User login
CLL: Black patients die sooner than Whites
The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”
As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.
According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”
Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.
The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.
Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).
“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”
Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).
What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.
“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.
She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”
There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.
Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.
The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”
Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”
No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”
As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.
According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”
Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.
The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.
Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).
“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”
Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).
What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.
“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.
She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”
There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.
Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.
The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”
Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”
No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”
As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.
According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”
Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.
The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.
Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).
“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”
Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).
What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.
“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.
She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”
There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.
Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.
The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”
Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”
No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
Some decisions aren’t right or wrong; they’re just devastating
There is one situation, while not common, that is often among the most difficult for me: the person who must be told at diagnosis that they are already dying. I am still reminded of a patient I saw early in my career.
A woman in her 40s was admitted to the hospital complaining of severe shortness of breath. In retrospect, she had been sick for months. She had not sought help because she was young and thought it would pass – the results of a “bad bug” that she just couldn’t shake.
But in the past few weeks, the persistence of symptoms became associated with weight loss, profound fatigue, loss of appetite, and nausea.
By the time she was hospitalized she was emaciated, though she appeared pregnant – a sign of the fluid that had built up in her abdomen. Imaging showed that her abdomen was filled with disease (carcinomatosis) and her liver and lungs were nearly replaced with metastatic disease.
A biopsy revealed an aggressive cancer that had no identifying histologic marker: carcinoma, not otherwise specified, or cancer of unknown primary.
I still remember seeing her. She had a deer-in-headlights stare that held me as I approached. I introduced myself and sat down so we were eye to eye.
“Tell me what you know,” I said.
“I know I have cancer and they don’t know where it started. I know surgery is not an option and that’s why they’ve asked you to come. Whatever. I’m ready. I want to fight this because I know I can beat it,” she said.
I remember that she looked very sick; her thin face and arms contrasted with her large, distended abdomen. Her breathing was labored, her skin almost gray. For a moment I didn’t know what to say.
As doctors, we like to believe that our decisions are guided by data: the randomized trials and meta-analyses that set standards of care; phase 2 trials that establish evidence (or lack thereof) of activity; case-control studies that suggest the impacts of treatment; and at the very least, case studies that document that “N of 1” experience. We have expert panels and pathways that lay out what treatments we should be using to help ensure access to quality care in every clinic on every corner of every cancer center in the United States.
These data and pathways tell us objectively what we can expect from therapy, who is at most risk for toxicities, and profiles of patients for whom treatment is not likely to be of benefit. In an ideal world, this objectivity would help us help people decide on an approach. But life is not objective, and sometimes individualizing care is as important as data.
In this scenario, I knew only one thing: She was dying. She had an overwhelming tumor burden. But I still asked myself a question that many in, and outside of, oncology ask themselves: Could she be saved?
This question was made even more difficult because she was young. She had her whole life ahead of her. It seemed incongruous that she would be here now, facing the gravity of her situation.
Looking at her, I saw the person, not a data point in a trial or a statistic in a textbook. She was terrified. And she was not ready to die.
I sat down and reviewed what I knew about her cancer and what I did not know. I went through potential treatments we could try and the toxicities associated with each. I made clear that these treatments, based on how sick she was, could kill her.
“Whatever we do,” I said, “you do not have disease that I can cure.”
She cried then, realizing what a horrible situation she was in and that she would no longer go back to her normal life. Indeed, she seemed to grasp that she was probably facing the end of her life and that it could be short.
“My concern is,” I continued, “that treatment could do the exact opposite of what I hope it would do. It could kill you sooner than this cancer will.”
Instead of making a treatment plan, I decided that it would be best to come back another day, so I said my goodbyes and left. Still, I could not stop thinking about her and what I should suggest as her next steps.
I asked colleagues what they would suggest. Some recommended hospice care, others recommended treatment. Clearly, there was no one way to proceed.
One might wonder: Why is it so hard to do the right thing?
Ask any clinician and I think you will hear the same answer: Because we do not have the luxury of certainty.
Am I certain that this person will not benefit from intubation? Am I certain that she has only weeks to live? Am I sure that there are no treatments that will work?
The answer to these questions is no – I am not certain. It is that uncertainty that always makes me pause because it reminds me of my own humanity.
I stopped by the next day to see her surrounded by family. After some pleasantries I took the opportunity to reiterate much of our conversation from the other day. After some questions, I looked at her and asked if she wanted to talk more about her options. I was prepared to suggest treatment, anticipating that she would want it. Instead, she told me she didn’t want to proceed.
“I feel like I’m dying, and if what you have to give me isn’t going to cure me, then I’d prefer not to suffer while it happens. You said it’s up to me. I don’t want it.”
First, do no harm. It’s one of the tenets of medicine – to provide care that will benefit the people who have trusted us with their lives, whether that be longevity, relief of symptoms, or helping them achieve their last wishes. Throughout one’s life, goals might change but that edict remains the same.
But that can be difficult, especially in oncology and especially when one is not prepared for their own end of life. It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life; it’s easier to focus on the next treatment, instilling hope that there’s more that can be done. And there are people with end-stage cancer who insist on continuing treatment in the same circumstances, preferring to “die fighting” than to “give up.” Involving supportive and palliative care specialists early has helped in both situations, which is certainly a good thing.
We talked a while more and then arranged for our palliative care team to see her. I wish I could say I was at peace with her decision, but I wasn’t. The truth is, whatever she decided would probably have the same impact: I wouldn’t be able to stop thinking about it.
Dr. Dizon is professor of medicine, department of medicine, at Brown University and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence, R.I. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Kazia.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is one situation, while not common, that is often among the most difficult for me: the person who must be told at diagnosis that they are already dying. I am still reminded of a patient I saw early in my career.
A woman in her 40s was admitted to the hospital complaining of severe shortness of breath. In retrospect, she had been sick for months. She had not sought help because she was young and thought it would pass – the results of a “bad bug” that she just couldn’t shake.
But in the past few weeks, the persistence of symptoms became associated with weight loss, profound fatigue, loss of appetite, and nausea.
