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 10006.
CHICAGO – Calaspargase pegol (SC-PEG) produces similar outcomes as standard pegaspargase in pediatric and young adult patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), according to a phase 2 trial.
Patients who received SC-PEG every 3 weeks had similar serum asparaginase activity (SAA), toxicities, and survival rates as patients who received standard pegaspargase every 2 weeks.
Lynda M. Vrooman, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The trial (NCT01574274) enrolled 239 patients, 230 with ALL and 9 with LL. Most patients had B-cell (n = 207) disease. The patients’ median age was 5.2 years (range, 1.0-20.9 years).
“There were no differences in presenting features by randomization,” Dr. Vrooman noted.
The patients were randomized to receive pegaspargase (n = 120) or SC-PEG (n = 119), a pegylated asparaginase formulation with longer half-life. SC-PEG was given at 2,500 IU/m2 every 3 weeks, and pegaspargase was given at 2,500 IU/m2 every 2 weeks.
Either asparaginase product was given as part of a 4-week induction regimen (vincristine, prednisone, doxorubicin, and methotrexate), a 3-week intensification regimen (intrathecal chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy) for central nervous system disease, and a 27-week second consolidation regimen (mercaptopurine, methotrexate, and, in high-risk patients, doxorubicin).
SAA
The researchers observed significantly longer SAA with SC-PEG during induction but not after.
During induction, at 25 days after the first asparaginase dose, 88% of patients on SC-PEG and 17% of those on pegaspargase had SAA of at least 0.10 IU/mL (P less than .001). Post-induction, at week 25, 100% of patients in each group had a nadir SAA of at least 0.10 IU/mL.
“The high nadir serum asparaginase activity levels observed for both preparations suggest dosing strategies could be further optimized,” Dr. Vrooman noted.
Safety
There were no significant differences in adverse events between the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms during or after induction.
Adverse events during induction (in the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms, respectively) included grade 2 or higher asparaginase allergy (0% and 1%), grade 2 or higher pancreatitis (3% in both), grade 2 or higher thrombosis (3% and 9%), grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia (3% and 1%), grade 3 or higher bacterial infection (12% and 9%), and grade 3 or higher fungal infection (4% and 5%).
Adverse events after induction (in the SC-PEG and pegaspargase arms, respectively) included grade 2 or higher asparaginase allergy (17% and 14%), grade 2 or higher pancreatitis (15% in both), grade 2 or higher thrombosis (18% and 13%), grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia (4% and 3%), grade 3 or higher bacterial infection (12% and 15%), grade 3 or higher fungal infection (2% and 1%), grade 2 or higher bone fracture (3% and 8%), and grade 2 or higher osteonecrosis (3% and 4%).
Response and survival
The complete response rate was 95% (109/115) in the SC-PEG arm and 99% (114/115) in the pegaspargase arm. Rates of induction failure were 3% (n = 4) and 1% (n = 1), respectively, and rates of relapse were 3% (n = 5) and 8% (n = 10), respectively.
There were two induction deaths and two remission deaths in the SC-PEG arm but no induction or remission deaths in the pegaspargase arm.
The median follow-up was 4 years. The 4-year event-free survival rate was 87.7% with SC-PEG and 90.2% with pegaspargase (P = .78). The 4-year overall survival rate was 94.8% and 95.6%, respectively (P = .74).
In closing, Dr. Vrooman said these data suggest SC-PEG provides similar results as standard pegaspargase. She noted that these data informed the U.S. approval of SC-PEG for pediatric and young adult ALL.
This trial was sponsored by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in collaboration with Shire and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Vrooman said she had no relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Vrooman LM et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 10006.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
FDA opts not to ban textured breast implants
The Food and Drug Administration decided to continue to allow U.S. sales of textured breast implants, which have been identified as the cause of a rare but significant cancer, breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.
A statement the agency released on May 2 said “The FDA does not believe that, on the basis of available data and information, the device [textured implants] meets the banning standard set forth in the Federal Food and Drug Cosmetic Act.” roughly half of them in the United States.
In coming to this decision, following 2 days of public testimony and discussions by an advisory committee in late March, the FDA is bucking the path taken by regulatory bodies of the European Union as well as several other counties. The EU acted in December 2018 to produce the equivalent of a ban on sales of textured breast implants marketed by Allergan. Then in April 2019, the French drug and device regulatory agency expanded this ban to textured breast implants sold by five other companies.
During the FDA advisory committee meeting in March, one of the world’s experts on BIA-ALCL, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that of about 500 case reports received by the FDA, not one had involved a confirmed and “pure” episode of BIA-ALCL linked with a smooth breast implant. A team of experts recently reached the same conclusion when reviewing the reported worldwide incidence of BIA-ALCL in a published review (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:30S-40S).
Despite these reports, the FDA said in its new statement that “While the majority of women who develop BIA-ALCL have had textured implants, there are known cases in women with smooth-surface breast implants, and many reports do not include the surface texture of the implant at the time of diagnosis.” The agency added that it is “focused on strengthening the evidence generated to help inform future regulatory action.” During the March advisory committee meeting, some members of the panel spoke against a marketing ban on textured implants for reasons such as the modest number of reported cases and because of the importance of having a textured implant option available.
The FDA took several other notable steps in its May 2 statement:
The agency formally acknowledged that many breast implant recipients have reported experiencing adverse effects that include chronic fatigue, cognitive issues, and joint and muscle pain. “While the FDA doesn’t have definitive evidence demonstrating breast implants cause these symptoms, the current evidence supports that some women experience systemic symptoms that may resolve when their breast implants are removed.” The agency also cited the term that patients have coined for these symptoms: Breast Implant Illness.
The FDA made a commitment to “take steps to improve the information available to women and health care professionals about the risks of breast implants,” including the risk for BIA-ALCL, the increased risk for this cancer with textured implants, and the risk for systemic symptoms. The agency said it would work with stakeholders on possible changes to breast implant labeling, including a possible boxed warning, and a patient-decision checklist.
