B Cell Lymphoma

TOPLINE:

Glucarpidase treatment in patients with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury is linked to 2.7 times higher odds of kidney recovery and faster recovery time. The enzyme also reduces the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia and transaminitis by half vs no glucarpidase treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
• Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
• The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
• Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
• Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
• Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
• No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Glucarpidase treatment in patients with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury is linked to 2.7 times higher odds of kidney recovery and faster recovery time. The enzyme also reduces the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia and transaminitis by half vs no glucarpidase treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
• Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
• The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
• Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
• Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
• Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
• No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Glucarpidase treatment in patients with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury is linked to 2.7 times higher odds of kidney recovery and faster recovery time. The enzyme also reduces the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia and transaminitis by half vs no glucarpidase treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
• Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
• The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
• Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
• Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
• Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
• No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For younger, fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib to standard induction therapy with bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab adds toxicity without improving efficacy, results of the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN EA4181 trial indicate.

However, treating patients with bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib might be preferred to either option with cytarabine.

Although the results showed that the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib regimen was not superior to standard induction therapy with or without acalabrutinib, it was the least toxic option. 

Standard induction therapy can be still be considered the standard for this patient population, but eliminating cytarabine represents “an appealing option to avoid high-dose cytarabine,” said study investigator Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, during a presentation of the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 annual meeting. 

The bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib regimen, where acalabrutinib replaced high-dose cytarabine, is “the most intriguing arm of the study,” Marcus Messmer, MD, with the Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview. 

“The results suggest that bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib may be equivalent in efficacy to [standard induction] with less toxicity,” said Messmer, who was not involved in the study. 

Unfortunately, the study was not designed to show noninferiority of bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib compared to standard induction therapy, and the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm was stopped early because of a lack of a superiority signal, Messmer added.

 

Inside the Findings

MCL is a rare and aggressive B-cell lymphoma that poses unique treatment challenges, particularly in younger patients, for whom the treatment “landscape is shifting rapidly,” Wagner-Johnston explained.

Wagner-Johnston noted that the optimal induction regimen for fit, younger patients with MCL is unclear, although the mainstay of treatment is intensive chemoimmunotherapy with cytarabine.

The standard bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab induction regimen is associated with high complete remission and undetectable measurable residual disease, with evidence of improved progression-free survival, she noted. 

“And we know that BTK inhibitors, in combination with chemoimmunotherapy, are highly effective in MCL and that achieving molecular remission or undetectable measurable residual disease is an independent predictor of long-term outcomes in patients. All of these features were key when designing ECOG-ACRIN EA 4181,” Wagner-Johnston told attendees. 

The study enrolled 369 patients, 18-70 years old, with untreated MCL, ECOG performance score 0-2, and adequate organ and marrow function. Study participants were randomized 1:1:1 to the standard induction control arm or to one of two experimental arms. These included the control arm of induction therapy with three cycles of bendamustine/rituximab followed by three cycles of cytarabine/rituximab, the standard induction plus acalabrutinib across both cycles, or six cycles of bendamustine/rituximab with acalabrutinib.

In the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm, acalabrutinib was dosed continuously at 100 mg twice daily during the initial cycles, and during weeks 1 and 3 of the latter cycles.

The primary analysis focused on 260 patients with an end-of-treatment sample sent for measurable residual disease testing. Roughly 90% of patients completed study treatment, with no differences between treatment arms. 

The primary outcome was a composite of PET/CT complete molecular remission and peripheral blood undetectable measurable residual disease. In the control arm, 82% of patients achieved the primary outcome, as did 82% of patients in the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm and 78% in the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm. 

“Notably, neither of the experimental arms were superior to the standard-of-care arm across the board,” Wagner-Johnston said. Overall response rates were “quite high,” with complete response rates of more than 90%, with no differences between the arms. 

Similarly, no significant difference was seen in progression-free survival or overall survival between treatment arms. At a medium follow up of roughly 28 months, the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 90%-92% across the three groups.

The team also evaluated progression-free survival by measurable residual disease status, regardless of whether patients completed protocol therapy. “Not surprisingly,” said Wagner-Johnston, progression-free survival was superior for those with undetectable measurable residual disease, compared with those with detectable levels — but again there was no differences between treatment arms. 

Grades 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in at least 5% of patients and were mostly hematologic. 

The bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib was associated with significantly less hematologic toxicity, with a febrile neutropenia rate of 4.0% vs 8.9% in the standard induction arm and 9.3% in the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm. 

Grades 3-5 treatment-related anemia rates were much lower in the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm (3.0% vs 18.5% for standard induction and 24.8% for standard plus cytarabine). Similarly, the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm had lower rates of treatment-related grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia (6.0% vs 44.4% and 51.2%, respectively). 

Across all three treatment groups, rates of neurotoxicity, renal toxicity, bleeding/hemorrhage, and cardiac toxicity were low.

Treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were also low (7%) across the arms, with five treatment-related deaths reported. 

