User login
100 coauthored papers, 10 years: Cancer transplant pioneers model 'team science'
On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.
Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.
Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.
Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”
Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.
Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.
“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”
When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
Global leaders in HSCT
Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.
In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).
However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.
Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.
The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.
The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.
During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.
The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.
Impact of the pandemic
When COVID-19 hit, the team lost many research staff and developed a huge backlog, said Dr. Giralt. He and Dr. Perales realized that they needed to be “thoughtful and careful” about which studies to continue. “For example, the CD-34 selection trials we did not close because these are our workhorse trials,” Dr. Giralt said. “We have people we need to treat, and some of the patients that we need to treat can only be treated on trial.”
The team was also able to pivot some of their work into COVID 19 itself, and they collected crucial information on HSCT in recovered COVID-19 patients, as an example.
“We were living through a critical time, but that doesn’t mean we [aren’t] obligated to continue our mission, our research mission,” said Dr. Giralt. “It really is team science. The way we look at it ... there’s a common thread: We both like to do allogeneic transplant, and we both believe in trying to make CD-34 selection better. So we’re both very much [working on] how can we improve what we call ‘the Memorial way’ of doing transplants. Where we separate is, Miguel does primarily lymphoma. He doesn’t do myeloma [like me]. So in those two areas, we’re helping develop the junior faculty in a different way.”
Something more in common
Right from the start, Dr. Perales and Dr. Giralt also shared a commitment to mentoring. Since 2010, Dr. Perales has mentored 22 up-and-coming junior faculty, including 10 from Europe (8 from Spain) and 2 from Latin America.
“[It makes] the research enterprise much more productive but [these young scientists] really increase the visibility of the program,” said Dr. Giralt.
He cited Dr. Perales’ track record of mentoring as one of the reasons for his promotion to chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. In March 2020, Dr. Perales seamlessly stepped into Dr. Giralt’s shoes, while Dr. Giralt moved on to his present role as deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Perales said: “The key aspect [of these promotions] is the fantastic working relationship that we’ve had over the years. ... I consider Sergio my mentor, but also a good friend and colleague. And so I think it’s this ability that we’ve had to work together and that relationship of trust, which has been key.”
“Sergio is somebody who lifts people up,” Dr. Perales added. “Many people will tell you that Sergio has helped them in their career. ... And I think that’s a lesson I’ve learned from him: training the next generation. And [that’s] not just in the U.S., but outside. I think that’s a key role that we have. And our responsibility.”
Asked to comment on their 100th-paper milestone, Dr. Perales firmly turned the spotlight from himself and Dr. Giralt to the junior investigators who have passed through the doors of the bone-marrow transplant program: “This body of work represents not just our collaboration but also the many contributions of our team at MSK ... and beyond MSK.”
This article was updated 1/26/22.
On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.
Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.
Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.
Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”
Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.
Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.
“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”
When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
Global leaders in HSCT
Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.
In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).
However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.
Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.
The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.
The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.
During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.
The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.
Impact of the pandemic
When COVID-19 hit, the team lost many research staff and developed a huge backlog, said Dr. Giralt. He and Dr. Perales realized that they needed to be “thoughtful and careful” about which studies to continue. “For example, the CD-34 selection trials we did not close because these are our workhorse trials,” Dr. Giralt said. “We have people we need to treat, and some of the patients that we need to treat can only be treated on trial.”
The team was also able to pivot some of their work into COVID 19 itself, and they collected crucial information on HSCT in recovered COVID-19 patients, as an example.
“We were living through a critical time, but that doesn’t mean we [aren’t] obligated to continue our mission, our research mission,” said Dr. Giralt. “It really is team science. The way we look at it ... there’s a common thread: We both like to do allogeneic transplant, and we both believe in trying to make CD-34 selection better. So we’re both very much [working on] how can we improve what we call ‘the Memorial way’ of doing transplants. Where we separate is, Miguel does primarily lymphoma. He doesn’t do myeloma [like me]. So in those two areas, we’re helping develop the junior faculty in a different way.”
Something more in common
Right from the start, Dr. Perales and Dr. Giralt also shared a commitment to mentoring. Since 2010, Dr. Perales has mentored 22 up-and-coming junior faculty, including 10 from Europe (8 from Spain) and 2 from Latin America.
“[It makes] the research enterprise much more productive but [these young scientists] really increase the visibility of the program,” said Dr. Giralt.
He cited Dr. Perales’ track record of mentoring as one of the reasons for his promotion to chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. In March 2020, Dr. Perales seamlessly stepped into Dr. Giralt’s shoes, while Dr. Giralt moved on to his present role as deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Perales said: “The key aspect [of these promotions] is the fantastic working relationship that we’ve had over the years. ... I consider Sergio my mentor, but also a good friend and colleague. And so I think it’s this ability that we’ve had to work together and that relationship of trust, which has been key.”
“Sergio is somebody who lifts people up,” Dr. Perales added. “Many people will tell you that Sergio has helped them in their career. ... And I think that’s a lesson I’ve learned from him: training the next generation. And [that’s] not just in the U.S., but outside. I think that’s a key role that we have. And our responsibility.”
Asked to comment on their 100th-paper milestone, Dr. Perales firmly turned the spotlight from himself and Dr. Giralt to the junior investigators who have passed through the doors of the bone-marrow transplant program: “This body of work represents not just our collaboration but also the many contributions of our team at MSK ... and beyond MSK.”
This article was updated 1/26/22.
On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.
Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.
Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.
Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”
Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.
Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.
“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”
When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
Global leaders in HSCT
Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.
In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).
However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.
Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.
The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.
The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.
During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.
The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.
Impact of the pandemic
When COVID-19 hit, the team lost many research staff and developed a huge backlog, said Dr. Giralt. He and Dr. Perales realized that they needed to be “thoughtful and careful” about which studies to continue. “For example, the CD-34 selection trials we did not close because these are our workhorse trials,” Dr. Giralt said. “We have people we need to treat, and some of the patients that we need to treat can only be treated on trial.”
The team was also able to pivot some of their work into COVID 19 itself, and they collected crucial information on HSCT in recovered COVID-19 patients, as an example.
“We were living through a critical time, but that doesn’t mean we [aren’t] obligated to continue our mission, our research mission,” said Dr. Giralt. “It really is team science. The way we look at it ... there’s a common thread: We both like to do allogeneic transplant, and we both believe in trying to make CD-34 selection better. So we’re both very much [working on] how can we improve what we call ‘the Memorial way’ of doing transplants. Where we separate is, Miguel does primarily lymphoma. He doesn’t do myeloma [like me]. So in those two areas, we’re helping develop the junior faculty in a different way.”
Something more in common
Right from the start, Dr. Perales and Dr. Giralt also shared a commitment to mentoring. Since 2010, Dr. Perales has mentored 22 up-and-coming junior faculty, including 10 from Europe (8 from Spain) and 2 from Latin America.
“[It makes] the research enterprise much more productive but [these young scientists] really increase the visibility of the program,” said Dr. Giralt.
He cited Dr. Perales’ track record of mentoring as one of the reasons for his promotion to chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. In March 2020, Dr. Perales seamlessly stepped into Dr. Giralt’s shoes, while Dr. Giralt moved on to his present role as deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Perales said: “The key aspect [of these promotions] is the fantastic working relationship that we’ve had over the years. ... I consider Sergio my mentor, but also a good friend and colleague. And so I think it’s this ability that we’ve had to work together and that relationship of trust, which has been key.”
“Sergio is somebody who lifts people up,” Dr. Perales added. “Many people will tell you that Sergio has helped them in their career. ... And I think that’s a lesson I’ve learned from him: training the next generation. And [that’s] not just in the U.S., but outside. I think that’s a key role that we have. And our responsibility.”
Asked to comment on their 100th-paper milestone, Dr. Perales firmly turned the spotlight from himself and Dr. Giralt to the junior investigators who have passed through the doors of the bone-marrow transplant program: “This body of work represents not just our collaboration but also the many contributions of our team at MSK ... and beyond MSK.”
This article was updated 1/26/22.
Rituximab and COVID-19 vaccines: Studies begin to answer key questions
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
DKMS: Small nonprofit to world’s largest stem cell donor registry
When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.
“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.
In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.
“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.
Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).
In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”
From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.
Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
World’s largest registry
“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,
Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.
Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
Global partners
DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.
“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.
The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
Pandemic affects donations
But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.
Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.
“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.
