CML

Image courtesy of AFIP

A new report addresses the clinical relevance of DNA variants in chronic myeloid neoplasms (CMNs).

The report is intended to aid clinical laboratory professionals with the management of most CMNs and the development of high-throughput pan-myeloid sequencing testing panels.

The authors list 34 genes they consider “critical” for sequencing tests to help standardize clinical practice and improve care of patients with CMNs.

The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) established a CMN Working Group to generate the report, which was published in The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics.

“The molecular pathology community has witnessed a recent explosion of scientific literature highlighting the clinical significance of small DNA variants in CMNs,” said Rebecca F. McClure, MD, a member of the AMP CMN Working Group and an associate professor at Health Sciences North/Horizon Santé-Nord in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

“AMP’s working group recognized a clear, unmet need for evidence-based recommendations to assist in the development of the high-quality pan-myeloid gene panels that provide relevant diagnostic and prognostic information and enable monitoring of clonal architecture.”

The increasing availability of targeted, high-throughput, next-generation sequencing panels has enabled scientists to explore the genetic heterogeneity and clinical relevance of the small DNA variants in CMNs.

However, the biological complexity and multiple forms of CMNs have led to variability in the genes included on the available panels that are used to make an accurate diagnosis, provide reliable prognostic information, and select an appropriate therapy based on DNA variant profiles present at various time points.

AMP established its CMN Working Group to review the published literature on CMNs, summarize key findings that support clinical utility, and define a set of critical gene inclusions for all high-throughput pan-myeloid sequencing testing panels.

The group proposed the following 34 genes as a minimum recommended testing list: ASXL1, BCOR, BCORL1, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, NF1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PPM1D, PTPN11, RAD21, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, SMC3, SRSF2, STAG2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, and ZRSR2.

“While the goal of the study was to distill the literature for molecular pathologists, in doing so, we also revealed recurrent mutational patterns of clonal evolution that will [help] hematologist/oncologists, researchers, and pathologists understand how to interpret the results of these panels as they reveal critical biology of the neoplasms,” said Annette S. Kim, MD, PhD, CMN Working Group Chair and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Image courtesy of AFIP

A new report addresses the clinical relevance of DNA variants in chronic myeloid neoplasms (CMNs).

The report is intended to aid clinical laboratory professionals with the management of most CMNs and the development of high-throughput pan-myeloid sequencing testing panels.

The authors list 34 genes they consider “critical” for sequencing tests to help standardize clinical practice and improve care of patients with CMNs.

The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) established a CMN Working Group to generate the report, which was published in The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics.

“The molecular pathology community has witnessed a recent explosion of scientific literature highlighting the clinical significance of small DNA variants in CMNs,” said Rebecca F. McClure, MD, a member of the AMP CMN Working Group and an associate professor at Health Sciences North/Horizon Santé-Nord in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

“AMP’s working group recognized a clear, unmet need for evidence-based recommendations to assist in the development of the high-quality pan-myeloid gene panels that provide relevant diagnostic and prognostic information and enable monitoring of clonal architecture.”

The increasing availability of targeted, high-throughput, next-generation sequencing panels has enabled scientists to explore the genetic heterogeneity and clinical relevance of the small DNA variants in CMNs.

However, the biological complexity and multiple forms of CMNs have led to variability in the genes included on the available panels that are used to make an accurate diagnosis, provide reliable prognostic information, and select an appropriate therapy based on DNA variant profiles present at various time points.

AMP established its CMN Working Group to review the published literature on CMNs, summarize key findings that support clinical utility, and define a set of critical gene inclusions for all high-throughput pan-myeloid sequencing testing panels.

The group proposed the following 34 genes as a minimum recommended testing list: ASXL1, BCOR, BCORL1, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, NF1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PPM1D, PTPN11, RAD21, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, SMC3, SRSF2, STAG2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, and ZRSR2.

“While the goal of the study was to distill the literature for molecular pathologists, in doing so, we also revealed recurrent mutational patterns of clonal evolution that will [help] hematologist/oncologists, researchers, and pathologists understand how to interpret the results of these panels as they reveal critical biology of the neoplasms,” said Annette S. Kim, MD, PhD, CMN Working Group Chair and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Image courtesy of AFIP

A new report addresses the clinical relevance of DNA variants in chronic myeloid neoplasms (CMNs).

The report is intended to aid clinical laboratory professionals with the management of most CMNs and the development of high-throughput pan-myeloid sequencing testing panels.

The authors list 34 genes they consider “critical” for sequencing tests to help standardize clinical practice and improve care of patients with CMNs.