The FDA announced a change in how manufacturers will file medical device reports for breast implants. The agency will no longer allow these filings to be “summary” reports and will instead require manufacturers to file full individual medical device reports for each case that will be publicly available, with the intent to make reporting more transparent and complete.
Finally, the FDA announced that it would partner with two U.S. breast implant registries, the PROFILE registry of BIA-ALCL cases, and the National Breast Implant Registry, both run by the Plastic Surgery Foundation.
The FDA did not address in its statement other issues that came up during the March advisory committee hearings, including a panel recommendation to change follow-up imaging from MRI to ultrasound for monitoring women with implants for rupture, and the extensive, off-label use of surgical mesh during breast implant surgery.
The Food and Drug Administration decided to continue to allow U.S. sales of textured breast implants, which have been identified as the cause of a rare but significant cancer, breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.
A statement the agency released on May 2 said “The FDA does not believe that, on the basis of available data and information, the device [textured implants] meets the banning standard set forth in the Federal Food and Drug Cosmetic Act.” roughly half of them in the United States.
In coming to this decision, following 2 days of public testimony and discussions by an advisory committee in late March, the FDA is bucking the path taken by regulatory bodies of the European Union as well as several other counties. The EU acted in December 2018 to produce the equivalent of a ban on sales of textured breast implants marketed by Allergan. Then in April 2019, the French drug and device regulatory agency expanded this ban to textured breast implants sold by five other companies.
During the FDA advisory committee meeting in March, one of the world’s experts on BIA-ALCL, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that of about 500 case reports received by the FDA, not one had involved a confirmed and “pure” episode of BIA-ALCL linked with a smooth breast implant. A team of experts recently reached the same conclusion when reviewing the reported worldwide incidence of BIA-ALCL in a published review (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:30S-40S).
Despite these reports, the FDA said in its new statement that “While the majority of women who develop BIA-ALCL have had textured implants, there are known cases in women with smooth-surface breast implants, and many reports do not include the surface texture of the implant at the time of diagnosis.” The agency added that it is “focused on strengthening the evidence generated to help inform future regulatory action.” During the March advisory committee meeting, some members of the panel spoke against a marketing ban on textured implants for reasons such as the modest number of reported cases and because of the importance of having a textured implant option available.
The FDA took several other notable steps in its May 2 statement:
The agency formally acknowledged that many breast implant recipients have reported experiencing adverse effects that include chronic fatigue, cognitive issues, and joint and muscle pain. “While the FDA doesn’t have definitive evidence demonstrating breast implants cause these symptoms, the current evidence supports that some women experience systemic symptoms that may resolve when their breast implants are removed.” The agency also cited the term that patients have coined for these symptoms: Breast Implant Illness.
The FDA made a commitment to “take steps to improve the information available to women and health care professionals about the risks of breast implants,” including the risk for BIA-ALCL, the increased risk for this cancer with textured implants, and the risk for systemic symptoms. The agency said it would work with stakeholders on possible changes to breast implant labeling, including a possible boxed warning, and a patient-decision checklist.
The FDA announced a change in how manufacturers will file medical device reports for breast implants. The agency will no longer allow these filings to be “summary” reports and will instead require manufacturers to file full individual medical device reports for each case that will be publicly available, with the intent to make reporting more transparent and complete.
Finally, the FDA announced that it would partner with two U.S. breast implant registries, the PROFILE registry of BIA-ALCL cases, and the National Breast Implant Registry, both run by the Plastic Surgery Foundation.
The FDA did not address in its statement other issues that came up during the March advisory committee hearings, including a panel recommendation to change follow-up imaging from MRI to ultrasound for monitoring women with implants for rupture, and the extensive, off-label use of surgical mesh during breast implant surgery.
The Food and Drug Administration decided to continue to allow U.S. sales of textured breast implants, which have been identified as the cause of a rare but significant cancer, breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.
A statement the agency released on May 2 said “The FDA does not believe that, on the basis of available data and information, the device [textured implants] meets the banning standard set forth in the Federal Food and Drug Cosmetic Act.” roughly half of them in the United States.
In coming to this decision, following 2 days of public testimony and discussions by an advisory committee in late March, the FDA is bucking the path taken by regulatory bodies of the European Union as well as several other counties. The EU acted in December 2018 to produce the equivalent of a ban on sales of textured breast implants marketed by Allergan. Then in April 2019, the French drug and device regulatory agency expanded this ban to textured breast implants sold by five other companies.
During the FDA advisory committee meeting in March, one of the world’s experts on BIA-ALCL, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that of about 500 case reports received by the FDA, not one had involved a confirmed and “pure” episode of BIA-ALCL linked with a smooth breast implant. A team of experts recently reached the same conclusion when reviewing the reported worldwide incidence of BIA-ALCL in a published review (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:30S-40S).
Despite these reports, the FDA said in its new statement that “While the majority of women who develop BIA-ALCL have had textured implants, there are known cases in women with smooth-surface breast implants, and many reports do not include the surface texture of the implant at the time of diagnosis.” The agency added that it is “focused on strengthening the evidence generated to help inform future regulatory action.” During the March advisory committee meeting, some members of the panel spoke against a marketing ban on textured implants for reasons such as the modest number of reported cases and because of the importance of having a textured implant option available.
The FDA took several other notable steps in its May 2 statement:
The agency formally acknowledged that many breast implant recipients have reported experiencing adverse effects that include chronic fatigue, cognitive issues, and joint and muscle pain. “While the FDA doesn’t have definitive evidence demonstrating breast implants cause these symptoms, the current evidence supports that some women experience systemic symptoms that may resolve when their breast implants are removed.” The agency also cited the term that patients have coined for these symptoms: Breast Implant Illness.
The FDA made a commitment to “take steps to improve the information available to women and health care professionals about the risks of breast implants,” including the risk for BIA-ALCL, the increased risk for this cancer with textured implants, and the risk for systemic symptoms. The agency said it would work with stakeholders on possible changes to breast implant labeling, including a possible boxed warning, and a patient-decision checklist.