However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.
“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
Workforce and clinical problems
Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.
“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.
Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.
“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.
In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.
“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.
To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.
The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
‘Every patient saved’
The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.
DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.
In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.
The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.
“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”
“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.
Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.
When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.
“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.
In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.
“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.
Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).
In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”
From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.
Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
World’s largest registry
“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,
Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.
Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
Global partners
DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.
“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.
The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
Pandemic affects donations
But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.
Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.
“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.
However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.
“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
Workforce and clinical problems
Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.
“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.
Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.
“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.
In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.
“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.
To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.
The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
‘Every patient saved’
The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.
DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.
In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.
The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.
“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”
“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.
Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.
When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.
“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.
In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.
“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.
Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).
In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”
From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.
Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
World’s largest registry
“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,
Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.
Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
Global partners
DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.
“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.
The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
Pandemic affects donations
But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.
Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.
“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.
However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.
“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
Workforce and clinical problems
Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.
“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.
Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.
“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.
In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.
“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.
To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.
The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
‘Every patient saved’
The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.
DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.
In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.
The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.
“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”
“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.
Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.
DLBCL: PFS but no OS benefit with polatuzumab-vedotin add-on
Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.
The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”
“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Worth the cost?
The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.
With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.
“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.
With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”
“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.
Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”
The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).
PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
Defining a target population
R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.
Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.
Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.
Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.
On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.
Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
Ongoing trial in the elderly
Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.
The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.
They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.
The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.
Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.
The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”
“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Worth the cost?
The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.
With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.
“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.
With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”
“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.
Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”
The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).
PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
Defining a target population
R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.
Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.
Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.
Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.
On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.
Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
Ongoing trial in the elderly
Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.
The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.
They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.
The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.
Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.
The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”
“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Worth the cost?
The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.
With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.
“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.
With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”
“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.
Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”
The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).
PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
Defining a target population
R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.
Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.
Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.
Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.
On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.
Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
Ongoing trial in the elderly
Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.
The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.
They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.
The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2021
‘Outstanding data’: Mosunetuzumab in r/r follicular lymphoma
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
AT ASH 2021
‘Remarkable’ results with CAR T cells could make chemo obsolete
ATLANTA — Chimeric antigen receptor, results of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM trials suggest.
In the ZUMA-7 trial, at a median follow-up of 24.9 months, patients randomly assigned to receive CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel, or axi-cell (Yescarta) had a median event-free survival (EFS) of 8.3 months, compared with 2 months for patients randomly assigned to standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy, reported Frederick L. Locke, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.
In TRANSFORM, comparing the CAR T construct lisocabtagene maraleucel, or liso-cel (Breyanzi) with standard-of-care second-line chemotherapy, median EFS was 10.1 months with liso-cel, compared with 2.3 months with standard of care, reported Manali Kamdar, MD, from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora.
The trials differed slightly in eligibility criteria and other details, but their overall results show great promise for improving second-line therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL, commented Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer in Vancouver, Canada.
“It’s really remarkable that the results are so far in favor of the CAR T-cell therapy that I think it’s inevitable that this will become the standard of care,” Dr. Sehn commented. She was not an investigator in either of the two trials.
Dr. Sehn was speaking at a press briefing here during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The new data from the two studies were presented at oral sessions, and the results from ZUMA-7 were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“For somebody who treats patients with large B-cell lymphoma like I do, it’s incredibly frustrating when patients fail frontline therapy,” Dr. Sehn said. “We come into the second line with more chemotherapy and at higher doses to try and slam things down hard. Particularly for the patients who were enrolled in these studies, which were the worst of the worst — the patients who are either refractory to chemotherapy or relapsed relatively early, within 1 year — it’s not surprising that coming in with a novel approach and a cellular therapy that has a proven curative capacity may have outperformed coming in with more chemotherapy.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Locke said that, based on the findings of the ZUMA-7 trial that he presented, it’s likely that chemotherapy in the second-line setting for relapsed/refractory LBCL will largely fall by the wayside.
The first question is to identify the patients who can tolerate CAR T-cell therapy. “We need to refer these patients to a CAR T-cell center to make that decision. That decision really can’t be made in the local oncologist’s office,” he said. “That being said, there are patients who need urgent therapy, and they may need to get second-line chemotherapy right away.”
“What we know with CAR T cells is that older patients and patients with comorbidities can get these therapies safely, so to me there is no obvious patient who can’t get CAR T-cell therapy,” he added.
Also at the briefing, Dr. Kamdar, who presented the TRANSFORM trial results, remarked that “in my opinion, this is a breakthrough therapy, which has shown superiority over standard of care, in terms of not just efficacy but also an extremely favorable safety profile,” she said at a briefing.
For patients with LBCL for whom first-line therapy has failed, chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been the standard of care, but only about 25% of patients who are candidates for ASCT achieve durable remissions, Dr. Kamdar noted.
Both ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM were designed to test whether moving CAR T-cell therapy forward into the second line could improve outcomes.
ZUMA-7 results
THE ZUMA-7 trial randomly assigned 180 patients to receive CAR T-cell therapy with axi-cell and 179 patients to standard of care. This consisted of two or three cycles of investigator-selected, protocol-defined chemoimmunotherapy, with patients who had a complete or partial response going onto ASCT.
As noted, the primary endpoint of EFS according to blinded central review favored axi-cel, with 24-month event-free survival rates of 41% vs. 16% for standard of care. The difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death of 0.40 (P < .001).
In all, 65% of patients had a complete response (CR) to axi-cel, compared with 32% with standard of care. The respective overall response rates were 83% and 50% (P < .001).
Dr. Locke pointed out that 94% of the patients assigned to axi-cel received definitive therapy, compared with the 36% of patients in the standard-of-care arm who went on to ASCT.
In an interim analysis, 2-year estimated overall survival was 61% with axi-cel vs. 52% with standard of care, although this difference was not statistically significant.
Median overall survival was not reached with axi-cel, compared with 35.1 months with standard-of-care.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 91% of patients with CAR T, and 83% with the standard of care. In the axi-cel arm, 6% of patients had grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 21% had grade 3 or higher neurologic events, although there were no deaths related to CRS or neurologic events.
TRANSFORM results
The TRANSFORM trial had broader eligibility criteria than ZUMA-7, including patients who had diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (de novo or transformed from indolent NHL), high-grade BCL (double- or triple-hit) with DLBCL histology, follicular lymphoma grade 3B, primary mediastinal LBCL, or T-cell/histocyte-rich LBCL.
A total of 184 patients were randomly assigned, 92 in each group, to receive either liso-cel or standard-of-care. Patients assigned to liso-cel were allowed to have bridging therapy, and crossover to liso-cel was allowed for patients assigned to standard of care who either did not have a response by week 9 after randomization, had disease progression at any time, or started a new antineoplastic therapy after ASCT.
As noted before, the primary endpoint of EFS significantly favored CAR T-cell therapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.349 (P < .0001).
The EFS rates at 6 months were 63.3% with liso-cel vs 33.4% with standard of care, and the EFS rates at 12 months were 44.5% vs. 23.7%, respectively.
“Overall survival data were still immature at the time of this analysis, but show a trend favoring liso-cel, despite crossover,” Dr. Kamdar said.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92% of patients on liso-cell and 87% of patients on standard of care. There was one treatment-related death in the liso-cel arm, and two in the standard of care arm, both from grade 3 or higher AEs. Neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia were the most common treatment-emergent AEs in each group.
ZUMA-7 is supported by Kite. Dr. Locke disclosed serving as a scientific advisor to Kite and relationships with other companies. TRANSFORM is supported by Celgene (BMS). Dr. Kamdar disclosed consultancy fees from BMS and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATLANTA — Chimeric antigen receptor, results of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM trials suggest.
In the ZUMA-7 trial, at a median follow-up of 24.9 months, patients randomly assigned to receive CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel, or axi-cell (Yescarta) had a median event-free survival (EFS) of 8.3 months, compared with 2 months for patients randomly assigned to standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy, reported Frederick L. Locke, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.
In TRANSFORM, comparing the CAR T construct lisocabtagene maraleucel, or liso-cel (Breyanzi) with standard-of-care second-line chemotherapy, median EFS was 10.1 months with liso-cel, compared with 2.3 months with standard of care, reported Manali Kamdar, MD, from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora.
The trials differed slightly in eligibility criteria and other details, but their overall results show great promise for improving second-line therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL, commented Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer in Vancouver, Canada.