The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) established a CMN Working Group to generate the report, which was published in The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics.

“The molecular pathology community has witnessed a recent explosion of scientific literature highlighting the clinical significance of small DNA variants in CMNs,” said Rebecca F. McClure, MD, a member of the AMP CMN Working Group and an associate professor at Health Sciences North/Horizon Santé-Nord in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

“AMP’s working group recognized a clear, unmet need for evidence-based recommendations to assist in the development of the high-quality pan-myeloid gene panels that provide relevant diagnostic and prognostic information and enable monitoring of clonal architecture.”

The increasing availability of targeted, high-throughput, next-generation sequencing panels has enabled scientists to explore the genetic heterogeneity and clinical relevance of the small DNA variants in CMNs.

However, the biological complexity and multiple forms of CMNs have led to variability in the genes included on the available panels that are used to make an accurate diagnosis, provide reliable prognostic information, and select an appropriate therapy based on DNA variant profiles present at various time points.

AMP established its CMN Working Group to review the published literature on CMNs, summarize key findings that support clinical utility, and define a set of critical gene inclusions for all high-throughput pan-myeloid sequencing testing panels.

The group proposed the following 34 genes as a minimum recommended testing list: ASXL1, BCOR, BCORL1, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, NF1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PPM1D, PTPN11, RAD21, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, SMC3, SRSF2, STAG2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, and ZRSR2.

“While the goal of the study was to distill the literature for molecular pathologists, in doing so, we also revealed recurrent mutational patterns of clonal evolution that will [help] hematologist/oncologists, researchers, and pathologists understand how to interpret the results of these panels as they reveal critical biology of the neoplasms,” said Annette S. Kim, MD, PhD, CMN Working Group Chair and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Three generations of women in a family

A large study has revealed “the strongest evidence yet” supporting genetic susceptibility to myeloid malignancies, according to a researcher.

The study showed that first-degree relatives of patients with myeloid malignancies had double the risk of developing a myeloid malignancy themselves, when compared to the general population.

The researchers observed significant risks for developing acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and polycythemia vera (PV).

“Our study provides the strongest evidence yet for inherited risk for these diseases—evidence that has proved evasive before, in part, because these cancers are relatively uncommon, and our ability to characterize these diseases has, until recently, been limited,” said Amit Sud, MBChB, PhD, of The Institute of Cancer Research in London, UK.

Dr Sud and his colleagues described their research in a letter to Blood.

The researchers analyzed data from the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, which included 93,199 first-degree relatives of 35,037 patients with myeloid malignancies. The patients had been diagnosed between 1958 and 2015.

First-degree relatives of the patients had an increased risk of all myeloid malignancies, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.99 (95% CI 1.12-2.04).

For individual diseases, there was a significant association between family history and increased risk for:

• AML—SIR=1.53 (95% CI 1.21-2.17)
• ET—SIR=6.30 (95% CI 3.95-9.54)
• MDS—SIR=6.87 (95% CI 4.07-10.86)
• PV—SIR=7.66 (95% CI 5.74-10.02).

Dr Sud and his colleagues noted that the strongest familial relative risks tended to occur for the same disease, but there were significant associations between different myeloid malignancies as well.

Risk by age group

The researchers also looked at familial relative risk for the same disease by patients’ age at diagnosis and observed a significantly increased risk for younger cases for all myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) combined, PV, and MDS.

The SIRs for MPNs were 6.46 (95% CI 5.12-8.04) for patients age 59 or younger and 4.15 (95% CI 3.38-5.04) for patients older than 59.

The SIRs for PV were 10.90 (95% CI 7.12-15.97) for patients age 59 or younger and 5.96 (95% CI 3.93-8.67) for patients older than 59.

The SIRs for MDS were 11.95 (95% CI 6.36-20.43) for patients age 68 or younger and 3.27 (95% CI 1.06-7.63) for patients older than 68.

Risk by number of relatives

Dr Sud and his colleagues also discovered that familial relative risks of all myeloid malignancies and MPNs were significantly associated with the number of first-degree relatives affected by myeloid malignancies or MPNs.

The SIRs for first-degree relatives with 2 or more affected relatives were 4.55 (95% CI 2.08-8.64) for all myeloid malignancies and 17.82 (95% CI 5.79-24.89) for MPNs.

The SIRs for first-degree relatives with 1 affected relative were 1.96 (95% CI 1.79-2.15) for all myeloid malignancies and 4.83 (95% CI 4.14-5.60) for MPNs.