By the time she was hospitalized she was emaciated, though she appeared pregnant – a sign of the fluid that had built up in her abdomen. Imaging showed that her abdomen was filled with disease (carcinomatosis) and her liver and lungs were nearly replaced with metastatic disease.
A biopsy revealed an aggressive cancer that had no identifying histologic marker: carcinoma, not otherwise specified, or cancer of unknown primary.
I still remember seeing her. She had a deer-in-headlights stare that held me as I approached. I introduced myself and sat down so we were eye to eye.
“Tell me what you know,” I said.
“I know I have cancer and they don’t know where it started. I know surgery is not an option and that’s why they’ve asked you to come. Whatever. I’m ready. I want to fight this because I know I can beat it,” she said.
I remember that she looked very sick; her thin face and arms contrasted with her large, distended abdomen. Her breathing was labored, her skin almost gray. For a moment I didn’t know what to say.
As doctors, we like to believe that our decisions are guided by data: the randomized trials and meta-analyses that set standards of care; phase 2 trials that establish evidence (or lack thereof) of activity; case-control studies that suggest the impacts of treatment; and at the very least, case studies that document that “N of 1” experience. We have expert panels and pathways that lay out what treatments we should be using to help ensure access to quality care in every clinic on every corner of every cancer center in the United States.
These data and pathways tell us objectively what we can expect from therapy, who is at most risk for toxicities, and profiles of patients for whom treatment is not likely to be of benefit. In an ideal world, this objectivity would help us help people decide on an approach. But life is not objective, and sometimes individualizing care is as important as data.
In this scenario, I knew only one thing: She was dying. She had an overwhelming tumor burden. But I still asked myself a question that many in, and outside of, oncology ask themselves: Could she be saved?
This question was made even more difficult because she was young. She had her whole life ahead of her. It seemed incongruous that she would be here now, facing the gravity of her situation.
Looking at her, I saw the person, not a data point in a trial or a statistic in a textbook. She was terrified. And she was not ready to die.
I sat down and reviewed what I knew about her cancer and what I did not know. I went through potential treatments we could try and the toxicities associated with each. I made clear that these treatments, based on how sick she was, could kill her.
“Whatever we do,” I said, “you do not have disease that I can cure.”
She cried then, realizing what a horrible situation she was in and that she would no longer go back to her normal life. Indeed, she seemed to grasp that she was probably facing the end of her life and that it could be short.
“My concern is,” I continued, “that treatment could do the exact opposite of what I hope it would do. It could kill you sooner than this cancer will.”
Instead of making a treatment plan, I decided that it would be best to come back another day, so I said my goodbyes and left. Still, I could not stop thinking about her and what I should suggest as her next steps.
I asked colleagues what they would suggest. Some recommended hospice care, others recommended treatment. Clearly, there was no one way to proceed.
One might wonder: Why is it so hard to do the right thing?
Ask any clinician and I think you will hear the same answer: Because we do not have the luxury of certainty.
Am I certain that this person will not benefit from intubation? Am I certain that she has only weeks to live? Am I sure that there are no treatments that will work?
The answer to these questions is no – I am not certain. It is that uncertainty that always makes me pause because it reminds me of my own humanity.
I stopped by the next day to see her surrounded by family. After some pleasantries I took the opportunity to reiterate much of our conversation from the other day. After some questions, I looked at her and asked if she wanted to talk more about her options. I was prepared to suggest treatment, anticipating that she would want it. Instead, she told me she didn’t want to proceed.
“I feel like I’m dying, and if what you have to give me isn’t going to cure me, then I’d prefer not to suffer while it happens. You said it’s up to me. I don’t want it.”
First, do no harm. It’s one of the tenets of medicine – to provide care that will benefit the people who have trusted us with their lives, whether that be longevity, relief of symptoms, or helping them achieve their last wishes. Throughout one’s life, goals might change but that edict remains the same.
But that can be difficult, especially in oncology and especially when one is not prepared for their own end of life. It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life; it’s easier to focus on the next treatment, instilling hope that there’s more that can be done. And there are people with end-stage cancer who insist on continuing treatment in the same circumstances, preferring to “die fighting” than to “give up.” Involving supportive and palliative care specialists early has helped in both situations, which is certainly a good thing.
We talked a while more and then arranged for our palliative care team to see her. I wish I could say I was at peace with her decision, but I wasn’t. The truth is, whatever she decided would probably have the same impact: I wouldn’t be able to stop thinking about it.
Dr. Dizon is professor of medicine, department of medicine, at Brown University and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence, R.I. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Kazia.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is one situation, while not common, that is often among the most difficult for me: the person who must be told at diagnosis that they are already dying. I am still reminded of a patient I saw early in my career.
A woman in her 40s was admitted to the hospital complaining of severe shortness of breath. In retrospect, she had been sick for months. She had not sought help because she was young and thought it would pass – the results of a “bad bug” that she just couldn’t shake.
But in the past few weeks, the persistence of symptoms became associated with weight loss, profound fatigue, loss of appetite, and nausea.
By the time she was hospitalized she was emaciated, though she appeared pregnant – a sign of the fluid that had built up in her abdomen. Imaging showed that her abdomen was filled with disease (carcinomatosis) and her liver and lungs were nearly replaced with metastatic disease.
A biopsy revealed an aggressive cancer that had no identifying histologic marker: carcinoma, not otherwise specified, or cancer of unknown primary.
I still remember seeing her. She had a deer-in-headlights stare that held me as I approached. I introduced myself and sat down so we were eye to eye.
“Tell me what you know,” I said.
“I know I have cancer and they don’t know where it started. I know surgery is not an option and that’s why they’ve asked you to come. Whatever. I’m ready. I want to fight this because I know I can beat it,” she said.
I remember that she looked very sick; her thin face and arms contrasted with her large, distended abdomen. Her breathing was labored, her skin almost gray. For a moment I didn’t know what to say.
As doctors, we like to believe that our decisions are guided by data: the randomized trials and meta-analyses that set standards of care; phase 2 trials that establish evidence (or lack thereof) of activity; case-control studies that suggest the impacts of treatment; and at the very least, case studies that document that “N of 1” experience. We have expert panels and pathways that lay out what treatments we should be using to help ensure access to quality care in every clinic on every corner of every cancer center in the United States.