The FDA announced a change in how manufacturers will file medical device reports for breast implants. The agency will no longer allow these filings to be “summary” reports and will instead require manufacturers to file full individual medical device reports for each case that will be publicly available, with the intent to make reporting more transparent and complete.
Finally, the FDA announced that it would partner with two U.S. breast implant registries, the PROFILE registry of BIA-ALCL cases, and the National Breast Implant Registry, both run by the Plastic Surgery Foundation.
The FDA did not address in its statement other issues that came up during the March advisory committee hearings, including a panel recommendation to change follow-up imaging from MRI to ultrasound for monitoring women with implants for rupture, and the extensive, off-label use of surgical mesh during breast implant surgery.
Monitoring, early intervention key to CAR T safety
GLASGOW – Constant patient monitoring and early intervention with tocilizumab and steroids are essential to the safe delivery of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), according to a leading expert.
As a clinical researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Loretta Nastoupil, MD has played an active role in the evolution of CAR T-cell therapy, from early trials to ongoing development of treatment protocols. During a presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, Dr. Nastoupil discussed leading topics in CAR T-cell therapy, with an emphasis on safe delivery.
“[Toxicity] is something we don’t talk about as much as we should, partly because this therapy works and it’s really exciting,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But the toxicity is not something that I minimize, and it’s very challenging. It’s led us to restructure our inpatient services. It’s led to a lot of sleepless nights. These patients can do very, very well, or they can do very, very poorly in terms of toxicity and I think the most important strategy is recognition and early intervention.”
Monitoring
Early recognition depends on close monitoring, Dr. Nastoupil said, which is carried out by highly trained nursing staff who follow therapy-specific decision algorithms.
“We have nurses that are on the front line,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “They’re the most important group. We have staff that round on [patients] daily, but the nurses are there 24 hours a day. We have a flow sheet where they grade cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity every 8 hours, or if there is an acute change in symptoms or toxicity, they’ll do it in real time.”
Dr. Nastoupil said that if these toxicities are detected, intervention is occurring sooner than it did with some of the first patients to receive CAR-T cell therapy.
“Initially there was a lot of fear surrounding anything that would abort the CAR-T cell therapy,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “There was concern that if you were trying to mitigate some of the toxicity you might have a negative impact on efficacy ... [W]ith the first iteration of studies, generally we were waiting until grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome before initiating either tocilizumab and/or steroids. As the studies evolved, it started to move into grade 2 toxicity that we started using therapy, mostly because we started to see that those patients were still responding.”
At MD Anderson, these earlier interventions have decreased severity of adverse events.
“It’s rare nowadays to have grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome because we are generally introducing abortive therapy at grade 2,” Dr. Nastoupil said, citing increased use of steroids and tocilizumab.
Currently, no consensus exists for managing these events, partly because clinicians are still learning about best management practices.
“There will be a consensus on management,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “I think that’s needed. The problem is, it will probably evolve as we get more experience with managing these patients. I think there’s been a little hesitation to put something out on paper knowing that a year from now that might change.”
Grading toxicity
In contrast, Dr. Nastoupil said that a consensus has been reached for grading acute toxicity. Of note, fever is now considered an essential element of cytokine release syndrome.
“The first thing we see [with cytokine release syndrome] is fever, generally speaking,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “That will prompt a workup for infection because these patients are going to be neutropenic. And we initiate broad spectrum antimicrobials.”
She said that some patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy have had disseminated fungal infections, so clinicians need to be on the lookout for septic shock.
To assess neurotoxicity, the team at MD Anderson uses an objective scoring system, called “CARTOX.” This helps maintain consistency when facing broadly different neurological presentations.
“There’s such a wide ranging spectrum of patients that are undergoing neurotoxicity you can’t expect someone, even myself, to be consistent when you are trying to tease out how serious it is,” Dr. Nastoupil said.
With CARTOX, nurses can easily score patients and call clinicians with results. Still, this doesn’t eliminate difficulties inherent to managing neurotoxicity, particularly when it is severe.
“I’d say one of the areas that is still very challenging is when [patients with neurotoxicity] are no longer responding,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “You have to be very mindful of seizure activity. We’ve had a couple of patients with status [epilepticus]. You don’t see seizure activity physically, but when you do an EEG, you pick it up.”
Dr. Nastoupil added that most centers are now giving patients prophylactic levetiracetam (Keppra) to lower seizure risk.
Choosing therapy
When selecting between the two therapies currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – based on safety, Dr. Nastoupil said that rates of cytokine release syndrome appear similar, but neurotoxicity rates may differ.
“Cytokine release syndrome in my opinion is probably more similar than different in terms of grade 3 or higher because tocilizumab and steroids work quite well in aborting those toxicities,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But neurotoxicity still sticks out in my mind as the most striking difference, where with axicabtagene you see more grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, though very, very few deaths as a result of this. But it’s very challenging in terms of management.”
According to Dr. Nastoupil, comparisons between CAR T-cell therapies have been complicated by differences in clinical trial methodologies. However, she offered a general conclusion regarding efficacy.
“[W]hat I’ll tell you, at the end of the day, is [that existing CAR T-cell therapies] all seem to sort of settle out around 30%-40% in terms of durable responses,” Dr. Nastoupil said.
Dr. Nastoupil concluded her presentation with an overview and look to the future.
“I do think [CAR T-cell therapy] is transformative, particularly for our chemo refractory patients,” she said. “There is nothing else like it. The problem right now is that it is only durable in 40% of patients. So can we be better at selecting out patients that are more likely to respond? Does introducing this in earlier lines of therapy increase that fraction of patients that are potentially cured?”
Considering these questions, she said: “We need more patients. We need more data. We need longer follow-up to understand the nuances of this therapy.”
Dr. Nastoupil previously reported financial relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Spectrum, and TG Therapeutics.
GLASGOW – Constant patient monitoring and early intervention with tocilizumab and steroids are essential to the safe delivery of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), according to a leading expert.