The researchers said these results suggest inherited genetic changes increase the risk of myeloid malignancies, although environmental factors shared in families could also play a role.

“In the future, our findings could help identify people at higher risk than normal because of their family background who could be prioritized for medical help like screening to catch the disease earlier if it arises,” Dr Sud said.

This study was funded by German Cancer Aid, the Swedish Research Council, ALF funding from Region Skåne, DKFZ, and Bloodwise.

Three generations of women in a family

A large study has revealed “the strongest evidence yet” supporting genetic susceptibility to myeloid malignancies, according to a researcher.

The study showed that first-degree relatives of patients with myeloid malignancies had double the risk of developing a myeloid malignancy themselves, when compared to the general population.

The researchers observed significant risks for developing acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and polycythemia vera (PV).

“Our study provides the strongest evidence yet for inherited risk for these diseases—evidence that has proved evasive before, in part, because these cancers are relatively uncommon, and our ability to characterize these diseases has, until recently, been limited,” said Amit Sud, MBChB, PhD, of The Institute of Cancer Research in London, UK.

Dr Sud and his colleagues described their research in a letter to Blood.

The researchers analyzed data from the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, which included 93,199 first-degree relatives of 35,037 patients with myeloid malignancies. The patients had been diagnosed between 1958 and 2015.

First-degree relatives of the patients had an increased risk of all myeloid malignancies, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.99 (95% CI 1.12-2.04).

For individual diseases, there was a significant association between family history and increased risk for:

• AML—SIR=1.53 (95% CI 1.21-2.17)
• ET—SIR=6.30 (95% CI 3.95-9.54)
• MDS—SIR=6.87 (95% CI 4.07-10.86)
• PV—SIR=7.66 (95% CI 5.74-10.02).

Dr Sud and his colleagues noted that the strongest familial relative risks tended to occur for the same disease, but there were significant associations between different myeloid malignancies as well.

Risk by age group

The researchers also looked at familial relative risk for the same disease by patients’ age at diagnosis and observed a significantly increased risk for younger cases for all myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) combined, PV, and MDS.

The SIRs for MPNs were 6.46 (95% CI 5.12-8.04) for patients age 59 or younger and 4.15 (95% CI 3.38-5.04) for patients older than 59.

The SIRs for PV were 10.90 (95% CI 7.12-15.97) for patients age 59 or younger and 5.96 (95% CI 3.93-8.67) for patients older than 59.

The SIRs for MDS were 11.95 (95% CI 6.36-20.43) for patients age 68 or younger and 3.27 (95% CI 1.06-7.63) for patients older than 68.

Risk by number of relatives

Dr Sud and his colleagues also discovered that familial relative risks of all myeloid malignancies and MPNs were significantly associated with the number of first-degree relatives affected by myeloid malignancies or MPNs.

The SIRs for first-degree relatives with 2 or more affected relatives were 4.55 (95% CI 2.08-8.64) for all myeloid malignancies and 17.82 (95% CI 5.79-24.89) for MPNs.

The SIRs for first-degree relatives with 1 affected relative were 1.96 (95% CI 1.79-2.15) for all myeloid malignancies and 4.83 (95% CI 4.14-5.60) for MPNs.

The researchers said these results suggest inherited genetic changes increase the risk of myeloid malignancies, although environmental factors shared in families could also play a role.

“In the future, our findings could help identify people at higher risk than normal because of their family background who could be prioritized for medical help like screening to catch the disease earlier if it arises,” Dr Sud said.

This study was funded by German Cancer Aid, the Swedish Research Council, ALF funding from Region Skåne, DKFZ, and Bloodwise.

Three generations of women in a family

A large study has revealed “the strongest evidence yet” supporting genetic susceptibility to myeloid malignancies, according to a researcher.

The study showed that first-degree relatives of patients with myeloid malignancies had double the risk of developing a myeloid malignancy themselves, when compared to the general population.

The researchers observed significant risks for developing acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and polycythemia vera (PV).

“Our study provides the strongest evidence yet for inherited risk for these diseases—evidence that has proved evasive before, in part, because these cancers are relatively uncommon, and our ability to characterize these diseases has, until recently, been limited,” said Amit Sud, MBChB, PhD, of The Institute of Cancer Research in London, UK.

Dr Sud and his colleagues described their research in a letter to Blood.

The researchers analyzed data from the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, which included 93,199 first-degree relatives of 35,037 patients with myeloid malignancies. The patients had been diagnosed between 1958 and 2015.