“It’s really remarkable that the results are so far in favor of the CAR T-cell therapy that I think it’s inevitable that this will become the standard of care,” Dr. Sehn commented. She was not an investigator in either of the two trials.
Dr. Sehn was speaking at a press briefing here during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The new data from the two studies were presented at oral sessions, and the results from ZUMA-7 were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“For somebody who treats patients with large B-cell lymphoma like I do, it’s incredibly frustrating when patients fail frontline therapy,” Dr. Sehn said. “We come into the second line with more chemotherapy and at higher doses to try and slam things down hard. Particularly for the patients who were enrolled in these studies, which were the worst of the worst — the patients who are either refractory to chemotherapy or relapsed relatively early, within 1 year — it’s not surprising that coming in with a novel approach and a cellular therapy that has a proven curative capacity may have outperformed coming in with more chemotherapy.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Locke said that, based on the findings of the ZUMA-7 trial that he presented, it’s likely that chemotherapy in the second-line setting for relapsed/refractory LBCL will largely fall by the wayside.
The first question is to identify the patients who can tolerate CAR T-cell therapy. “We need to refer these patients to a CAR T-cell center to make that decision. That decision really can’t be made in the local oncologist’s office,” he said. “That being said, there are patients who need urgent therapy, and they may need to get second-line chemotherapy right away.”
“What we know with CAR T cells is that older patients and patients with comorbidities can get these therapies safely, so to me there is no obvious patient who can’t get CAR T-cell therapy,” he added.
Also at the briefing, Dr. Kamdar, who presented the TRANSFORM trial results, remarked that “in my opinion, this is a breakthrough therapy, which has shown superiority over standard of care, in terms of not just efficacy but also an extremely favorable safety profile,” she said at a briefing.
For patients with LBCL for whom first-line therapy has failed, chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been the standard of care, but only about 25% of patients who are candidates for ASCT achieve durable remissions, Dr. Kamdar noted.
Both ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM were designed to test whether moving CAR T-cell therapy forward into the second line could improve outcomes.
ZUMA-7 results
THE ZUMA-7 trial randomly assigned 180 patients to receive CAR T-cell therapy with axi-cell and 179 patients to standard of care. This consisted of two or three cycles of investigator-selected, protocol-defined chemoimmunotherapy, with patients who had a complete or partial response going onto ASCT.
As noted, the primary endpoint of EFS according to blinded central review favored axi-cel, with 24-month event-free survival rates of 41% vs. 16% for standard of care. The difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death of 0.40 (P < .001).
In all, 65% of patients had a complete response (CR) to axi-cel, compared with 32% with standard of care. The respective overall response rates were 83% and 50% (P < .001).
Dr. Locke pointed out that 94% of the patients assigned to axi-cel received definitive therapy, compared with the 36% of patients in the standard-of-care arm who went on to ASCT.
In an interim analysis, 2-year estimated overall survival was 61% with axi-cel vs. 52% with standard of care, although this difference was not statistically significant.
Median overall survival was not reached with axi-cel, compared with 35.1 months with standard-of-care.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 91% of patients with CAR T, and 83% with the standard of care. In the axi-cel arm, 6% of patients had grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 21% had grade 3 or higher neurologic events, although there were no deaths related to CRS or neurologic events.
TRANSFORM results
The TRANSFORM trial had broader eligibility criteria than ZUMA-7, including patients who had diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (de novo or transformed from indolent NHL), high-grade BCL (double- or triple-hit) with DLBCL histology, follicular lymphoma grade 3B, primary mediastinal LBCL, or T-cell/histocyte-rich LBCL.
A total of 184 patients were randomly assigned, 92 in each group, to receive either liso-cel or standard-of-care. Patients assigned to liso-cel were allowed to have bridging therapy, and crossover to liso-cel was allowed for patients assigned to standard of care who either did not have a response by week 9 after randomization, had disease progression at any time, or started a new antineoplastic therapy after ASCT.
As noted before, the primary endpoint of EFS significantly favored CAR T-cell therapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.349 (P < .0001).
The EFS rates at 6 months were 63.3% with liso-cel vs 33.4% with standard of care, and the EFS rates at 12 months were 44.5% vs. 23.7%, respectively.
“Overall survival data were still immature at the time of this analysis, but show a trend favoring liso-cel, despite crossover,” Dr. Kamdar said.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92% of patients on liso-cell and 87% of patients on standard of care. There was one treatment-related death in the liso-cel arm, and two in the standard of care arm, both from grade 3 or higher AEs. Neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia were the most common treatment-emergent AEs in each group.
ZUMA-7 is supported by Kite. Dr. Locke disclosed serving as a scientific advisor to Kite and relationships with other companies. TRANSFORM is supported by Celgene (BMS). Dr. Kamdar disclosed consultancy fees from BMS and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATLANTA — Chimeric antigen receptor, results of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM trials suggest.
In the ZUMA-7 trial, at a median follow-up of 24.9 months, patients randomly assigned to receive CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel, or axi-cell (Yescarta) had a median event-free survival (EFS) of 8.3 months, compared with 2 months for patients randomly assigned to standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy, reported Frederick L. Locke, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.
In TRANSFORM, comparing the CAR T construct lisocabtagene maraleucel, or liso-cel (Breyanzi) with standard-of-care second-line chemotherapy, median EFS was 10.1 months with liso-cel, compared with 2.3 months with standard of care, reported Manali Kamdar, MD, from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora.
The trials differed slightly in eligibility criteria and other details, but their overall results show great promise for improving second-line therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL, commented Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer in Vancouver, Canada.
“It’s really remarkable that the results are so far in favor of the CAR T-cell therapy that I think it’s inevitable that this will become the standard of care,” Dr. Sehn commented. She was not an investigator in either of the two trials.
Dr. Sehn was speaking at a press briefing here during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The new data from the two studies were presented at oral sessions, and the results from ZUMA-7 were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“For somebody who treats patients with large B-cell lymphoma like I do, it’s incredibly frustrating when patients fail frontline therapy,” Dr. Sehn said. “We come into the second line with more chemotherapy and at higher doses to try and slam things down hard. Particularly for the patients who were enrolled in these studies, which were the worst of the worst — the patients who are either refractory to chemotherapy or relapsed relatively early, within 1 year — it’s not surprising that coming in with a novel approach and a cellular therapy that has a proven curative capacity may have outperformed coming in with more chemotherapy.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Locke said that, based on the findings of the ZUMA-7 trial that he presented, it’s likely that chemotherapy in the second-line setting for relapsed/refractory LBCL will largely fall by the wayside.
The first question is to identify the patients who can tolerate CAR T-cell therapy. “We need to refer these patients to a CAR T-cell center to make that decision. That decision really can’t be made in the local oncologist’s office,” he said. “That being said, there are patients who need urgent therapy, and they may need to get second-line chemotherapy right away.”
“What we know with CAR T cells is that older patients and patients with comorbidities can get these therapies safely, so to me there is no obvious patient who can’t get CAR T-cell therapy,” he added.
Also at the briefing, Dr. Kamdar, who presented the TRANSFORM trial results, remarked that “in my opinion, this is a breakthrough therapy, which has shown superiority over standard of care, in terms of not just efficacy but also an extremely favorable safety profile,” she said at a briefing.
For patients with LBCL for whom first-line therapy has failed, chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been the standard of care, but only about 25% of patients who are candidates for ASCT achieve durable remissions, Dr. Kamdar noted.
Both ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM were designed to test whether moving CAR T-cell therapy forward into the second line could improve outcomes.
ZUMA-7 results
THE ZUMA-7 trial randomly assigned 180 patients to receive CAR T-cell therapy with axi-cell and 179 patients to standard of care. This consisted of two or three cycles of investigator-selected, protocol-defined chemoimmunotherapy, with patients who had a complete or partial response going onto ASCT.
As noted, the primary endpoint of EFS according to blinded central review favored axi-cel, with 24-month event-free survival rates of 41% vs. 16% for standard of care. The difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death of 0.40 (P < .001).
In all, 65% of patients had a complete response (CR) to axi-cel, compared with 32% with standard of care. The respective overall response rates were 83% and 50% (P < .001).
Dr. Locke pointed out that 94% of the patients assigned to axi-cel received definitive therapy, compared with the 36% of patients in the standard-of-care arm who went on to ASCT.