As a clinical researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Loretta Nastoupil, MD has played an active role in the evolution of CAR T-cell therapy, from early trials to ongoing development of treatment protocols. During a presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, Dr. Nastoupil discussed leading topics in CAR T-cell therapy, with an emphasis on safe delivery.
“[Toxicity] is something we don’t talk about as much as we should, partly because this therapy works and it’s really exciting,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But the toxicity is not something that I minimize, and it’s very challenging. It’s led us to restructure our inpatient services. It’s led to a lot of sleepless nights. These patients can do very, very well, or they can do very, very poorly in terms of toxicity and I think the most important strategy is recognition and early intervention.”
Monitoring
Early recognition depends on close monitoring, Dr. Nastoupil said, which is carried out by highly trained nursing staff who follow therapy-specific decision algorithms.
“We have nurses that are on the front line,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “They’re the most important group. We have staff that round on [patients] daily, but the nurses are there 24 hours a day. We have a flow sheet where they grade cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity every 8 hours, or if there is an acute change in symptoms or toxicity, they’ll do it in real time.”
Dr. Nastoupil said that if these toxicities are detected, intervention is occurring sooner than it did with some of the first patients to receive CAR-T cell therapy.
“Initially there was a lot of fear surrounding anything that would abort the CAR-T cell therapy,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “There was concern that if you were trying to mitigate some of the toxicity you might have a negative impact on efficacy ... [W]ith the first iteration of studies, generally we were waiting until grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome before initiating either tocilizumab and/or steroids. As the studies evolved, it started to move into grade 2 toxicity that we started using therapy, mostly because we started to see that those patients were still responding.”
At MD Anderson, these earlier interventions have decreased severity of adverse events.
“It’s rare nowadays to have grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome because we are generally introducing abortive therapy at grade 2,” Dr. Nastoupil said, citing increased use of steroids and tocilizumab.
Currently, no consensus exists for managing these events, partly because clinicians are still learning about best management practices.
“There will be a consensus on management,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “I think that’s needed. The problem is, it will probably evolve as we get more experience with managing these patients. I think there’s been a little hesitation to put something out on paper knowing that a year from now that might change.”
Grading toxicity
In contrast, Dr. Nastoupil said that a consensus has been reached for grading acute toxicity. Of note, fever is now considered an essential element of cytokine release syndrome.
“The first thing we see [with cytokine release syndrome] is fever, generally speaking,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “That will prompt a workup for infection because these patients are going to be neutropenic. And we initiate broad spectrum antimicrobials.”
She said that some patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy have had disseminated fungal infections, so clinicians need to be on the lookout for septic shock.
To assess neurotoxicity, the team at MD Anderson uses an objective scoring system, called “CARTOX.” This helps maintain consistency when facing broadly different neurological presentations.
“There’s such a wide ranging spectrum of patients that are undergoing neurotoxicity you can’t expect someone, even myself, to be consistent when you are trying to tease out how serious it is,” Dr. Nastoupil said.
With CARTOX, nurses can easily score patients and call clinicians with results. Still, this doesn’t eliminate difficulties inherent to managing neurotoxicity, particularly when it is severe.
“I’d say one of the areas that is still very challenging is when [patients with neurotoxicity] are no longer responding,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “You have to be very mindful of seizure activity. We’ve had a couple of patients with status [epilepticus]. You don’t see seizure activity physically, but when you do an EEG, you pick it up.”
Dr. Nastoupil added that most centers are now giving patients prophylactic levetiracetam (Keppra) to lower seizure risk.
Choosing therapy
When selecting between the two therapies currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – based on safety, Dr. Nastoupil said that rates of cytokine release syndrome appear similar, but neurotoxicity rates may differ.
“Cytokine release syndrome in my opinion is probably more similar than different in terms of grade 3 or higher because tocilizumab and steroids work quite well in aborting those toxicities,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But neurotoxicity still sticks out in my mind as the most striking difference, where with axicabtagene you see more grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, though very, very few deaths as a result of this. But it’s very challenging in terms of management.”
According to Dr. Nastoupil, comparisons between CAR T-cell therapies have been complicated by differences in clinical trial methodologies. However, she offered a general conclusion regarding efficacy.
“[W]hat I’ll tell you, at the end of the day, is [that existing CAR T-cell therapies] all seem to sort of settle out around 30%-40% in terms of durable responses,” Dr. Nastoupil said.
Dr. Nastoupil concluded her presentation with an overview and look to the future.
“I do think [CAR T-cell therapy] is transformative, particularly for our chemo refractory patients,” she said. “There is nothing else like it. The problem right now is that it is only durable in 40% of patients. So can we be better at selecting out patients that are more likely to respond? Does introducing this in earlier lines of therapy increase that fraction of patients that are potentially cured?”
Considering these questions, she said: “We need more patients. We need more data. We need longer follow-up to understand the nuances of this therapy.”
Dr. Nastoupil previously reported financial relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Spectrum, and TG Therapeutics.
GLASGOW – Constant patient monitoring and early intervention with tocilizumab and steroids are essential to the safe delivery of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), according to a leading expert.
As a clinical researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Loretta Nastoupil, MD has played an active role in the evolution of CAR T-cell therapy, from early trials to ongoing development of treatment protocols. During a presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, Dr. Nastoupil discussed leading topics in CAR T-cell therapy, with an emphasis on safe delivery.
“[Toxicity] is something we don’t talk about as much as we should, partly because this therapy works and it’s really exciting,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But the toxicity is not something that I minimize, and it’s very challenging. It’s led us to restructure our inpatient services. It’s led to a lot of sleepless nights. These patients can do very, very well, or they can do very, very poorly in terms of toxicity and I think the most important strategy is recognition and early intervention.”
Monitoring
Early recognition depends on close monitoring, Dr. Nastoupil said, which is carried out by highly trained nursing staff who follow therapy-specific decision algorithms.
“We have nurses that are on the front line,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “They’re the most important group. We have staff that round on [patients] daily, but the nurses are there 24 hours a day. We have a flow sheet where they grade cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity every 8 hours, or if there is an acute change in symptoms or toxicity, they’ll do it in real time.”