These data and pathways tell us objectively what we can expect from therapy, who is at most risk for toxicities, and profiles of patients for whom treatment is not likely to be of benefit. In an ideal world, this objectivity would help us help people decide on an approach. But life is not objective, and sometimes individualizing care is as important as data.
In this scenario, I knew only one thing: She was dying. She had an overwhelming tumor burden. But I still asked myself a question that many in, and outside of, oncology ask themselves: Could she be saved?
This question was made even more difficult because she was young. She had her whole life ahead of her. It seemed incongruous that she would be here now, facing the gravity of her situation.
Looking at her, I saw the person, not a data point in a trial or a statistic in a textbook. She was terrified. And she was not ready to die.
I sat down and reviewed what I knew about her cancer and what I did not know. I went through potential treatments we could try and the toxicities associated with each. I made clear that these treatments, based on how sick she was, could kill her.
“Whatever we do,” I said, “you do not have disease that I can cure.”
She cried then, realizing what a horrible situation she was in and that she would no longer go back to her normal life. Indeed, she seemed to grasp that she was probably facing the end of her life and that it could be short.
“My concern is,” I continued, “that treatment could do the exact opposite of what I hope it would do. It could kill you sooner than this cancer will.”
Instead of making a treatment plan, I decided that it would be best to come back another day, so I said my goodbyes and left. Still, I could not stop thinking about her and what I should suggest as her next steps.
I asked colleagues what they would suggest. Some recommended hospice care, others recommended treatment. Clearly, there was no one way to proceed.
One might wonder: Why is it so hard to do the right thing?
Ask any clinician and I think you will hear the same answer: Because we do not have the luxury of certainty.
Am I certain that this person will not benefit from intubation? Am I certain that she has only weeks to live? Am I sure that there are no treatments that will work?
The answer to these questions is no – I am not certain. It is that uncertainty that always makes me pause because it reminds me of my own humanity.
I stopped by the next day to see her surrounded by family. After some pleasantries I took the opportunity to reiterate much of our conversation from the other day. After some questions, I looked at her and asked if she wanted to talk more about her options. I was prepared to suggest treatment, anticipating that she would want it. Instead, she told me she didn’t want to proceed.
“I feel like I’m dying, and if what you have to give me isn’t going to cure me, then I’d prefer not to suffer while it happens. You said it’s up to me. I don’t want it.”
First, do no harm. It’s one of the tenets of medicine – to provide care that will benefit the people who have trusted us with their lives, whether that be longevity, relief of symptoms, or helping them achieve their last wishes. Throughout one’s life, goals might change but that edict remains the same.
But that can be difficult, especially in oncology and especially when one is not prepared for their own end of life. It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life; it’s easier to focus on the next treatment, instilling hope that there’s more that can be done. And there are people with end-stage cancer who insist on continuing treatment in the same circumstances, preferring to “die fighting” than to “give up.” Involving supportive and palliative care specialists early has helped in both situations, which is certainly a good thing.
We talked a while more and then arranged for our palliative care team to see her. I wish I could say I was at peace with her decision, but I wasn’t. The truth is, whatever she decided would probably have the same impact: I wouldn’t be able to stop thinking about it.
Dr. Dizon is professor of medicine, department of medicine, at Brown University and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence, R.I. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Kazia.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Frontline CLL treatment: Avoiding adverse events
NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.
Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.
said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”
Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.
The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.
Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.
“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”
The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”
Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.
NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.
Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.
said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”
Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.
The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.
Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.
“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”
The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”
Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.
NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.
Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.
said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”
Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.
The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.
Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.
“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”
The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”
Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.
AT 2023 GREAT DEBATES AND UPDATES HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES CONFERENCE
Relapsed CLL: New approaches prolong survival
NEW YORK –
“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.
The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.
Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”
Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.
The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).
Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.
“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.
Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”
Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”
Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
NEW YORK –
“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.
The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.
Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”
Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.
The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).
Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.
“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.
Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”
Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”
Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
NEW YORK –
“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.
The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.
Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”
Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.
The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).
Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.
“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.
Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”
Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”
Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
AT 2023 GREAT DEBATES AND UPDATES HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES CONFERENCE
Cancer, heart disease vaccines may be ready by 2030, Moderna says
The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.
“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.
The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.
Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.
“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said.
The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.
In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.
“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.
The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.
Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.
“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said.
The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.
In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.
“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.
The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.
Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.
“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said.
The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.
In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Price of CLL Rx rises, despite competition
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
MRD: Powerful metric for CLL research
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
FROM FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
B-cell cancers: Sparse insight into preventing infections
Researchers found just 22 randomized controlled studies into prophylactic strategies, with several of them conducted prior to 2000. According to the report, published in Blood Advances, the studies together only evaluated a few thousand participants.
Reliable findings are so sparse that study coauthor Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, MD, a hematologist at Monash University, Melbourne, said “we simply don’t know” which preventive strategy is most effective. This is especially worrisome because more patients will survive their cancers and “be at risk of infection or have significant cytopenias and will experience impaired quality of life as a result,” she said in an interview.
The study authors launched the analysis to better understand the evidence regarding infection prevention and to guide the development of clinical trials, study coauthor Robert Weinkove, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand, said in an interview.
As he explained, targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of some B-cell cancers. They also have boosted the number of patients who survive the diseases yet still have profound hypogammaglobulinemia.
“Indeed, we may soon reach the point at which infection, and not tumor progression, is the leading cause of death for patients with certain B-cell cancers,” he said. “The evidence base for managing hypogammaglobulinemia is largely based on randomized trials of immunoglobulin replacement conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the advent of B cell–targeted therapies. Immunoglobulin replacement is a costly intervention, and many countries are facing a shortage of immunoglobulin.”
The report authors identified 22 total randomized controlled trials, including one led by Dr. McQuilten: 8 studies into prophylactic immunoglobulin (n = 370; all but 1 study published prior to 2000), 5 into prophylactic antibiotics (n = 1,587), 7 into vaccination (n = 3,996), and 1 comparing immunoglobulin versus antibiotics (n = 60).
No evidence was found to support a lowering of risk by prophylactic antibiotics, although they caused adverse events.