In an interim analysis, 2-year estimated overall survival was 61% with axi-cel vs. 52% with standard of care, although this difference was not statistically significant.
Median overall survival was not reached with axi-cel, compared with 35.1 months with standard-of-care.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 91% of patients with CAR T, and 83% with the standard of care. In the axi-cel arm, 6% of patients had grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 21% had grade 3 or higher neurologic events, although there were no deaths related to CRS or neurologic events.
TRANSFORM results
The TRANSFORM trial had broader eligibility criteria than ZUMA-7, including patients who had diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (de novo or transformed from indolent NHL), high-grade BCL (double- or triple-hit) with DLBCL histology, follicular lymphoma grade 3B, primary mediastinal LBCL, or T-cell/histocyte-rich LBCL.
A total of 184 patients were randomly assigned, 92 in each group, to receive either liso-cel or standard-of-care. Patients assigned to liso-cel were allowed to have bridging therapy, and crossover to liso-cel was allowed for patients assigned to standard of care who either did not have a response by week 9 after randomization, had disease progression at any time, or started a new antineoplastic therapy after ASCT.
As noted before, the primary endpoint of EFS significantly favored CAR T-cell therapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.349 (P < .0001).
The EFS rates at 6 months were 63.3% with liso-cel vs 33.4% with standard of care, and the EFS rates at 12 months were 44.5% vs. 23.7%, respectively.
“Overall survival data were still immature at the time of this analysis, but show a trend favoring liso-cel, despite crossover,” Dr. Kamdar said.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92% of patients on liso-cell and 87% of patients on standard of care. There was one treatment-related death in the liso-cel arm, and two in the standard of care arm, both from grade 3 or higher AEs. Neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia were the most common treatment-emergent AEs in each group.
ZUMA-7 is supported by Kite. Dr. Locke disclosed serving as a scientific advisor to Kite and relationships with other companies. TRANSFORM is supported by Celgene (BMS). Dr. Kamdar disclosed consultancy fees from BMS and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASH 2021
In some lymphomas, ibrutinib yields “almost unheard-of” survival rates
, compared with R-CHOP alone, new research shows.
The findings, published Nov. 4, 2021, in Cancer Cell, come from a subanalysis of the phase 3 Phoenix trial. They show that patients with DLBCL aged 60 and younger with either the MCD or N1 genetic subtype had 3-year event-free survival rates as high as 100% when treated with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP, whereas with R-CHOP chemotherapy alone, the survival rates were approximately half of that rate.
“A 100% 3-year event-free survival is almost unheard-of in DLBCL and speaks to the intense dependency of these subtypes to constitutive B cell receptor signaling and their vulnerability to ibrutinib,” first author Louis M. Staudt, MD, of the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.
“By contrast, in ABC DLBCL, the addition of ibrutinib to R-CHOP increased event-free survival by 12.4% to 76.9% in younger patients,” Dr. Staudt said.
ABC, along with GCB and unclassified, are among three key genetic classifications of DLBCL, which is the most common type of lymphoma. While previous studies have shown the Bruton kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induce very low responses among those with the GCB type, favorable responses are seen with the ABC type, of which MCD and N1 are genetic subtypes.
For the Phoenix trial, 838 previously untreated DLBCL patients of the ABC subtype were randomized to ibrutinib (560 mg per day, orally) or placebo plus R-CHOP, in a 21-day cycle for 6 or 8 cycles.
In the overall population, the study failed to achieve its primary survival endpoint of improved survival with ibrutinib. However, a subset analysis stratifying patients by age revealed significant event-free, progression-free, and overall survival benefits with ibrutinib among patients aged 60 and under, with manageable safety. Unexpectedly, this treatment was associated with a worsening of survival outcomes among patients over 60, due to toxicities.
In the new subanalysis, focusing on patients aged 60 and under, Dr. Staudt and his colleagues found that those with the MCD subtype of ABC DLBCL (n = 31) who were treated with ibrutinib had 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates as high as 100% each, while these rates were significantly lower with R-CHOP alone (48%; P = .01, and 69.6%; P = .032, respectively).
Likewise, among younger patients with the N1 subtype (n = 13), the addition of ibrutinib was associated 3-year event-free and overall survival of 100%, while the R-CHOP alone patients had a significantly lower event-free- (50%; P = .0161) and overall survival (50%; P = .0134).
In the study in general, younger patients who were neither MCD nor N1 also showed better responses with ibrutinib versus placebo; however, the effects were not as strong as those with the MCD and N1 genetic subtypes.
Older patients over 60 showed no benefit from ibrutinib, regardless of their genetic subtype. And benefits were not observed in younger patients with BN2 DLBCL (n = 21), another ABC subtype.
The results are important – despite being secondary endpoints, Dr. Staudt emphasized.
“The automatic assumption regarding secondary endpoints is that any positive findings might have occurred by chance. In the present study, we show that this is not the case.”
“Rather, two previously defined genetic subtypes of DLBCL had an exceptional benefit from ibrutinib,” he said.
“Our study provides strong biological support for the view that the original Phoenix trial should be viewed as a positive trial for younger patients (under 60) with non-GCB DLBCL,” Dr. Staudt said.
While the responses to ibrutinib among younger ABC patients in general were not as robust as with the MCD and N1 subtypes, those improvements nevertheless suggest important benefit with the added treatment, he noted.
“Overall, MCD and N1 constitute roughly 10% of DLBCLs; however, our conclusion is that ibrutinib should be considered in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL, which constitutes roughly 43% of all DLBCLs,” he said.
Dr. Staudt and other authors are inventors on NIH patent applications covering the LymphGen algorithm (a genetic predictor tool) and covering the use of BTK inhibitors in genetic subtypes of DLBCL. The Phoenix trial received support from Janssen Global Services.
, compared with R-CHOP alone, new research shows.
The findings, published Nov. 4, 2021, in Cancer Cell, come from a subanalysis of the phase 3 Phoenix trial. They show that patients with DLBCL aged 60 and younger with either the MCD or N1 genetic subtype had 3-year event-free survival rates as high as 100% when treated with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP, whereas with R-CHOP chemotherapy alone, the survival rates were approximately half of that rate.
“A 100% 3-year event-free survival is almost unheard-of in DLBCL and speaks to the intense dependency of these subtypes to constitutive B cell receptor signaling and their vulnerability to ibrutinib,” first author Louis M. Staudt, MD, of the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.
“By contrast, in ABC DLBCL, the addition of ibrutinib to R-CHOP increased event-free survival by 12.4% to 76.9% in younger patients,” Dr. Staudt said.
ABC, along with GCB and unclassified, are among three key genetic classifications of DLBCL, which is the most common type of lymphoma. While previous studies have shown the Bruton kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induce very low responses among those with the GCB type, favorable responses are seen with the ABC type, of which MCD and N1 are genetic subtypes.
For the Phoenix trial, 838 previously untreated DLBCL patients of the ABC subtype were randomized to ibrutinib (560 mg per day, orally) or placebo plus R-CHOP, in a 21-day cycle for 6 or 8 cycles.
In the overall population, the study failed to achieve its primary survival endpoint of improved survival with ibrutinib. However, a subset analysis stratifying patients by age revealed significant event-free, progression-free, and overall survival benefits with ibrutinib among patients aged 60 and under, with manageable safety. Unexpectedly, this treatment was associated with a worsening of survival outcomes among patients over 60, due to toxicities.
In the new subanalysis, focusing on patients aged 60 and under, Dr. Staudt and his colleagues found that those with the MCD subtype of ABC DLBCL (n = 31) who were treated with ibrutinib had 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates as high as 100% each, while these rates were significantly lower with R-CHOP alone (48%; P = .01, and 69.6%; P = .032, respectively).
Likewise, among younger patients with the N1 subtype (n = 13), the addition of ibrutinib was associated 3-year event-free and overall survival of 100%, while the R-CHOP alone patients had a significantly lower event-free- (50%; P = .0161) and overall survival (50%; P = .0134).
In the study in general, younger patients who were neither MCD nor N1 also showed better responses with ibrutinib versus placebo; however, the effects were not as strong as those with the MCD and N1 genetic subtypes.
Older patients over 60 showed no benefit from ibrutinib, regardless of their genetic subtype. And benefits were not observed in younger patients with BN2 DLBCL (n = 21), another ABC subtype.
The results are important – despite being secondary endpoints, Dr. Staudt emphasized.