Dr. Nastoupil said that if these toxicities are detected, intervention is occurring sooner than it did with some of the first patients to receive CAR-T cell therapy.
“Initially there was a lot of fear surrounding anything that would abort the CAR-T cell therapy,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “There was concern that if you were trying to mitigate some of the toxicity you might have a negative impact on efficacy ... [W]ith the first iteration of studies, generally we were waiting until grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome before initiating either tocilizumab and/or steroids. As the studies evolved, it started to move into grade 2 toxicity that we started using therapy, mostly because we started to see that those patients were still responding.”
At MD Anderson, these earlier interventions have decreased severity of adverse events.
“It’s rare nowadays to have grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome because we are generally introducing abortive therapy at grade 2,” Dr. Nastoupil said, citing increased use of steroids and tocilizumab.
Currently, no consensus exists for managing these events, partly because clinicians are still learning about best management practices.
“There will be a consensus on management,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “I think that’s needed. The problem is, it will probably evolve as we get more experience with managing these patients. I think there’s been a little hesitation to put something out on paper knowing that a year from now that might change.”
Grading toxicity
In contrast, Dr. Nastoupil said that a consensus has been reached for grading acute toxicity. Of note, fever is now considered an essential element of cytokine release syndrome.
“The first thing we see [with cytokine release syndrome] is fever, generally speaking,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “That will prompt a workup for infection because these patients are going to be neutropenic. And we initiate broad spectrum antimicrobials.”
She said that some patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy have had disseminated fungal infections, so clinicians need to be on the lookout for septic shock.
To assess neurotoxicity, the team at MD Anderson uses an objective scoring system, called “CARTOX.” This helps maintain consistency when facing broadly different neurological presentations.
“There’s such a wide ranging spectrum of patients that are undergoing neurotoxicity you can’t expect someone, even myself, to be consistent when you are trying to tease out how serious it is,” Dr. Nastoupil said.
With CARTOX, nurses can easily score patients and call clinicians with results. Still, this doesn’t eliminate difficulties inherent to managing neurotoxicity, particularly when it is severe.
“I’d say one of the areas that is still very challenging is when [patients with neurotoxicity] are no longer responding,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “You have to be very mindful of seizure activity. We’ve had a couple of patients with status [epilepticus]. You don’t see seizure activity physically, but when you do an EEG, you pick it up.”
Dr. Nastoupil added that most centers are now giving patients prophylactic levetiracetam (Keppra) to lower seizure risk.
Choosing therapy
When selecting between the two therapies currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – based on safety, Dr. Nastoupil said that rates of cytokine release syndrome appear similar, but neurotoxicity rates may differ.
“Cytokine release syndrome in my opinion is probably more similar than different in terms of grade 3 or higher because tocilizumab and steroids work quite well in aborting those toxicities,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But neurotoxicity still sticks out in my mind as the most striking difference, where with axicabtagene you see more grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, though very, very few deaths as a result of this. But it’s very challenging in terms of management.”
According to Dr. Nastoupil, comparisons between CAR T-cell therapies have been complicated by differences in clinical trial methodologies. However, she offered a general conclusion regarding efficacy.
“[W]hat I’ll tell you, at the end of the day, is [that existing CAR T-cell therapies] all seem to sort of settle out around 30%-40% in terms of durable responses,” Dr. Nastoupil said.
Dr. Nastoupil concluded her presentation with an overview and look to the future.
“I do think [CAR T-cell therapy] is transformative, particularly for our chemo refractory patients,” she said. “There is nothing else like it. The problem right now is that it is only durable in 40% of patients. So can we be better at selecting out patients that are more likely to respond? Does introducing this in earlier lines of therapy increase that fraction of patients that are potentially cured?”
Considering these questions, she said: “We need more patients. We need more data. We need longer follow-up to understand the nuances of this therapy.”
Dr. Nastoupil previously reported financial relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Spectrum, and TG Therapeutics.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM BSH 2019
Powerful breast-implant testimony constrained by limited evidence
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.
The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.
Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.
“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),
Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.
The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.
Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.
Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.
In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.
In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.
Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”
Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.
The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.
Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.
“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),
Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.
The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.
Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.
Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.
In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.
In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.
Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”
Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.
The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.
Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.
“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),
Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.
The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.
Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.
Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.
In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.
In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.
Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”
Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.
UNITY-NHL: Interim findings show activity, tolerability of umbralisib for R/R MZL
ATLANTA – The phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) delta inhibitor umbralisib is active and well tolerated as single-agent therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma, according to findings from the ongoing phase 2 UNITY-NHL study.
The best overall response rate (ORR) among 42 study participants with at least 9 months of follow-up was 52% by both independent review committee (IRC) and investigator assessment, and the complete response rate was 19%, Nathan H. Fowler, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The ORR by IRC assessment for those with extranodal, nodal, and splenic disease was 57%, 42%, and 43%, respectively, and for those with prior chemo-immunotherapy and those refractory to their last line of therapy, the ORR was 53% and 38%, respectively, said Dr. Fowler of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The clinical benefit rate was 88%, and the median duration of response and progression-free survival (PFS) have not been reached; 12-month PFS is estimated at 66%, he added.
Patients in the marginal zone lymphoma cohort of the multicohort trial, which is evaluating umbralisib both as monotherapy and as part of various combinations in patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, received single agent umbralisib at a dose of 800 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
“Most patients who have responded continue on drug,” he said in a video interview.
Dr. Fowler also further discussed the findings to date with respect to response, adverse events, and future directions in the wake of the breakthrough therapy designation recently granted by the Food and Drug Administration for umbralisib based on these findings.
“Despite the fact that a lot of things work in the front line, when patients relapse, especially when they become refractory to rituximab, there are limited options available,” he said, noting that currently used treatments are associated with significant adverse event and short remission times. “We still need better options.”
ATLANTA – The phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) delta inhibitor umbralisib is active and well tolerated as single-agent therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma, according to findings from the ongoing phase 2 UNITY-NHL study.