Prophylactic immunoglobulin also caused adverse events, but a meta-analysis found that it reduced the risk of clinically documented infection by 28% (n = 2 trials; relative risk, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.96). Three trials reported adverse events and found a higher risk overall (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.67-2.99).
Varicella zoster virus vaccination reduced the risk of one or more infections by 63% (n = 5 trials, RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45, n = 3,515). Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk.
No intervention reduced all-cause mortality.
“Our findings should be interpreted with caution, Dr. McQuilten said, “because of the low number of patients, high risk of bias in the included studies, and lack of contemporary data applicable to the current standard of care for such patients.”
The lack of useful data is surprising, she said, especially considering “how commonly these interventions are used in current clinical practice and the cost and supply constraints for immunoglobulin. Given the variation in international guidelines, rising global demand and cost of immunoglobulin, and concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance, more evidence is needed to inform infection prevention strategies for this patient population.”
More data is expected soon. One ongoing study is examining intravenous immunoglobulin versus placebo in patients with CLL. It’s expected to be completed in September 2023.
What should clinicians do for now? “Given the lack of a proven survival benefit in favor of prophylactic immunoglobulin replacement, one strategy is to maximize use of vaccination and to educate both patients and clinicians regarding the need for early treatment of infections,” Dr. Weinkove said. “For people who have recurrent or severe infections despite these measures, both immunoglobulin replacement and prophylactic antibiotics are clinical options. It would be reasonable to take account of patient preference, logistical considerations, and reimbursement and availability in deciding between these options.”
He added that, “for people with severe hypogammaglobulinemia who experience recurrent or severe infections despite prophylactic antibiotics, switching to immunoglobulin replacement would be appropriate. We advocate enrollment in clinical trials, if possible.”
In an interview, Juthaporn Cowan, MD, PhD, an infectious disease physician with the University of Ottawa, said many patients with B-cell lymphomas develop acquired hypogammaglobulinemia. “Patients tend to get prolonged colds, frequent sinusitis, bronchitis, or pneumonia. Some can end up with severe infection. Many patients told me that, even though their cancer is cured or in remission, quality of life is still quite poor due to these infections and fatigue.”
Dr. Cowan said the new report is somewhat useful, although “concluding that vaccination reduces infection is misleading. Vaccination reduces the infection that patients were vaccinated against. Patients who received Shingrix will have less shingles but will continue to have bronchitis and other infections.”
As for advice for clinicians, she said preventing acquired hypogammaglobulinemia is difficult since it can be caused by the malignancies, by treatment, or both. “The other item to consider is that we do not know how long we should continue [immunoglobulin] treatment in these patients. I have a patient post CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T therapy who still does not have B-cell 5-6 years after CAR T, while I have lymphoma patients who could safely discontinue [immunoglobulin] treatment in a few years.”
Dr. Cowan added that patients on immunoglobulin treatment can still get opportunistic infections from cytomegalovirus or herpes simplex virus “because the mechanism of host defense against these infections is different. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should still be considered as vaccination is not available for every single potential opportunistic infection.”
Australia funded the research through the National Blood Authority. Dr. McQuilten and Dr. Weinkove reported no disclosures. Other report authors disclosed ties with Aegros, CSL Behring, Janssen, AbbVie, and BeiGene. Monash University has received funding for unrelated projects from CSL Behring. Dr. Cowan reports honoraria from Takeda, CSL Behring, Octapharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.
Researchers found just 22 randomized controlled studies into prophylactic strategies, with several of them conducted prior to 2000. According to the report, published in Blood Advances, the studies together only evaluated a few thousand participants.
Reliable findings are so sparse that study coauthor Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, MD, a hematologist at Monash University, Melbourne, said “we simply don’t know” which preventive strategy is most effective. This is especially worrisome because more patients will survive their cancers and “be at risk of infection or have significant cytopenias and will experience impaired quality of life as a result,” she said in an interview.
The study authors launched the analysis to better understand the evidence regarding infection prevention and to guide the development of clinical trials, study coauthor Robert Weinkove, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand, said in an interview.
As he explained, targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of some B-cell cancers. They also have boosted the number of patients who survive the diseases yet still have profound hypogammaglobulinemia.
“Indeed, we may soon reach the point at which infection, and not tumor progression, is the leading cause of death for patients with certain B-cell cancers,” he said. “The evidence base for managing hypogammaglobulinemia is largely based on randomized trials of immunoglobulin replacement conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the advent of B cell–targeted therapies. Immunoglobulin replacement is a costly intervention, and many countries are facing a shortage of immunoglobulin.”
The report authors identified 22 total randomized controlled trials, including one led by Dr. McQuilten: 8 studies into prophylactic immunoglobulin (n = 370; all but 1 study published prior to 2000), 5 into prophylactic antibiotics (n = 1,587), 7 into vaccination (n = 3,996), and 1 comparing immunoglobulin versus antibiotics (n = 60).
No evidence was found to support a lowering of risk by prophylactic antibiotics, although they caused adverse events.
Prophylactic immunoglobulin also caused adverse events, but a meta-analysis found that it reduced the risk of clinically documented infection by 28% (n = 2 trials; relative risk, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.96). Three trials reported adverse events and found a higher risk overall (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.67-2.99).
Varicella zoster virus vaccination reduced the risk of one or more infections by 63% (n = 5 trials, RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45, n = 3,515). Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk.
No intervention reduced all-cause mortality.
“Our findings should be interpreted with caution, Dr. McQuilten said, “because of the low number of patients, high risk of bias in the included studies, and lack of contemporary data applicable to the current standard of care for such patients.”
The lack of useful data is surprising, she said, especially considering “how commonly these interventions are used in current clinical practice and the cost and supply constraints for immunoglobulin. Given the variation in international guidelines, rising global demand and cost of immunoglobulin, and concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance, more evidence is needed to inform infection prevention strategies for this patient population.”
More data is expected soon. One ongoing study is examining intravenous immunoglobulin versus placebo in patients with CLL. It’s expected to be completed in September 2023.