“The automatic assumption regarding secondary endpoints is that any positive findings might have occurred by chance. In the present study, we show that this is not the case.”
“Rather, two previously defined genetic subtypes of DLBCL had an exceptional benefit from ibrutinib,” he said.
“Our study provides strong biological support for the view that the original Phoenix trial should be viewed as a positive trial for younger patients (under 60) with non-GCB DLBCL,” Dr. Staudt said.
While the responses to ibrutinib among younger ABC patients in general were not as robust as with the MCD and N1 subtypes, those improvements nevertheless suggest important benefit with the added treatment, he noted.
“Overall, MCD and N1 constitute roughly 10% of DLBCLs; however, our conclusion is that ibrutinib should be considered in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL, which constitutes roughly 43% of all DLBCLs,” he said.
Dr. Staudt and other authors are inventors on NIH patent applications covering the LymphGen algorithm (a genetic predictor tool) and covering the use of BTK inhibitors in genetic subtypes of DLBCL. The Phoenix trial received support from Janssen Global Services.
, compared with R-CHOP alone, new research shows.
The findings, published Nov. 4, 2021, in Cancer Cell, come from a subanalysis of the phase 3 Phoenix trial. They show that patients with DLBCL aged 60 and younger with either the MCD or N1 genetic subtype had 3-year event-free survival rates as high as 100% when treated with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP, whereas with R-CHOP chemotherapy alone, the survival rates were approximately half of that rate.
“A 100% 3-year event-free survival is almost unheard-of in DLBCL and speaks to the intense dependency of these subtypes to constitutive B cell receptor signaling and their vulnerability to ibrutinib,” first author Louis M. Staudt, MD, of the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.
“By contrast, in ABC DLBCL, the addition of ibrutinib to R-CHOP increased event-free survival by 12.4% to 76.9% in younger patients,” Dr. Staudt said.
ABC, along with GCB and unclassified, are among three key genetic classifications of DLBCL, which is the most common type of lymphoma. While previous studies have shown the Bruton kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induce very low responses among those with the GCB type, favorable responses are seen with the ABC type, of which MCD and N1 are genetic subtypes.
For the Phoenix trial, 838 previously untreated DLBCL patients of the ABC subtype were randomized to ibrutinib (560 mg per day, orally) or placebo plus R-CHOP, in a 21-day cycle for 6 or 8 cycles.
In the overall population, the study failed to achieve its primary survival endpoint of improved survival with ibrutinib. However, a subset analysis stratifying patients by age revealed significant event-free, progression-free, and overall survival benefits with ibrutinib among patients aged 60 and under, with manageable safety. Unexpectedly, this treatment was associated with a worsening of survival outcomes among patients over 60, due to toxicities.
In the new subanalysis, focusing on patients aged 60 and under, Dr. Staudt and his colleagues found that those with the MCD subtype of ABC DLBCL (n = 31) who were treated with ibrutinib had 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates as high as 100% each, while these rates were significantly lower with R-CHOP alone (48%; P = .01, and 69.6%; P = .032, respectively).
Likewise, among younger patients with the N1 subtype (n = 13), the addition of ibrutinib was associated 3-year event-free and overall survival of 100%, while the R-CHOP alone patients had a significantly lower event-free- (50%; P = .0161) and overall survival (50%; P = .0134).
In the study in general, younger patients who were neither MCD nor N1 also showed better responses with ibrutinib versus placebo; however, the effects were not as strong as those with the MCD and N1 genetic subtypes.
Older patients over 60 showed no benefit from ibrutinib, regardless of their genetic subtype. And benefits were not observed in younger patients with BN2 DLBCL (n = 21), another ABC subtype.
The results are important – despite being secondary endpoints, Dr. Staudt emphasized.
“The automatic assumption regarding secondary endpoints is that any positive findings might have occurred by chance. In the present study, we show that this is not the case.”
“Rather, two previously defined genetic subtypes of DLBCL had an exceptional benefit from ibrutinib,” he said.
“Our study provides strong biological support for the view that the original Phoenix trial should be viewed as a positive trial for younger patients (under 60) with non-GCB DLBCL,” Dr. Staudt said.
While the responses to ibrutinib among younger ABC patients in general were not as robust as with the MCD and N1 subtypes, those improvements nevertheless suggest important benefit with the added treatment, he noted.
“Overall, MCD and N1 constitute roughly 10% of DLBCLs; however, our conclusion is that ibrutinib should be considered in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL, which constitutes roughly 43% of all DLBCLs,” he said.
Dr. Staudt and other authors are inventors on NIH patent applications covering the LymphGen algorithm (a genetic predictor tool) and covering the use of BTK inhibitors in genetic subtypes of DLBCL. The Phoenix trial received support from Janssen Global Services.
FROM CANCER CELL
Easing access to DLBCL treatments: Patient study reveals racial differences
, but other “multifaceted and personalized” strategies are also needed, a new study shows.
The findings, from a survey focused on patients’ willingness to travel for treatment, offer valuable insights on DLBCL patients’ perspectives and care needs, and on racial and sociodemographic variations among their perspectives and needs, the investigators said.
Treatment decision factors
They used a choice-based conjoint analysis to assess the relative value that 302 patients with DLBCL place on clinical factors, continuity of care, and travel time. Patients were asked to select treatment plans, choosing between pairs of hypothetical options that varied in travel time, follow-up arrangement, oncologist continuity, 2-year overall survival, and intensive care unit admission rate, the authors explained.
When all follow-up care in the hypothetical scenario was provided at the treatment center, plans requiring travel time of longer than 30 minutes were less attractive, Zachary A. K. Frosch, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Importance weights, when compared with 30-minute travel time, were –0.54, –0.57, and –0.17 for 60, 90, and 120 minute travel time, they found.
However, scenarios involving shared follow-up by the treatment center and patients’ local providers mitigated the negative impact of travel on treatment plan choice, they noted (importance weights, 0.63, 0.32, and 0.26 at 60, 90, and 120-minute travel times).
Importantly, an analysis of responses based on sociodemographic factors showed that Black participants were less likely to choose plans requiring longer travel, regardless of follow-up arrangement, the authors said.
“Black patients were also less likely than White patients to choose treatment plans that offered lower continuity with their current oncologist (importance weights, 2.50 to vs. 1.09, respectively),” they wrote.
Further, when making choices that required trade-offs, treatment efficacy was a weaker driver of treatment plan preferences for Black patient than for White patients (importance weights, 0.34 vs. 0.75 per 5% point increase in overall survival, respectively).
Why the findings matter
“Certain cancer treatments aren’t offered everywhere. Examples of this are the bone marrow transplants and [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] therapies used to treat patients with blood cancers such as lymphoma,” Dr. Frosch said in an interview, adding that the limited geographic availability of these treatments means that patients who need them may have to travel farther and also to establish care with a new oncologist.
“These are both things that some patients may be reluctant to do,” added Dr. Frosch, who was with the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, at the time of the study, but is now assistant professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
“We wanted to better understand how patients think about these trade-offs,” he said. “We found that they were less likely to choose treatments requiring more travel, or treatments that required them to transfer care to a new oncologist. This was the case, even if it meant choosing a treatment that might be less effective against their cancer. But when patients were offered a chance to have half of their follow-up appointments locally, travel was less of a barrier.”
Importantly, not all participants valued each aspect of treatments equally, Dr. Frosch noted, referencing the responses of Black versus White patients.
He and his colleagues stressed that while collaborative follow-up may ease access to more distant treatments for some patients, the lesser willingness among Black participants to travel for cancer therapy – regardless of follow-up arrangement – means that attention must be paid to unintended consequences, to avoid worsening the existing disparities in access to cellular therapies.
These data represent a step toward better understanding of how patients considering whether or not to travel for specialized cancer care weigh trade-offs, he said.
“However, we need to dig deeper into the issues we uncovered in future research, he added. “Our findings suggest that collaborative follow-up between the hospitals that offer these treatments and the oncologists in patients’ own communities could improve access to specialized cancer treatments. But I also think it’s important to understand that this may not be the solution for everyone, and so multiple and individualized strategies are going to be needed.”