“Standard high-dose cytarabine requires inpatient administration and carries risk of neurologic and hematologic toxicity, making it particularly difficult to give in a community setting,” Marcus said in an interview. “This study, along with updated results from the TRIANGLE study, suggests that we are moving away from high-dose cytotoxic therapy and toward targeted therapy in frontline management of mantle cell lymphoma.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Wagner-Johnston has received research founding from Genentech, Merck, and AstraZenecca and consults for Beigene. Marcus had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For younger, fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib to standard induction therapy with bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab adds toxicity without improving efficacy, results of the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN EA4181 trial indicate.

However, treating patients with bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib might be preferred to either option with cytarabine.

Although the results showed that the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib regimen was not superior to standard induction therapy with or without acalabrutinib, it was the least toxic option. 

Standard induction therapy can be still be considered the standard for this patient population, but eliminating cytarabine represents “an appealing option to avoid high-dose cytarabine,” said study investigator Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, during a presentation of the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 annual meeting. 

The bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib regimen, where acalabrutinib replaced high-dose cytarabine, is “the most intriguing arm of the study,” Marcus Messmer, MD, with the Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview. 

“The results suggest that bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib may be equivalent in efficacy to [standard induction] with less toxicity,” said Messmer, who was not involved in the study. 

Unfortunately, the study was not designed to show noninferiority of bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib compared to standard induction therapy, and the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm was stopped early because of a lack of a superiority signal, Messmer added.

 

Inside the Findings

MCL is a rare and aggressive B-cell lymphoma that poses unique treatment challenges, particularly in younger patients, for whom the treatment “landscape is shifting rapidly,” Wagner-Johnston explained.

Wagner-Johnston noted that the optimal induction regimen for fit, younger patients with MCL is unclear, although the mainstay of treatment is intensive chemoimmunotherapy with cytarabine.

The standard bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab induction regimen is associated with high complete remission and undetectable measurable residual disease, with evidence of improved progression-free survival, she noted. 

“And we know that BTK inhibitors, in combination with chemoimmunotherapy, are highly effective in MCL and that achieving molecular remission or undetectable measurable residual disease is an independent predictor of long-term outcomes in patients. All of these features were key when designing ECOG-ACRIN EA 4181,” Wagner-Johnston told attendees. 

The study enrolled 369 patients, 18-70 years old, with untreated MCL, ECOG performance score 0-2, and adequate organ and marrow function. Study participants were randomized 1:1:1 to the standard induction control arm or to one of two experimental arms. These included the control arm of induction therapy with three cycles of bendamustine/rituximab followed by three cycles of cytarabine/rituximab, the standard induction plus acalabrutinib across both cycles, or six cycles of bendamustine/rituximab with acalabrutinib.

In the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm, acalabrutinib was dosed continuously at 100 mg twice daily during the initial cycles, and during weeks 1 and 3 of the latter cycles.

The primary analysis focused on 260 patients with an end-of-treatment sample sent for measurable residual disease testing. Roughly 90% of patients completed study treatment, with no differences between treatment arms. 

The primary outcome was a composite of PET/CT complete molecular remission and peripheral blood undetectable measurable residual disease. In the control arm, 82% of patients achieved the primary outcome, as did 82% of patients in the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm and 78% in the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm. 

“Notably, neither of the experimental arms were superior to the standard-of-care arm across the board,” Wagner-Johnston said. Overall response rates were “quite high,” with complete response rates of more than 90%, with no differences between the arms. 

Similarly, no significant difference was seen in progression-free survival or overall survival between treatment arms. At a medium follow up of roughly 28 months, the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 90%-92% across the three groups.

The team also evaluated progression-free survival by measurable residual disease status, regardless of whether patients completed protocol therapy. “Not surprisingly,” said Wagner-Johnston, progression-free survival was superior for those with undetectable measurable residual disease, compared with those with detectable levels — but again there was no differences between treatment arms. 

Grades 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in at least 5% of patients and were mostly hematologic. 

The bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib was associated with significantly less hematologic toxicity, with a febrile neutropenia rate of 4.0% vs 8.9% in the standard induction arm and 9.3% in the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm. 

Grades 3-5 treatment-related anemia rates were much lower in the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm (3.0% vs 18.5% for standard induction and 24.8% for standard plus cytarabine). Similarly, the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm had lower rates of treatment-related grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia (6.0% vs 44.4% and 51.2%, respectively). 

Across all three treatment groups, rates of neurotoxicity, renal toxicity, bleeding/hemorrhage, and cardiac toxicity were low.

Treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were also low (7%) across the arms, with five treatment-related deaths reported. 