What should clinicians do for now? “Given the lack of a proven survival benefit in favor of prophylactic immunoglobulin replacement, one strategy is to maximize use of vaccination and to educate both patients and clinicians regarding the need for early treatment of infections,” Dr. Weinkove said. “For people who have recurrent or severe infections despite these measures, both immunoglobulin replacement and prophylactic antibiotics are clinical options. It would be reasonable to take account of patient preference, logistical considerations, and reimbursement and availability in deciding between these options.”
He added that, “for people with severe hypogammaglobulinemia who experience recurrent or severe infections despite prophylactic antibiotics, switching to immunoglobulin replacement would be appropriate. We advocate enrollment in clinical trials, if possible.”
In an interview, Juthaporn Cowan, MD, PhD, an infectious disease physician with the University of Ottawa, said many patients with B-cell lymphomas develop acquired hypogammaglobulinemia. “Patients tend to get prolonged colds, frequent sinusitis, bronchitis, or pneumonia. Some can end up with severe infection. Many patients told me that, even though their cancer is cured or in remission, quality of life is still quite poor due to these infections and fatigue.”
Dr. Cowan said the new report is somewhat useful, although “concluding that vaccination reduces infection is misleading. Vaccination reduces the infection that patients were vaccinated against. Patients who received Shingrix will have less shingles but will continue to have bronchitis and other infections.”
As for advice for clinicians, she said preventing acquired hypogammaglobulinemia is difficult since it can be caused by the malignancies, by treatment, or both. “The other item to consider is that we do not know how long we should continue [immunoglobulin] treatment in these patients. I have a patient post CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T therapy who still does not have B-cell 5-6 years after CAR T, while I have lymphoma patients who could safely discontinue [immunoglobulin] treatment in a few years.”
Dr. Cowan added that patients on immunoglobulin treatment can still get opportunistic infections from cytomegalovirus or herpes simplex virus “because the mechanism of host defense against these infections is different. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should still be considered as vaccination is not available for every single potential opportunistic infection.”
Australia funded the research through the National Blood Authority. Dr. McQuilten and Dr. Weinkove reported no disclosures. Other report authors disclosed ties with Aegros, CSL Behring, Janssen, AbbVie, and BeiGene. Monash University has received funding for unrelated projects from CSL Behring. Dr. Cowan reports honoraria from Takeda, CSL Behring, Octapharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.
Researchers found just 22 randomized controlled studies into prophylactic strategies, with several of them conducted prior to 2000. According to the report, published in Blood Advances, the studies together only evaluated a few thousand participants.
Reliable findings are so sparse that study coauthor Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, MD, a hematologist at Monash University, Melbourne, said “we simply don’t know” which preventive strategy is most effective. This is especially worrisome because more patients will survive their cancers and “be at risk of infection or have significant cytopenias and will experience impaired quality of life as a result,” she said in an interview.
The study authors launched the analysis to better understand the evidence regarding infection prevention and to guide the development of clinical trials, study coauthor Robert Weinkove, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand, said in an interview.
As he explained, targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of some B-cell cancers. They also have boosted the number of patients who survive the diseases yet still have profound hypogammaglobulinemia.
“Indeed, we may soon reach the point at which infection, and not tumor progression, is the leading cause of death for patients with certain B-cell cancers,” he said. “The evidence base for managing hypogammaglobulinemia is largely based on randomized trials of immunoglobulin replacement conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the advent of B cell–targeted therapies. Immunoglobulin replacement is a costly intervention, and many countries are facing a shortage of immunoglobulin.”
The report authors identified 22 total randomized controlled trials, including one led by Dr. McQuilten: 8 studies into prophylactic immunoglobulin (n = 370; all but 1 study published prior to 2000), 5 into prophylactic antibiotics (n = 1,587), 7 into vaccination (n = 3,996), and 1 comparing immunoglobulin versus antibiotics (n = 60).
No evidence was found to support a lowering of risk by prophylactic antibiotics, although they caused adverse events.
Prophylactic immunoglobulin also caused adverse events, but a meta-analysis found that it reduced the risk of clinically documented infection by 28% (n = 2 trials; relative risk, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.96). Three trials reported adverse events and found a higher risk overall (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.67-2.99).
Varicella zoster virus vaccination reduced the risk of one or more infections by 63% (n = 5 trials, RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45, n = 3,515). Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk.
No intervention reduced all-cause mortality.
“Our findings should be interpreted with caution, Dr. McQuilten said, “because of the low number of patients, high risk of bias in the included studies, and lack of contemporary data applicable to the current standard of care for such patients.”
The lack of useful data is surprising, she said, especially considering “how commonly these interventions are used in current clinical practice and the cost and supply constraints for immunoglobulin. Given the variation in international guidelines, rising global demand and cost of immunoglobulin, and concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance, more evidence is needed to inform infection prevention strategies for this patient population.”
More data is expected soon. One ongoing study is examining intravenous immunoglobulin versus placebo in patients with CLL. It’s expected to be completed in September 2023.
What should clinicians do for now? “Given the lack of a proven survival benefit in favor of prophylactic immunoglobulin replacement, one strategy is to maximize use of vaccination and to educate both patients and clinicians regarding the need for early treatment of infections,” Dr. Weinkove said. “For people who have recurrent or severe infections despite these measures, both immunoglobulin replacement and prophylactic antibiotics are clinical options. It would be reasonable to take account of patient preference, logistical considerations, and reimbursement and availability in deciding between these options.”
He added that, “for people with severe hypogammaglobulinemia who experience recurrent or severe infections despite prophylactic antibiotics, switching to immunoglobulin replacement would be appropriate. We advocate enrollment in clinical trials, if possible.”
In an interview, Juthaporn Cowan, MD, PhD, an infectious disease physician with the University of Ottawa, said many patients with B-cell lymphomas develop acquired hypogammaglobulinemia. “Patients tend to get prolonged colds, frequent sinusitis, bronchitis, or pneumonia. Some can end up with severe infection. Many patients told me that, even though their cancer is cured or in remission, quality of life is still quite poor due to these infections and fatigue.”
Dr. Cowan said the new report is somewhat useful, although “concluding that vaccination reduces infection is misleading. Vaccination reduces the infection that patients were vaccinated against. Patients who received Shingrix will have less shingles but will continue to have bronchitis and other infections.”