Personalized treatment strategies
The findings provide important perspective on the need to address patients’ concerns and circumstances to improve access to cellular therapies, said Ankit Kansagra, MD, the Eugene P. Frenkel, M.D. Scholar in Clinical Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The unique focus by Dr. Frosch and his associates on the patient perspective versus the health care system perspective underscores the need to be patient-focused, and serves as a reminder that different strategies are needed for different patients, Dr. Kansagra, who has also conducted research on access to CAR T therapies, said in an interview.
For some patients, a shared model of care is much more important than a 5% improvement in survival, he said, adding that providers shouldn’t assume that they understand a patient’s perspective.
Devising hybrid solutions that take community and individual needs into consideration would be preferable to seeking one national solution for care access, he added.
“It’s also pretty clear from this that it can be a shared model versus just an academic center or community center doing everything,” he said. “I think that’s going to be the next frontier – [determining] how we can hand over a patient, once CAR T is done, back to the community oncologist so he or she can continue following the patient and knows the survivorship plan – and keeping that model in place.”
Next steps
Further work is needed to determine the mechanisms driving the differences observed between Black and White patients in this study, the authors said, explaining that “[a]lthough the differences observed by race may reflect structural racism-driven access inequities, the relatively small subsample of Black patients and model complexity constraints limited our ability to analyze multiple factors.
“A prospective validation study to demonstrate the association of stated preferences with real-world decisions would further support our findings,” they wrote.
Dr. Frosch reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kansagra is on advisory boards for Alnylam, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cota Healthcare, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Takeda.
, but other “multifaceted and personalized” strategies are also needed, a new study shows.
The findings, from a survey focused on patients’ willingness to travel for treatment, offer valuable insights on DLBCL patients’ perspectives and care needs, and on racial and sociodemographic variations among their perspectives and needs, the investigators said.
Treatment decision factors
They used a choice-based conjoint analysis to assess the relative value that 302 patients with DLBCL place on clinical factors, continuity of care, and travel time. Patients were asked to select treatment plans, choosing between pairs of hypothetical options that varied in travel time, follow-up arrangement, oncologist continuity, 2-year overall survival, and intensive care unit admission rate, the authors explained.
When all follow-up care in the hypothetical scenario was provided at the treatment center, plans requiring travel time of longer than 30 minutes were less attractive, Zachary A. K. Frosch, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Importance weights, when compared with 30-minute travel time, were –0.54, –0.57, and –0.17 for 60, 90, and 120 minute travel time, they found.
However, scenarios involving shared follow-up by the treatment center and patients’ local providers mitigated the negative impact of travel on treatment plan choice, they noted (importance weights, 0.63, 0.32, and 0.26 at 60, 90, and 120-minute travel times).
Importantly, an analysis of responses based on sociodemographic factors showed that Black participants were less likely to choose plans requiring longer travel, regardless of follow-up arrangement, the authors said.
“Black patients were also less likely than White patients to choose treatment plans that offered lower continuity with their current oncologist (importance weights, 2.50 to vs. 1.09, respectively),” they wrote.
Further, when making choices that required trade-offs, treatment efficacy was a weaker driver of treatment plan preferences for Black patient than for White patients (importance weights, 0.34 vs. 0.75 per 5% point increase in overall survival, respectively).
Why the findings matter
“Certain cancer treatments aren’t offered everywhere. Examples of this are the bone marrow transplants and [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] therapies used to treat patients with blood cancers such as lymphoma,” Dr. Frosch said in an interview, adding that the limited geographic availability of these treatments means that patients who need them may have to travel farther and also to establish care with a new oncologist.
“These are both things that some patients may be reluctant to do,” added Dr. Frosch, who was with the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, at the time of the study, but is now assistant professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
“We wanted to better understand how patients think about these trade-offs,” he said. “We found that they were less likely to choose treatments requiring more travel, or treatments that required them to transfer care to a new oncologist. This was the case, even if it meant choosing a treatment that might be less effective against their cancer. But when patients were offered a chance to have half of their follow-up appointments locally, travel was less of a barrier.”
Importantly, not all participants valued each aspect of treatments equally, Dr. Frosch noted, referencing the responses of Black versus White patients.
He and his colleagues stressed that while collaborative follow-up may ease access to more distant treatments for some patients, the lesser willingness among Black participants to travel for cancer therapy – regardless of follow-up arrangement – means that attention must be paid to unintended consequences, to avoid worsening the existing disparities in access to cellular therapies.
These data represent a step toward better understanding of how patients considering whether or not to travel for specialized cancer care weigh trade-offs, he said.
“However, we need to dig deeper into the issues we uncovered in future research, he added. “Our findings suggest that collaborative follow-up between the hospitals that offer these treatments and the oncologists in patients’ own communities could improve access to specialized cancer treatments. But I also think it’s important to understand that this may not be the solution for everyone, and so multiple and individualized strategies are going to be needed.”
Personalized treatment strategies
The findings provide important perspective on the need to address patients’ concerns and circumstances to improve access to cellular therapies, said Ankit Kansagra, MD, the Eugene P. Frenkel, M.D. Scholar in Clinical Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The unique focus by Dr. Frosch and his associates on the patient perspective versus the health care system perspective underscores the need to be patient-focused, and serves as a reminder that different strategies are needed for different patients, Dr. Kansagra, who has also conducted research on access to CAR T therapies, said in an interview.
For some patients, a shared model of care is much more important than a 5% improvement in survival, he said, adding that providers shouldn’t assume that they understand a patient’s perspective.
Devising hybrid solutions that take community and individual needs into consideration would be preferable to seeking one national solution for care access, he added.
“It’s also pretty clear from this that it can be a shared model versus just an academic center or community center doing everything,” he said. “I think that’s going to be the next frontier – [determining] how we can hand over a patient, once CAR T is done, back to the community oncologist so he or she can continue following the patient and knows the survivorship plan – and keeping that model in place.”
Next steps
Further work is needed to determine the mechanisms driving the differences observed between Black and White patients in this study, the authors said, explaining that “[a]lthough the differences observed by race may reflect structural racism-driven access inequities, the relatively small subsample of Black patients and model complexity constraints limited our ability to analyze multiple factors.
“A prospective validation study to demonstrate the association of stated preferences with real-world decisions would further support our findings,” they wrote.
Dr. Frosch reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kansagra is on advisory boards for Alnylam, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cota Healthcare, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Takeda.
, but other “multifaceted and personalized” strategies are also needed, a new study shows.
The findings, from a survey focused on patients’ willingness to travel for treatment, offer valuable insights on DLBCL patients’ perspectives and care needs, and on racial and sociodemographic variations among their perspectives and needs, the investigators said.
Treatment decision factors
They used a choice-based conjoint analysis to assess the relative value that 302 patients with DLBCL place on clinical factors, continuity of care, and travel time. Patients were asked to select treatment plans, choosing between pairs of hypothetical options that varied in travel time, follow-up arrangement, oncologist continuity, 2-year overall survival, and intensive care unit admission rate, the authors explained.
When all follow-up care in the hypothetical scenario was provided at the treatment center, plans requiring travel time of longer than 30 minutes were less attractive, Zachary A. K. Frosch, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Importance weights, when compared with 30-minute travel time, were –0.54, –0.57, and –0.17 for 60, 90, and 120 minute travel time, they found.
However, scenarios involving shared follow-up by the treatment center and patients’ local providers mitigated the negative impact of travel on treatment plan choice, they noted (importance weights, 0.63, 0.32, and 0.26 at 60, 90, and 120-minute travel times).
Importantly, an analysis of responses based on sociodemographic factors showed that Black participants were less likely to choose plans requiring longer travel, regardless of follow-up arrangement, the authors said.
“Black patients were also less likely than White patients to choose treatment plans that offered lower continuity with their current oncologist (importance weights, 2.50 to vs. 1.09, respectively),” they wrote.
Further, when making choices that required trade-offs, treatment efficacy was a weaker driver of treatment plan preferences for Black patient than for White patients (importance weights, 0.34 vs. 0.75 per 5% point increase in overall survival, respectively).
Why the findings matter
“Certain cancer treatments aren’t offered everywhere. Examples of this are the bone marrow transplants and [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] therapies used to treat patients with blood cancers such as lymphoma,” Dr. Frosch said in an interview, adding that the limited geographic availability of these treatments means that patients who need them may have to travel farther and also to establish care with a new oncologist.