The best overall response rate (ORR) among 42 study participants with at least 9 months of follow-up was 52% by both independent review committee (IRC) and investigator assessment, and the complete response rate was 19%, Nathan H. Fowler, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The ORR by IRC assessment for those with extranodal, nodal, and splenic disease was 57%, 42%, and 43%, respectively, and for those with prior chemo-immunotherapy and those refractory to their last line of therapy, the ORR was 53% and 38%, respectively, said Dr. Fowler of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The clinical benefit rate was 88%, and the median duration of response and progression-free survival (PFS) have not been reached; 12-month PFS is estimated at 66%, he added.
Patients in the marginal zone lymphoma cohort of the multicohort trial, which is evaluating umbralisib both as monotherapy and as part of various combinations in patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, received single agent umbralisib at a dose of 800 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
“Most patients who have responded continue on drug,” he said in a video interview.
Dr. Fowler also further discussed the findings to date with respect to response, adverse events, and future directions in the wake of the breakthrough therapy designation recently granted by the Food and Drug Administration for umbralisib based on these findings.
“Despite the fact that a lot of things work in the front line, when patients relapse, especially when they become refractory to rituximab, there are limited options available,” he said, noting that currently used treatments are associated with significant adverse event and short remission times. “We still need better options.”
ATLANTA – The phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) delta inhibitor umbralisib is active and well tolerated as single-agent therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma, according to findings from the ongoing phase 2 UNITY-NHL study.
The best overall response rate (ORR) among 42 study participants with at least 9 months of follow-up was 52% by both independent review committee (IRC) and investigator assessment, and the complete response rate was 19%, Nathan H. Fowler, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The ORR by IRC assessment for those with extranodal, nodal, and splenic disease was 57%, 42%, and 43%, respectively, and for those with prior chemo-immunotherapy and those refractory to their last line of therapy, the ORR was 53% and 38%, respectively, said Dr. Fowler of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The clinical benefit rate was 88%, and the median duration of response and progression-free survival (PFS) have not been reached; 12-month PFS is estimated at 66%, he added.
Patients in the marginal zone lymphoma cohort of the multicohort trial, which is evaluating umbralisib both as monotherapy and as part of various combinations in patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, received single agent umbralisib at a dose of 800 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
“Most patients who have responded continue on drug,” he said in a video interview.
Dr. Fowler also further discussed the findings to date with respect to response, adverse events, and future directions in the wake of the breakthrough therapy designation recently granted by the Food and Drug Administration for umbralisib based on these findings.
“Despite the fact that a lot of things work in the front line, when patients relapse, especially when they become refractory to rituximab, there are limited options available,” he said, noting that currently used treatments are associated with significant adverse event and short remission times. “We still need better options.”
REPORTING FROM AACR 2019
FDA panel calls for changes to breast implant rupture screening
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
AT AN FDA ADVISORY PANEL MEETING
FDA panel leans toward more robust breast implant surveillance
SILVER SPRING, MD. – A mandatory, comprehensive approach to collecting adverse event data from breast implant recipients was favored during a March 25 hearing by a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that oversees surgical devices.
This additional data could offer more complete information during the informed consent process for breast implants and potentially validate a new, autoimmune-like syndrome – breast implant illness (BII).
On the first day of a scheduled 2-day hearing, the advisory panel held no votes and took no formal actions. After a day of expert presentations and comments from more than 40 members of the public – mostly personal stories from affected patients and from plastic surgeons who place breast implants, panel members discussed a handful of questions from the FDA about relevant data to collect to better define the risks posed to breast implant recipients from breast-implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and BII.
The advisory panel meeting took place as reports recently appeared documenting the scope of BIA-ALCL (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:65S-73S) and how to diagnose and manage BIA-ALCL (Aesthetic Surg J. 2019 March;39[S1}:S3-S13), and the existence of BII (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S).
During the day’s two public comment periods, the panel heard from several women who gave brief accounts of developing and dealing with BIA-ALCL or BII.
“We think it’s important that all breast implant patients be aware of the risk for BIA-ALCL,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDAs Division of Surgical Devices. The FDA “is asking the panel what further steps need to be taken to understand the BIA-ALCL risk,” said Dr. Ashar as she opened the meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
While the agency, as well as the plastic surgery community, have acknowledged the existence of BIA-ALCL since 2011, only recently have good data emerged on the scope of the complication. During the hearing, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported on his analysis of 457 unique cases of BIA-ALCL reported to the FDA since 2011. He found that the vast majority of cases had occurred in women who had received textured implants while a relatively small minority were linked with the placement of smooth implants.
Further scrutiny of the reported details of each case showed that none of the lymphomas were linked with a confirmed instance of “pure” smooth implant exposure. He also estimated the U.S. incidence of BIA-ALCL as roughly one case for every 20,000 implants. Complete, en bloc removal of the implant seems to be the most effective way to treat the cancer; most explanted patients have a good prognosis, he said.
Despite the apparent link between textured implants specifically and onset of BIA-ALCL, some panel members did not see a ban on textured implants as the answer.
Texturing the implant helps to stabilize the implant in position. Without texturing “we would need to use something else to stabilize the implant, or there would be a tsunami of reoperations,” said panel member Mary H. McGrath, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. The main alternative to texturing for stabilizing implants is to wrap them in place using surgical mesh, but that approach may also cause problems.
“Instead of just taking textured implants off the market, we need to also look at their advantages. A critical issue is informed consent,” said panel member Marc E. Lippman, MD, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, Washington. Banning smooth implants based on what’s known so far “would be an extraordinary over reaction,” he said during the first day’s session.
Current U.S. anecdotal experience suggests that a ban may not even be necessary because “plastic surgeons are more and more walking away from textured implants” because of the apparent link to BIA-ALCL, Dr. McGrath said.
BII has been a more recent and more controversial complication of breast implants. As recently as September 2018, Dr. Ashar said in a written statement that “the agency continues to believe that the weight of the currently available scientific evidence does not conclusively demonstrate an association between breast implants and connective tissue diseases,” the types of symptoms that characterize BII.