As for advice for clinicians, she said preventing acquired hypogammaglobulinemia is difficult since it can be caused by the malignancies, by treatment, or both. “The other item to consider is that we do not know how long we should continue [immunoglobulin] treatment in these patients. I have a patient post CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T therapy who still does not have B-cell 5-6 years after CAR T, while I have lymphoma patients who could safely discontinue [immunoglobulin] treatment in a few years.”
Dr. Cowan added that patients on immunoglobulin treatment can still get opportunistic infections from cytomegalovirus or herpes simplex virus “because the mechanism of host defense against these infections is different. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should still be considered as vaccination is not available for every single potential opportunistic infection.”
Australia funded the research through the National Blood Authority. Dr. McQuilten and Dr. Weinkove reported no disclosures. Other report authors disclosed ties with Aegros, CSL Behring, Janssen, AbbVie, and BeiGene. Monash University has received funding for unrelated projects from CSL Behring. Dr. Cowan reports honoraria from Takeda, CSL Behring, Octapharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
CLL and surgery are more compatible than ever
In the past decade, as targeted therapies have permitted better management of CLL, a new realm of possibilities has opened up for patients with this blood cancer.
“Previously, patients may not have been candidates for elective surgeries, such as hip replacements,” said hematologist-oncologist Helen Ma, MD, of the University of Irvine (Calif.) and VA Long Beach Healthcare System. She is the lead author of the report, which appeared in the British Journal of Hematology.
“Now that targeted therapies are controlling CLL well, patients may elect to have procedures that they may not have considered if their blood counts were very low or they felt too unwell to go through such invasive surgeries,” said Dr. Ma in an interview. In fact, the study authors noted that, “with currently available treatments, many patients with CLL are living considerably longer than the 1-year life expectancy threshold that proceduralists require.”
But extra surgical risks persist. “Both CLL and its treatment can increase the risk of complications during and after procedures, though available data are not consistently stratified by stage and whether patients are undergoing treatment,” the report authors noted.
Research has linked CLL to higher rates of blood transfusions in cardiac surgeries: One study, conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that 87% of these surgery patients with CLL needed blood products vs. 65% of those who didn’t have CLL (P = .01). Studies didn’t find any extra risk of infections in patients with CLL, however, and there are conflicting findings about whether hospital mortality is higher.
Another study, also conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that patients with CLL who had percutaneous coronary intervention procedures “developed higher rates of in-hospital mortality, any complication, bleeding and postoperative stroke compared to those seen in patients without leukemia.”
The authors of the new report noted that “patients with more advanced stage are at increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events relevant to their disease and invasive procedures.” Patients at more than minimal risk should undergo electrocardiograms prior to cardiac procedures, they wrote. Stress tests, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention may also be warranted.
“To optimize evaluation and perioperative management, we strongly recommend the prospective collaborative inclusion of a multidisciplinary team including hematologists/oncologists, cardiologists (ideally cardio-oncologists), surgeons and anesthetists, as well as their ongoing involvement during the postoperative period,” the authors wrote.
As for medications, the researchers said that “generally, antibody therapy has no impact on surgery.” They added, “There is no evidence to hold treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies prior to procedures unless the patient has cytopenias that may be a contra-indication. If that is the case, we recommend holding until counts recover to the parameters required for the procedure.”
In regard to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, “patients undergoing major surgeries with high risk of bleeding should hold Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors for a week prior to surgery to ensure adequate platelet function recovery given the disruption between collagen and platelet aggregation. Medications can be resumed 3-7 days after achieving postoperative hemostasis, depending on the type of surgery and risk of bleeding.”
As for venetoclax, “prior to surgery, patients should receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for neutropenia, blood transfusions for anemia, and platelet transfusions for thrombocytopenia to maintain procedural parameters.”
In the big picture, study lead author Dr. Ma said, “patients with CLL are doing well on continuous targeted treatments, and if there are otherwise no contraindications, they should be considered for procedures to improve their quality of life.”
In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University surgeon Joe Forrester MD, MSc, who’s familiar with the report findings, said its conclusions are valid. “The nice thing is that a lot of the [CLL] therapies don’t have a lot of surgical side effects. Most should not preclude a patient from going to surgery.”
He advised colleagues to make sure to be open with patients about the heightened surgical risks due to CLL, such when they need emergency procedures. And it’s important to be realistic about whether patients will live long enough to benefit from the rare surgeries – such as weight-loss procedures – that won’t show major benefits for 5-10 years, he said.
The Lymphoma Research Foundation supported the study. Dr. Ma, several coauthors, and Dr. Forrester report no disclosures. One coauthor reports multiple relationships with industry.
In the past decade, as targeted therapies have permitted better management of CLL, a new realm of possibilities has opened up for patients with this blood cancer.
“Previously, patients may not have been candidates for elective surgeries, such as hip replacements,” said hematologist-oncologist Helen Ma, MD, of the University of Irvine (Calif.) and VA Long Beach Healthcare System. She is the lead author of the report, which appeared in the British Journal of Hematology.
“Now that targeted therapies are controlling CLL well, patients may elect to have procedures that they may not have considered if their blood counts were very low or they felt too unwell to go through such invasive surgeries,” said Dr. Ma in an interview. In fact, the study authors noted that, “with currently available treatments, many patients with CLL are living considerably longer than the 1-year life expectancy threshold that proceduralists require.”
But extra surgical risks persist. “Both CLL and its treatment can increase the risk of complications during and after procedures, though available data are not consistently stratified by stage and whether patients are undergoing treatment,” the report authors noted.
Research has linked CLL to higher rates of blood transfusions in cardiac surgeries: One study, conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that 87% of these surgery patients with CLL needed blood products vs. 65% of those who didn’t have CLL (P = .01). Studies didn’t find any extra risk of infections in patients with CLL, however, and there are conflicting findings about whether hospital mortality is higher.
Another study, also conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that patients with CLL who had percutaneous coronary intervention procedures “developed higher rates of in-hospital mortality, any complication, bleeding and postoperative stroke compared to those seen in patients without leukemia.”