“Standard high-dose cytarabine requires inpatient administration and carries risk of neurologic and hematologic toxicity, making it particularly difficult to give in a community setting,” Marcus said in an interview. “This study, along with updated results from the TRIANGLE study, suggests that we are moving away from high-dose cytotoxic therapy and toward targeted therapy in frontline management of mantle cell lymphoma.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Wagner-Johnston has received research founding from Genentech, Merck, and AstraZenecca and consults for Beigene. Marcus had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For younger, fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib to standard induction therapy with bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab adds toxicity without improving efficacy, results of the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN EA4181 trial indicate.

However, treating patients with bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib might be preferred to either option with cytarabine.

Although the results showed that the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib regimen was not superior to standard induction therapy with or without acalabrutinib, it was the least toxic option. 

Standard induction therapy can be still be considered the standard for this patient population, but eliminating cytarabine represents “an appealing option to avoid high-dose cytarabine,” said study investigator Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, during a presentation of the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 annual meeting. 

The bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib regimen, where acalabrutinib replaced high-dose cytarabine, is “the most intriguing arm of the study,” Marcus Messmer, MD, with the Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview. 

“The results suggest that bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib may be equivalent in efficacy to [standard induction] with less toxicity,” said Messmer, who was not involved in the study. 

Unfortunately, the study was not designed to show noninferiority of bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib compared to standard induction therapy, and the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm was stopped early because of a lack of a superiority signal, Messmer added.

 

Inside the Findings

MCL is a rare and aggressive B-cell lymphoma that poses unique treatment challenges, particularly in younger patients, for whom the treatment “landscape is shifting rapidly,” Wagner-Johnston explained.

Wagner-Johnston noted that the optimal induction regimen for fit, younger patients with MCL is unclear, although the mainstay of treatment is intensive chemoimmunotherapy with cytarabine.

The standard bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab induction regimen is associated with high complete remission and undetectable measurable residual disease, with evidence of improved progression-free survival, she noted. 

“And we know that BTK inhibitors, in combination with chemoimmunotherapy, are highly effective in MCL and that achieving molecular remission or undetectable measurable residual disease is an independent predictor of long-term outcomes in patients. All of these features were key when designing ECOG-ACRIN EA 4181,” Wagner-Johnston told attendees. 

The study enrolled 369 patients, 18-70 years old, with untreated MCL, ECOG performance score 0-2, and adequate organ and marrow function. Study participants were randomized 1:1:1 to the standard induction control arm or to one of two experimental arms. These included the control arm of induction therapy with three cycles of bendamustine/rituximab followed by three cycles of cytarabine/rituximab, the standard induction plus acalabrutinib across both cycles, or six cycles of bendamustine/rituximab with acalabrutinib.

In the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm, acalabrutinib was dosed continuously at 100 mg twice daily during the initial cycles, and during weeks 1 and 3 of the latter cycles.

The primary analysis focused on 260 patients with an end-of-treatment sample sent for measurable residual disease testing. Roughly 90% of patients completed study treatment, with no differences between treatment arms. 

The primary outcome was a composite of PET/CT complete molecular remission and peripheral blood undetectable measurable residual disease. In the control arm, 82% of patients achieved the primary outcome, as did 82% of patients in the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm and 78% in the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm. 

“Notably, neither of the experimental arms were superior to the standard-of-care arm across the board,” Wagner-Johnston said. Overall response rates were “quite high,” with complete response rates of more than 90%, with no differences between the arms. 

Similarly, no significant difference was seen in progression-free survival or overall survival between treatment arms. At a medium follow up of roughly 28 months, the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 90%-92% across the three groups.

The team also evaluated progression-free survival by measurable residual disease status, regardless of whether patients completed protocol therapy. “Not surprisingly,” said Wagner-Johnston, progression-free survival was superior for those with undetectable measurable residual disease, compared with those with detectable levels — but again there was no differences between treatment arms. 

Grades 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in at least 5% of patients and were mostly hematologic. 

The bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib was associated with significantly less hematologic toxicity, with a febrile neutropenia rate of 4.0% vs 8.9% in the standard induction arm and 9.3% in the standard induction plus acalabrutinib arm. 

Grades 3-5 treatment-related anemia rates were much lower in the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm (3.0% vs 18.5% for standard induction and 24.8% for standard plus cytarabine). Similarly, the bendamustine/rituximab plus acalabrutinib arm had lower rates of treatment-related grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia (6.0% vs 44.4% and 51.2%, respectively). 

Across all three treatment groups, rates of neurotoxicity, renal toxicity, bleeding/hemorrhage, and cardiac toxicity were low.

Treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were also low (7%) across the arms, with five treatment-related deaths reported. 

“Standard high-dose cytarabine requires inpatient administration and carries risk of neurologic and hematologic toxicity, making it particularly difficult to give in a community setting,” Marcus said in an interview. “This study, along with updated results from the TRIANGLE study, suggests that we are moving away from high-dose cytotoxic therapy and toward targeted therapy in frontline management of mantle cell lymphoma.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Wagner-Johnston has received research founding from Genentech, Merck, and AstraZenecca and consults for Beigene. Marcus had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.