While the panel heard no new, conclusive evidence of a causal link between breast implants and the range of symptoms that some implant recipients report and is now collectively known as BII, several participants seemed convinced that the syndrome was real and needed better surveillance and study.
“It’s in the same family as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. It’s not a diagnosis, but a set of symptoms.” said Benjamin O. Anderson, MD, a surgical oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a panel member. “It’s a giant challenge. BII is a constellation of difficult symptoms. We need to think about how we ask patients, what are your symptoms?”
Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, committee chair, said a more standardized measure of the most common BII symptoms is needed. “That may be exceedingly difficult, with as many as a hundred reported symptoms,” said Dr. Lewis, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
The hearing featured results from some of the most research projects aimed at fleshing out an understanding of BII.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research, reported data she and her associates collected in an online survey completed in late 2018 and early 2019 by 449 women who had approached the Center for help in getting health insurance coverage for medically-necessary explantation of their breast implants.
Their most common symptoms included joint, muscle or back pain, weakness or stiffness; fatigue; “brain fog;” and anxiety and depression. More than two-thirds of the respondents had a family history and 3% had a personal history of an autoimmune disease, and 61% said their symptoms improved after their implants were removed, Dr. Zuckerman reported during her presentation to the panel.
During the discussion, panel members seemed intent on expanding mandatory, routine surveillance to all breast implants placed in U.S. practice.
Andrea L. Pusic, MD, president of the Plastic Surgery Foundation, summarized the recent launch of the National Breast Implant Registry by the Foundation and its parent organization, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. These organizations, and plastic surgeons in general, would be amenable to collecting the data the FDA deemed necessary to better track BIA-ALCL and BII, said Dr. Pusic, professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Plastic surgeons are willing to enter these data because we know they are important,” she told the FDA panel.
Dr. Ashar, Dr. Clemens, Dr. McGrath, Dr. Lippman, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Pusic reported having no relevant commercial disclosures.
SILVER SPRING, MD. – A mandatory, comprehensive approach to collecting adverse event data from breast implant recipients was favored during a March 25 hearing by a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that oversees surgical devices.
This additional data could offer more complete information during the informed consent process for breast implants and potentially validate a new, autoimmune-like syndrome – breast implant illness (BII).
On the first day of a scheduled 2-day hearing, the advisory panel held no votes and took no formal actions. After a day of expert presentations and comments from more than 40 members of the public – mostly personal stories from affected patients and from plastic surgeons who place breast implants, panel members discussed a handful of questions from the FDA about relevant data to collect to better define the risks posed to breast implant recipients from breast-implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and BII.
The advisory panel meeting took place as reports recently appeared documenting the scope of BIA-ALCL (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:65S-73S) and how to diagnose and manage BIA-ALCL (Aesthetic Surg J. 2019 March;39[S1}:S3-S13), and the existence of BII (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S).
During the day’s two public comment periods, the panel heard from several women who gave brief accounts of developing and dealing with BIA-ALCL or BII.
“We think it’s important that all breast implant patients be aware of the risk for BIA-ALCL,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDAs Division of Surgical Devices. The FDA “is asking the panel what further steps need to be taken to understand the BIA-ALCL risk,” said Dr. Ashar as she opened the meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
While the agency, as well as the plastic surgery community, have acknowledged the existence of BIA-ALCL since 2011, only recently have good data emerged on the scope of the complication. During the hearing, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported on his analysis of 457 unique cases of BIA-ALCL reported to the FDA since 2011. He found that the vast majority of cases had occurred in women who had received textured implants while a relatively small minority were linked with the placement of smooth implants.
Further scrutiny of the reported details of each case showed that none of the lymphomas were linked with a confirmed instance of “pure” smooth implant exposure. He also estimated the U.S. incidence of BIA-ALCL as roughly one case for every 20,000 implants. Complete, en bloc removal of the implant seems to be the most effective way to treat the cancer; most explanted patients have a good prognosis, he said.
Despite the apparent link between textured implants specifically and onset of BIA-ALCL, some panel members did not see a ban on textured implants as the answer.
Texturing the implant helps to stabilize the implant in position. Without texturing “we would need to use something else to stabilize the implant, or there would be a tsunami of reoperations,” said panel member Mary H. McGrath, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. The main alternative to texturing for stabilizing implants is to wrap them in place using surgical mesh, but that approach may also cause problems.
“Instead of just taking textured implants off the market, we need to also look at their advantages. A critical issue is informed consent,” said panel member Marc E. Lippman, MD, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, Washington. Banning smooth implants based on what’s known so far “would be an extraordinary over reaction,” he said during the first day’s session.
Current U.S. anecdotal experience suggests that a ban may not even be necessary because “plastic surgeons are more and more walking away from textured implants” because of the apparent link to BIA-ALCL, Dr. McGrath said.
BII has been a more recent and more controversial complication of breast implants. As recently as September 2018, Dr. Ashar said in a written statement that “the agency continues to believe that the weight of the currently available scientific evidence does not conclusively demonstrate an association between breast implants and connective tissue diseases,” the types of symptoms that characterize BII.
While the panel heard no new, conclusive evidence of a causal link between breast implants and the range of symptoms that some implant recipients report and is now collectively known as BII, several participants seemed convinced that the syndrome was real and needed better surveillance and study.
“It’s in the same family as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. It’s not a diagnosis, but a set of symptoms.” said Benjamin O. Anderson, MD, a surgical oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a panel member. “It’s a giant challenge. BII is a constellation of difficult symptoms. We need to think about how we ask patients, what are your symptoms?”
Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, committee chair, said a more standardized measure of the most common BII symptoms is needed. “That may be exceedingly difficult, with as many as a hundred reported symptoms,” said Dr. Lewis, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
The hearing featured results from some of the most research projects aimed at fleshing out an understanding of BII.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research, reported data she and her associates collected in an online survey completed in late 2018 and early 2019 by 449 women who had approached the Center for help in getting health insurance coverage for medically-necessary explantation of their breast implants.