The authors of the new report noted that “patients with more advanced stage are at increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events relevant to their disease and invasive procedures.” Patients at more than minimal risk should undergo electrocardiograms prior to cardiac procedures, they wrote. Stress tests, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention may also be warranted.
“To optimize evaluation and perioperative management, we strongly recommend the prospective collaborative inclusion of a multidisciplinary team including hematologists/oncologists, cardiologists (ideally cardio-oncologists), surgeons and anesthetists, as well as their ongoing involvement during the postoperative period,” the authors wrote.
As for medications, the researchers said that “generally, antibody therapy has no impact on surgery.” They added, “There is no evidence to hold treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies prior to procedures unless the patient has cytopenias that may be a contra-indication. If that is the case, we recommend holding until counts recover to the parameters required for the procedure.”
In regard to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, “patients undergoing major surgeries with high risk of bleeding should hold Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors for a week prior to surgery to ensure adequate platelet function recovery given the disruption between collagen and platelet aggregation. Medications can be resumed 3-7 days after achieving postoperative hemostasis, depending on the type of surgery and risk of bleeding.”
As for venetoclax, “prior to surgery, patients should receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for neutropenia, blood transfusions for anemia, and platelet transfusions for thrombocytopenia to maintain procedural parameters.”
In the big picture, study lead author Dr. Ma said, “patients with CLL are doing well on continuous targeted treatments, and if there are otherwise no contraindications, they should be considered for procedures to improve their quality of life.”
In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University surgeon Joe Forrester MD, MSc, who’s familiar with the report findings, said its conclusions are valid. “The nice thing is that a lot of the [CLL] therapies don’t have a lot of surgical side effects. Most should not preclude a patient from going to surgery.”
He advised colleagues to make sure to be open with patients about the heightened surgical risks due to CLL, such when they need emergency procedures. And it’s important to be realistic about whether patients will live long enough to benefit from the rare surgeries – such as weight-loss procedures – that won’t show major benefits for 5-10 years, he said.
The Lymphoma Research Foundation supported the study. Dr. Ma, several coauthors, and Dr. Forrester report no disclosures. One coauthor reports multiple relationships with industry.
In the past decade, as targeted therapies have permitted better management of CLL, a new realm of possibilities has opened up for patients with this blood cancer.
“Previously, patients may not have been candidates for elective surgeries, such as hip replacements,” said hematologist-oncologist Helen Ma, MD, of the University of Irvine (Calif.) and VA Long Beach Healthcare System. She is the lead author of the report, which appeared in the British Journal of Hematology.
“Now that targeted therapies are controlling CLL well, patients may elect to have procedures that they may not have considered if their blood counts were very low or they felt too unwell to go through such invasive surgeries,” said Dr. Ma in an interview. In fact, the study authors noted that, “with currently available treatments, many patients with CLL are living considerably longer than the 1-year life expectancy threshold that proceduralists require.”
But extra surgical risks persist. “Both CLL and its treatment can increase the risk of complications during and after procedures, though available data are not consistently stratified by stage and whether patients are undergoing treatment,” the report authors noted.
Research has linked CLL to higher rates of blood transfusions in cardiac surgeries: One study, conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that 87% of these surgery patients with CLL needed blood products vs. 65% of those who didn’t have CLL (P = .01). Studies didn’t find any extra risk of infections in patients with CLL, however, and there are conflicting findings about whether hospital mortality is higher.
Another study, also conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that patients with CLL who had percutaneous coronary intervention procedures “developed higher rates of in-hospital mortality, any complication, bleeding and postoperative stroke compared to those seen in patients without leukemia.”
The authors of the new report noted that “patients with more advanced stage are at increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events relevant to their disease and invasive procedures.” Patients at more than minimal risk should undergo electrocardiograms prior to cardiac procedures, they wrote. Stress tests, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention may also be warranted.
“To optimize evaluation and perioperative management, we strongly recommend the prospective collaborative inclusion of a multidisciplinary team including hematologists/oncologists, cardiologists (ideally cardio-oncologists), surgeons and anesthetists, as well as their ongoing involvement during the postoperative period,” the authors wrote.
As for medications, the researchers said that “generally, antibody therapy has no impact on surgery.” They added, “There is no evidence to hold treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies prior to procedures unless the patient has cytopenias that may be a contra-indication. If that is the case, we recommend holding until counts recover to the parameters required for the procedure.”
In regard to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, “patients undergoing major surgeries with high risk of bleeding should hold Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors for a week prior to surgery to ensure adequate platelet function recovery given the disruption between collagen and platelet aggregation. Medications can be resumed 3-7 days after achieving postoperative hemostasis, depending on the type of surgery and risk of bleeding.”
As for venetoclax, “prior to surgery, patients should receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for neutropenia, blood transfusions for anemia, and platelet transfusions for thrombocytopenia to maintain procedural parameters.”
In the big picture, study lead author Dr. Ma said, “patients with CLL are doing well on continuous targeted treatments, and if there are otherwise no contraindications, they should be considered for procedures to improve their quality of life.”
In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University surgeon Joe Forrester MD, MSc, who’s familiar with the report findings, said its conclusions are valid. “The nice thing is that a lot of the [CLL] therapies don’t have a lot of surgical side effects. Most should not preclude a patient from going to surgery.”
He advised colleagues to make sure to be open with patients about the heightened surgical risks due to CLL, such when they need emergency procedures. And it’s important to be realistic about whether patients will live long enough to benefit from the rare surgeries – such as weight-loss procedures – that won’t show major benefits for 5-10 years, he said.
The Lymphoma Research Foundation supported the study. Dr. Ma, several coauthors, and Dr. Forrester report no disclosures. One coauthor reports multiple relationships with industry.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
Erythema extent predicts death in cutaneous GVHD
“There is value in collecting erythema serially over time as a continuous variable on a scale of 0%-100%” to identify high-risk patients for prophylactic and preemptive treatment, say investigators led by dermatologist Emily Baumrin, MD, director of the GVHD clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
They report a study of more than 300 patients with ccGVHD, which found that the extent of skin erythema strongly predicted the risk for death from GVHD.