“These are both things that some patients may be reluctant to do,” added Dr. Frosch, who was with the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, at the time of the study, but is now assistant professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
“We wanted to better understand how patients think about these trade-offs,” he said. “We found that they were less likely to choose treatments requiring more travel, or treatments that required them to transfer care to a new oncologist. This was the case, even if it meant choosing a treatment that might be less effective against their cancer. But when patients were offered a chance to have half of their follow-up appointments locally, travel was less of a barrier.”
Importantly, not all participants valued each aspect of treatments equally, Dr. Frosch noted, referencing the responses of Black versus White patients.
He and his colleagues stressed that while collaborative follow-up may ease access to more distant treatments for some patients, the lesser willingness among Black participants to travel for cancer therapy – regardless of follow-up arrangement – means that attention must be paid to unintended consequences, to avoid worsening the existing disparities in access to cellular therapies.
These data represent a step toward better understanding of how patients considering whether or not to travel for specialized cancer care weigh trade-offs, he said.
“However, we need to dig deeper into the issues we uncovered in future research, he added. “Our findings suggest that collaborative follow-up between the hospitals that offer these treatments and the oncologists in patients’ own communities could improve access to specialized cancer treatments. But I also think it’s important to understand that this may not be the solution for everyone, and so multiple and individualized strategies are going to be needed.”
Personalized treatment strategies
The findings provide important perspective on the need to address patients’ concerns and circumstances to improve access to cellular therapies, said Ankit Kansagra, MD, the Eugene P. Frenkel, M.D. Scholar in Clinical Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The unique focus by Dr. Frosch and his associates on the patient perspective versus the health care system perspective underscores the need to be patient-focused, and serves as a reminder that different strategies are needed for different patients, Dr. Kansagra, who has also conducted research on access to CAR T therapies, said in an interview.
For some patients, a shared model of care is much more important than a 5% improvement in survival, he said, adding that providers shouldn’t assume that they understand a patient’s perspective.
Devising hybrid solutions that take community and individual needs into consideration would be preferable to seeking one national solution for care access, he added.
“It’s also pretty clear from this that it can be a shared model versus just an academic center or community center doing everything,” he said. “I think that’s going to be the next frontier – [determining] how we can hand over a patient, once CAR T is done, back to the community oncologist so he or she can continue following the patient and knows the survivorship plan – and keeping that model in place.”
Next steps
Further work is needed to determine the mechanisms driving the differences observed between Black and White patients in this study, the authors said, explaining that “[a]lthough the differences observed by race may reflect structural racism-driven access inequities, the relatively small subsample of Black patients and model complexity constraints limited our ability to analyze multiple factors.
“A prospective validation study to demonstrate the association of stated preferences with real-world decisions would further support our findings,” they wrote.
Dr. Frosch reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kansagra is on advisory boards for Alnylam, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cota Healthcare, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Takeda.
FROM JCO
New trials in lymphoma and MM: Could your patient benefit?
A number of late-phase clinical trials in lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled?
Untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma
Adult patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma who have received no therapy except corticosteroids are invited to join a phase 2 study testing duvelisib (Copiktra) added to usual chemotherapy. Duvelisib is currently used in relapsed/refractory patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) or follicular lymphoma; this study explores first-line use in a different type of lymphoma, so it may be a potential new indication for the drug. All participants will receive a 5-month chemotherapy regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (Adriamycin, Rubex), vincristine (Oncovin), prednisone, and etoposide (VePesid). One group will also take oral azacitidine (Vidaza) while the third (experimental) group has oral duvelisib. The primary outcome is complete remission rate; overall survival (OS) is a secondary outcome. Quality of life (QoL) is not measured apart from mood and fatigue. The study opened at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on July 30 for up to 170 participants.
Untreated CLL/SLL
Patients with CLL/SLL, no 17p deletions, and no prior systemic therapy can join a phase 3 study of pirtobrutinib, an investigational oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. Pirtobrutinib targets Bruton's tyrosine kinase, an intracellular signaler that is crucial to the proliferation and survival of leukemic cells. The trial will involve treatment for up to 5 years, with either oral pirtobrutinib or a standard combination of intravenous bendamustine (Treakisym, Treanda, Ribomustin) and rituximab (Ruxience, Riabni, Truxima, Rituxan, MabThera). Investigators at the study site, the California Research Institute in Los Angeles, started recruiting on Sept. 23 hoping for 250 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome, OS is a secondary measure, and QoL will not be tracked.
Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after one line of therapy
Adult patients who have CD20-positive follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3A) who have received at least one prior systemic lymphoma therapy can join a phase 3 trial of investigational drug mosunetuzumab combined with lenalidomide (Revlimid, Linamide). Participants in the mosunetuzumab group will be treated with the drug combo for approximately 1 year then followed for 8 years. People in the comparator group will receive a rituximab-lenalidomide combination instead. The trial planned to start enrolling on Oct. 31, looking for a total of 400 people in 144 study locations worldwide, including in nine U.S. states. The primary outcome is progression-free survival. OS is a secondary outcome and, apart from fatigue, QoL parameters will not be assessed.
Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two lines of therapy
Adults with follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3A) despite two or more treatment regimens, including at least one anti-CD20 therapy, are eligible for a phase 2 study of loncastuximab tesirine (Zynlonta). The drug already has an FDA accelerated approval this year for a different lymphoma, relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, so this could be a new indication. In this trial, it will be compared with idelalisib (Zydelig), which is already approved for follicular lymphoma. Participants will get either an infusion of loncastuximab every 3 weeks or a twice-daily tablet of idelalisib for up to 30 months. Investigators started recruiting on Oct. 30 and hope for 150 participants in Nevada and New Jersey. Complete response rate is the primary outcome. OS and QoL are secondary outcome measures.
Untreated multiple myeloma not eligible for autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)
Adults with untreated multiple myeloma who are not eligible for stem-cell transplantation are sought for a phase 2 study testing the performance of selinexor (Xpovio) plus dexamethasone. (Prior treatment with emergency steroids and radiation therapy is allowed.) Selinexor plus dexamethasone was approved in 2019 for multiple myeloma after four prior therapies; the goal of this study is to assess its performance as frontline treatment. Participants will receive oral selinexor and dexamethasone for up to 3 years in addition to subcutaneous daratumumab (Darzalex) and capsules of lenalidomide. The study opened Sept. 10, aiming for 100 participants at sites in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. OS is a secondary outcome measure; QoL will not be assessed.
Newly diagnosed multiple myeloma where ASCT not planned
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not having ASCT as initial therapy are eligible for a phase 3 study of the investigational CAR T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). This product targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is expressed on the surface of mature B lymphocytes and malignant plasma cells; it is in late-stage clinical trials for multiple myeloma but has not yet been approved. In this study, the control-group participants will receive standard therapy for up to approximately 4 years - a regimen of bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Patients destined for cilta-cel will undergo apheresis to garner their T cells, which will then be genetically engineered to express the synthetic antigen receptor, duplicated, and re-infused. During the 6-month wait between apheresis and the cilta-cel infusion, the CAR T patients will receive similar treatment to the control group. Recruitment started for 650 patients across 12 U.S. states and 24 countries on August 19. The primary outcome is progression-free survival. OS and QoL are secondary measures and will be tracked for approximately 12 years.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
A number of late-phase clinical trials in lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled?
Untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma
Adult patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma who have received no therapy except corticosteroids are invited to join a phase 2 study testing duvelisib (Copiktra) added to usual chemotherapy. Duvelisib is currently used in relapsed/refractory patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) or follicular lymphoma; this study explores first-line use in a different type of lymphoma, so it may be a potential new indication for the drug. All participants will receive a 5-month chemotherapy regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (Adriamycin, Rubex), vincristine (Oncovin), prednisone, and etoposide (VePesid). One group will also take oral azacitidine (Vidaza) while the third (experimental) group has oral duvelisib. The primary outcome is complete remission rate; overall survival (OS) is a secondary outcome. Quality of life (QoL) is not measured apart from mood and fatigue. The study opened at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on July 30 for up to 170 participants.
Untreated CLL/SLL
Patients with CLL/SLL, no 17p deletions, and no prior systemic therapy can join a phase 3 study of pirtobrutinib, an investigational oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. Pirtobrutinib targets Bruton's tyrosine kinase, an intracellular signaler that is crucial to the proliferation and survival of leukemic cells. The trial will involve treatment for up to 5 years, with either oral pirtobrutinib or a standard combination of intravenous bendamustine (Treakisym, Treanda, Ribomustin) and rituximab (Ruxience, Riabni, Truxima, Rituxan, MabThera). Investigators at the study site, the California Research Institute in Los Angeles, started recruiting on Sept. 23 hoping for 250 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome, OS is a secondary measure, and QoL will not be tracked.
Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after one line of therapy
Adult patients who have CD20-positive follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3A) who have received at least one prior systemic lymphoma therapy can join a phase 3 trial of investigational drug mosunetuzumab combined with lenalidomide (Revlimid, Linamide). Participants in the mosunetuzumab group will be treated with the drug combo for approximately 1 year then followed for 8 years. People in the comparator group will receive a rituximab-lenalidomide combination instead. The trial planned to start enrolling on Oct. 31, looking for a total of 400 people in 144 study locations worldwide, including in nine U.S. states. The primary outcome is progression-free survival. OS is a secondary outcome and, apart from fatigue, QoL parameters will not be assessed.
Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two lines of therapy
Adults with follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3A) despite two or more treatment regimens, including at least one anti-CD20 therapy, are eligible for a phase 2 study of loncastuximab tesirine (Zynlonta). The drug already has an FDA accelerated approval this year for a different lymphoma, relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, so this could be a new indication. In this trial, it will be compared with idelalisib (Zydelig), which is already approved for follicular lymphoma. Participants will get either an infusion of loncastuximab every 3 weeks or a twice-daily tablet of idelalisib for up to 30 months. Investigators started recruiting on Oct. 30 and hope for 150 participants in Nevada and New Jersey. Complete response rate is the primary outcome. OS and QoL are secondary outcome measures.
Untreated multiple myeloma not eligible for autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)
Adults with untreated multiple myeloma who are not eligible for stem-cell transplantation are sought for a phase 2 study testing the performance of selinexor (Xpovio) plus dexamethasone. (Prior treatment with emergency steroids and radiation therapy is allowed.) Selinexor plus dexamethasone was approved in 2019 for multiple myeloma after four prior therapies; the goal of this study is to assess its performance as frontline treatment. Participants will receive oral selinexor and dexamethasone for up to 3 years in addition to subcutaneous daratumumab (Darzalex) and capsules of lenalidomide. The study opened Sept. 10, aiming for 100 participants at sites in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. OS is a secondary outcome measure; QoL will not be assessed.
Newly diagnosed multiple myeloma where ASCT not planned
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not having ASCT as initial therapy are eligible for a phase 3 study of the investigational CAR T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). This product targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is expressed on the surface of mature B lymphocytes and malignant plasma cells; it is in late-stage clinical trials for multiple myeloma but has not yet been approved. In this study, the control-group participants will receive standard therapy for up to approximately 4 years - a regimen of bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Patients destined for cilta-cel will undergo apheresis to garner their T cells, which will then be genetically engineered to express the synthetic antigen receptor, duplicated, and re-infused. During the 6-month wait between apheresis and the cilta-cel infusion, the CAR T patients will receive similar treatment to the control group. Recruitment started for 650 patients across 12 U.S. states and 24 countries on August 19. The primary outcome is progression-free survival. OS and QoL are secondary measures and will be tracked for approximately 12 years.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
A number of late-phase clinical trials in lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled?
Untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma
Adult patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma who have received no therapy except corticosteroids are invited to join a phase 2 study testing duvelisib (Copiktra) added to usual chemotherapy. Duvelisib is currently used in relapsed/refractory patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) or follicular lymphoma; this study explores first-line use in a different type of lymphoma, so it may be a potential new indication for the drug. All participants will receive a 5-month chemotherapy regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (Adriamycin, Rubex), vincristine (Oncovin), prednisone, and etoposide (VePesid). One group will also take oral azacitidine (Vidaza) while the third (experimental) group has oral duvelisib. The primary outcome is complete remission rate; overall survival (OS) is a secondary outcome. Quality of life (QoL) is not measured apart from mood and fatigue. The study opened at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on July 30 for up to 170 participants.
Untreated CLL/SLL
Patients with CLL/SLL, no 17p deletions, and no prior systemic therapy can join a phase 3 study of pirtobrutinib, an investigational oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. Pirtobrutinib targets Bruton's tyrosine kinase, an intracellular signaler that is crucial to the proliferation and survival of leukemic cells. The trial will involve treatment for up to 5 years, with either oral pirtobrutinib or a standard combination of intravenous bendamustine (Treakisym, Treanda, Ribomustin) and rituximab (Ruxience, Riabni, Truxima, Rituxan, MabThera). Investigators at the study site, the California Research Institute in Los Angeles, started recruiting on Sept. 23 hoping for 250 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome, OS is a secondary measure, and QoL will not be tracked.
Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after one line of therapy
Adult patients who have CD20-positive follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3A) who have received at least one prior systemic lymphoma therapy can join a phase 3 trial of investigational drug mosunetuzumab combined with lenalidomide (Revlimid, Linamide). Participants in the mosunetuzumab group will be treated with the drug combo for approximately 1 year then followed for 8 years. People in the comparator group will receive a rituximab-lenalidomide combination instead. The trial planned to start enrolling on Oct. 31, looking for a total of 400 people in 144 study locations worldwide, including in nine U.S. states. The primary outcome is progression-free survival. OS is a secondary outcome and, apart from fatigue, QoL parameters will not be assessed.
Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two lines of therapy
Adults with follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3A) despite two or more treatment regimens, including at least one anti-CD20 therapy, are eligible for a phase 2 study of loncastuximab tesirine (Zynlonta). The drug already has an FDA accelerated approval this year for a different lymphoma, relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, so this could be a new indication. In this trial, it will be compared with idelalisib (Zydelig), which is already approved for follicular lymphoma. Participants will get either an infusion of loncastuximab every 3 weeks or a twice-daily tablet of idelalisib for up to 30 months. Investigators started recruiting on Oct. 30 and hope for 150 participants in Nevada and New Jersey. Complete response rate is the primary outcome. OS and QoL are secondary outcome measures.
Untreated multiple myeloma not eligible for autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)
Adults with untreated multiple myeloma who are not eligible for stem-cell transplantation are sought for a phase 2 study testing the performance of selinexor (Xpovio) plus dexamethasone. (Prior treatment with emergency steroids and radiation therapy is allowed.) Selinexor plus dexamethasone was approved in 2019 for multiple myeloma after four prior therapies; the goal of this study is to assess its performance as frontline treatment. Participants will receive oral selinexor and dexamethasone for up to 3 years in addition to subcutaneous daratumumab (Darzalex) and capsules of lenalidomide. The study opened Sept. 10, aiming for 100 participants at sites in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. OS is a secondary outcome measure; QoL will not be assessed.
Newly diagnosed multiple myeloma where ASCT not planned
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not having ASCT as initial therapy are eligible for a phase 3 study of the investigational CAR T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). This product targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is expressed on the surface of mature B lymphocytes and malignant plasma cells; it is in late-stage clinical trials for multiple myeloma but has not yet been approved. In this study, the control-group participants will receive standard therapy for up to approximately 4 years - a regimen of bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Patients destined for cilta-cel will undergo apheresis to garner their T cells, which will then be genetically engineered to express the synthetic antigen receptor, duplicated, and re-infused. During the 6-month wait between apheresis and the cilta-cel infusion, the CAR T patients will receive similar treatment to the control group. Recruitment started for 650 patients across 12 U.S. states and 24 countries on August 19. The primary outcome is progression-free survival. OS and QoL are secondary measures and will be tracked for approximately 12 years.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
On improving DLBCL outcomes, single-agent regimens fall short
, a review of the relevant literature suggests.
“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.
Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.
The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”
The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.
“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.
The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:
–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.
In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.
–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.
Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.
Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.
Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”
Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.
“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.
Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.
–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.
In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.
The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.
“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.
In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.
“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”
Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.
For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.
This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.
, a review of the relevant literature suggests.
“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.
Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.
The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”
The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.
“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.
The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:
–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.
In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.
–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.
Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.
Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.
Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”
Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.
“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.
Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.
–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.
In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.
The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.
“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.
In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.
“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”
Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.
For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.
This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.
, a review of the relevant literature suggests.
“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.
Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.
The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”
The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.
“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.
The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:
–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.
In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.
–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.
Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.
Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.
Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”
Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.
“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.
Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.
–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.
In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.
The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.
“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.
In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.
“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”
Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.
For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.
This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM BLOOD