Their most common symptoms included joint, muscle or back pain, weakness or stiffness; fatigue; “brain fog;” and anxiety and depression. More than two-thirds of the respondents had a family history and 3% had a personal history of an autoimmune disease, and 61% said their symptoms improved after their implants were removed, Dr. Zuckerman reported during her presentation to the panel.
During the discussion, panel members seemed intent on expanding mandatory, routine surveillance to all breast implants placed in U.S. practice.
Andrea L. Pusic, MD, president of the Plastic Surgery Foundation, summarized the recent launch of the National Breast Implant Registry by the Foundation and its parent organization, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. These organizations, and plastic surgeons in general, would be amenable to collecting the data the FDA deemed necessary to better track BIA-ALCL and BII, said Dr. Pusic, professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Plastic surgeons are willing to enter these data because we know they are important,” she told the FDA panel.
Dr. Ashar, Dr. Clemens, Dr. McGrath, Dr. Lippman, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Pusic reported having no relevant commercial disclosures.
SILVER SPRING, MD. – A mandatory, comprehensive approach to collecting adverse event data from breast implant recipients was favored during a March 25 hearing by a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that oversees surgical devices.
This additional data could offer more complete information during the informed consent process for breast implants and potentially validate a new, autoimmune-like syndrome – breast implant illness (BII).
On the first day of a scheduled 2-day hearing, the advisory panel held no votes and took no formal actions. After a day of expert presentations and comments from more than 40 members of the public – mostly personal stories from affected patients and from plastic surgeons who place breast implants, panel members discussed a handful of questions from the FDA about relevant data to collect to better define the risks posed to breast implant recipients from breast-implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and BII.
The advisory panel meeting took place as reports recently appeared documenting the scope of BIA-ALCL (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:65S-73S) and how to diagnose and manage BIA-ALCL (Aesthetic Surg J. 2019 March;39[S1}:S3-S13), and the existence of BII (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S).
During the day’s two public comment periods, the panel heard from several women who gave brief accounts of developing and dealing with BIA-ALCL or BII.
“We think it’s important that all breast implant patients be aware of the risk for BIA-ALCL,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDAs Division of Surgical Devices. The FDA “is asking the panel what further steps need to be taken to understand the BIA-ALCL risk,” said Dr. Ashar as she opened the meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
While the agency, as well as the plastic surgery community, have acknowledged the existence of BIA-ALCL since 2011, only recently have good data emerged on the scope of the complication. During the hearing, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported on his analysis of 457 unique cases of BIA-ALCL reported to the FDA since 2011. He found that the vast majority of cases had occurred in women who had received textured implants while a relatively small minority were linked with the placement of smooth implants.
Further scrutiny of the reported details of each case showed that none of the lymphomas were linked with a confirmed instance of “pure” smooth implant exposure. He also estimated the U.S. incidence of BIA-ALCL as roughly one case for every 20,000 implants. Complete, en bloc removal of the implant seems to be the most effective way to treat the cancer; most explanted patients have a good prognosis, he said.
Despite the apparent link between textured implants specifically and onset of BIA-ALCL, some panel members did not see a ban on textured implants as the answer.
Texturing the implant helps to stabilize the implant in position. Without texturing “we would need to use something else to stabilize the implant, or there would be a tsunami of reoperations,” said panel member Mary H. McGrath, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. The main alternative to texturing for stabilizing implants is to wrap them in place using surgical mesh, but that approach may also cause problems.
“Instead of just taking textured implants off the market, we need to also look at their advantages. A critical issue is informed consent,” said panel member Marc E. Lippman, MD, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, Washington. Banning smooth implants based on what’s known so far “would be an extraordinary over reaction,” he said during the first day’s session.
Current U.S. anecdotal experience suggests that a ban may not even be necessary because “plastic surgeons are more and more walking away from textured implants” because of the apparent link to BIA-ALCL, Dr. McGrath said.
BII has been a more recent and more controversial complication of breast implants. As recently as September 2018, Dr. Ashar said in a written statement that “the agency continues to believe that the weight of the currently available scientific evidence does not conclusively demonstrate an association between breast implants and connective tissue diseases,” the types of symptoms that characterize BII.
While the panel heard no new, conclusive evidence of a causal link between breast implants and the range of symptoms that some implant recipients report and is now collectively known as BII, several participants seemed convinced that the syndrome was real and needed better surveillance and study.
“It’s in the same family as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. It’s not a diagnosis, but a set of symptoms.” said Benjamin O. Anderson, MD, a surgical oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a panel member. “It’s a giant challenge. BII is a constellation of difficult symptoms. We need to think about how we ask patients, what are your symptoms?”
Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, committee chair, said a more standardized measure of the most common BII symptoms is needed. “That may be exceedingly difficult, with as many as a hundred reported symptoms,” said Dr. Lewis, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
The hearing featured results from some of the most research projects aimed at fleshing out an understanding of BII.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research, reported data she and her associates collected in an online survey completed in late 2018 and early 2019 by 449 women who had approached the Center for help in getting health insurance coverage for medically-necessary explantation of their breast implants.
Their most common symptoms included joint, muscle or back pain, weakness or stiffness; fatigue; “brain fog;” and anxiety and depression. More than two-thirds of the respondents had a family history and 3% had a personal history of an autoimmune disease, and 61% said their symptoms improved after their implants were removed, Dr. Zuckerman reported during her presentation to the panel.
During the discussion, panel members seemed intent on expanding mandatory, routine surveillance to all breast implants placed in U.S. practice.
Andrea L. Pusic, MD, president of the Plastic Surgery Foundation, summarized the recent launch of the National Breast Implant Registry by the Foundation and its parent organization, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. These organizations, and plastic surgeons in general, would be amenable to collecting the data the FDA deemed necessary to better track BIA-ALCL and BII, said Dr. Pusic, professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Plastic surgeons are willing to enter these data because we know they are important,” she told the FDA panel.
Dr. Ashar, Dr. Clemens, Dr. McGrath, Dr. Lippman, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Pusic reported having no relevant commercial disclosures.
REPORTING FROM AN FDA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