Of the 267 patients with cutaneous GVHD at baseline, 103 patients died, the majority without a relapse of their blood cancer.
With additional research, erythema body surface area (BSA) should be “introduced as an outcome measure in clinical practice and trials,” they conclude.
At the moment, the NIH Skin Score is commonly used for risk assessment in cutaneous GVHD, but the researchers found that erythema BSA out-predicts this score.
The investigators explain that the NIH Skin Score does incorporate erythema surface area, but it does so as a categorical variable, not a continuous variable. Among other additional factors, it also includes assessments of skin sclerosis, which the investigators found was not associated with GVHD mortality.
Overall, the composite score waters down the weight given to erythema BSA because the score is “driven by stable sclerotic features, and erythema changes are missed,” they explain.
The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Study details
The study included 469 patients with chronic GVHD (cGVHD), of whom 267 (57%) had cutaneous cGVHD at enrollment and 89 (19%) developed skin involvement subsequently.
All of the patients were on systemic immunosuppression for GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.
They were enrolled from 2007 through 2012 at nine U.S. medical centers – all members of the Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease Consortium – and they were followed until 2018.
Erythema BSA and NIH Skin Score were assessed at baseline and then every 3-6 months. Erythema was the first manifestation of skin involvement in the majority of patients, with a median surface area involvement of 11% at baseline.
The study team found that the extent of erythema at first follow-up visit was associated with both nonrelapse mortality (hazard ratio, 1.33 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 1.28 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001), whereas extent of sclerotic skin involvement was not associated with either.
Participants in the study were predominantly White. The investigators note that “BSA assessments of erythema may be less reliable in patients with darker skin.”
The work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baumrin had no disclosures; one coauthor is an employee of CorEvitas, and two others reported grants/adviser fees from several companies, including Janssen, Mallinckrodt, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“There is value in collecting erythema serially over time as a continuous variable on a scale of 0%-100%” to identify high-risk patients for prophylactic and preemptive treatment, say investigators led by dermatologist Emily Baumrin, MD, director of the GVHD clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
They report a study of more than 300 patients with ccGVHD, which found that the extent of skin erythema strongly predicted the risk for death from GVHD.
Of the 267 patients with cutaneous GVHD at baseline, 103 patients died, the majority without a relapse of their blood cancer.
With additional research, erythema body surface area (BSA) should be “introduced as an outcome measure in clinical practice and trials,” they conclude.
At the moment, the NIH Skin Score is commonly used for risk assessment in cutaneous GVHD, but the researchers found that erythema BSA out-predicts this score.
The investigators explain that the NIH Skin Score does incorporate erythema surface area, but it does so as a categorical variable, not a continuous variable. Among other additional factors, it also includes assessments of skin sclerosis, which the investigators found was not associated with GVHD mortality.
Overall, the composite score waters down the weight given to erythema BSA because the score is “driven by stable sclerotic features, and erythema changes are missed,” they explain.
The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Study details
The study included 469 patients with chronic GVHD (cGVHD), of whom 267 (57%) had cutaneous cGVHD at enrollment and 89 (19%) developed skin involvement subsequently.
All of the patients were on systemic immunosuppression for GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.
They were enrolled from 2007 through 2012 at nine U.S. medical centers – all members of the Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease Consortium – and they were followed until 2018.
Erythema BSA and NIH Skin Score were assessed at baseline and then every 3-6 months. Erythema was the first manifestation of skin involvement in the majority of patients, with a median surface area involvement of 11% at baseline.
The study team found that the extent of erythema at first follow-up visit was associated with both nonrelapse mortality (hazard ratio, 1.33 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 1.28 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001), whereas extent of sclerotic skin involvement was not associated with either.
Participants in the study were predominantly White. The investigators note that “BSA assessments of erythema may be less reliable in patients with darker skin.”
The work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baumrin had no disclosures; one coauthor is an employee of CorEvitas, and two others reported grants/adviser fees from several companies, including Janssen, Mallinckrodt, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“There is value in collecting erythema serially over time as a continuous variable on a scale of 0%-100%” to identify high-risk patients for prophylactic and preemptive treatment, say investigators led by dermatologist Emily Baumrin, MD, director of the GVHD clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
They report a study of more than 300 patients with ccGVHD, which found that the extent of skin erythema strongly predicted the risk for death from GVHD.
Of the 267 patients with cutaneous GVHD at baseline, 103 patients died, the majority without a relapse of their blood cancer.
With additional research, erythema body surface area (BSA) should be “introduced as an outcome measure in clinical practice and trials,” they conclude.
At the moment, the NIH Skin Score is commonly used for risk assessment in cutaneous GVHD, but the researchers found that erythema BSA out-predicts this score.
The investigators explain that the NIH Skin Score does incorporate erythema surface area, but it does so as a categorical variable, not a continuous variable. Among other additional factors, it also includes assessments of skin sclerosis, which the investigators found was not associated with GVHD mortality.
Overall, the composite score waters down the weight given to erythema BSA because the score is “driven by stable sclerotic features, and erythema changes are missed,” they explain.
The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Study details
The study included 469 patients with chronic GVHD (cGVHD), of whom 267 (57%) had cutaneous cGVHD at enrollment and 89 (19%) developed skin involvement subsequently.
All of the patients were on systemic immunosuppression for GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.
They were enrolled from 2007 through 2012 at nine U.S. medical centers – all members of the Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease Consortium – and they were followed until 2018.
Erythema BSA and NIH Skin Score were assessed at baseline and then every 3-6 months. Erythema was the first manifestation of skin involvement in the majority of patients, with a median surface area involvement of 11% at baseline.
The study team found that the extent of erythema at first follow-up visit was associated with both nonrelapse mortality (hazard ratio, 1.33 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 1.28 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001), whereas extent of sclerotic skin involvement was not associated with either.
Participants in the study were predominantly White. The investigators note that “BSA assessments of erythema may be less reliable in patients with darker skin.”
The work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baumrin had no disclosures; one coauthor is an employee of CorEvitas, and two others reported grants/adviser fees from several companies, including Janssen, Mallinckrodt, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.