First-degree relatives of the patients had an increased risk of all myeloid malignancies, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.99 (95% CI 1.12-2.04).

For individual diseases, there was a significant association between family history and increased risk for:

• AML—SIR=1.53 (95% CI 1.21-2.17)
• ET—SIR=6.30 (95% CI 3.95-9.54)
• MDS—SIR=6.87 (95% CI 4.07-10.86)
• PV—SIR=7.66 (95% CI 5.74-10.02).

Dr Sud and his colleagues noted that the strongest familial relative risks tended to occur for the same disease, but there were significant associations between different myeloid malignancies as well.

Risk by age group

The researchers also looked at familial relative risk for the same disease by patients’ age at diagnosis and observed a significantly increased risk for younger cases for all myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) combined, PV, and MDS.

The SIRs for MPNs were 6.46 (95% CI 5.12-8.04) for patients age 59 or younger and 4.15 (95% CI 3.38-5.04) for patients older than 59.

The SIRs for PV were 10.90 (95% CI 7.12-15.97) for patients age 59 or younger and 5.96 (95% CI 3.93-8.67) for patients older than 59.

The SIRs for MDS were 11.95 (95% CI 6.36-20.43) for patients age 68 or younger and 3.27 (95% CI 1.06-7.63) for patients older than 68.

Risk by number of relatives

Dr Sud and his colleagues also discovered that familial relative risks of all myeloid malignancies and MPNs were significantly associated with the number of first-degree relatives affected by myeloid malignancies or MPNs.

The SIRs for first-degree relatives with 2 or more affected relatives were 4.55 (95% CI 2.08-8.64) for all myeloid malignancies and 17.82 (95% CI 5.79-24.89) for MPNs.

The SIRs for first-degree relatives with 1 affected relative were 1.96 (95% CI 1.79-2.15) for all myeloid malignancies and 4.83 (95% CI 4.14-5.60) for MPNs.

The researchers said these results suggest inherited genetic changes increase the risk of myeloid malignancies, although environmental factors shared in families could also play a role.

“In the future, our findings could help identify people at higher risk than normal because of their family background who could be prioritized for medical help like screening to catch the disease earlier if it arises,” Dr Sud said.

This study was funded by German Cancer Aid, the Swedish Research Council, ALF funding from Region Skåne, DKFZ, and Bloodwise.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Research has shown an increase in the global incidence of leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in recent years.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed that, from 2006 to 2016, the incidence of NHL increased 45%, and the incidence of leukemia increased 26%.

These increases were largely due to population growth and aging.

Results from the GDB study were published in JAMA Oncology.

The study indicated that, in 2016, there were 17.2 million cases of cancer worldwide and 8.9 million cancer deaths.

One in 3 men were likely to get cancer during their lifetime, as were 1 in 5 women. Cancer was associated with 213.2 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

The following table lists the 2016 global incidence and mortality figures for all cancers combined and for individual hematologic malignancies.

Leukemia

In 2016, there were 467,000 new cases of leukemia and 310,000 leukemia deaths. Leukemia was responsible for 10.2 million DALYs. Leukemia developed in 1 in 118 men and 1 in 194 women worldwide.

Between 2006 and 2016, the global leukemia incidence increased by 26%—from 370,482 to 466,802 cases.

The researchers said the factors contributing to this increase were population growth (12%), population aging (10%), and an increase in age-specific incidence rates (3%).

NHL

In 2016, there were 461,000 new cases of NHL and 240,000 NHL deaths. NHL was responsible for 6.8 million DALYs. NHL developed in 1 in 110 men and 1 in 161 women worldwide.

Between 2006 and 2016, NHL increased by 45%, from 319,078 to 461,164 cases.

The factors contributing to this increase were increasing age-specific incidence rates (17%), changing population age structure (15%), and population growth (12%).

“A large proportion of the increase in cancer incidence can be explained by improving life expectancy and population growth—a development that can at least partially be attributed to a reduced burden from other common diseases,” the study authors wrote.

The authors also pointed out that prevention efforts are less effective for hematologic malignancies than for other cancers.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Research has shown an increase in the global incidence of leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in recent years.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed that, from 2006 to 2016, the incidence of NHL increased 45%, and the incidence of leukemia increased 26%.

These increases were largely due to population growth and aging.

Results from the GDB study were published in JAMA Oncology.

The study indicated that, in 2016, there were 17.2 million cases of cancer worldwide and 8.9 million cancer deaths.

One in 3 men were likely to get cancer during their lifetime, as were 1 in 5 women. Cancer was associated with 213.2 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

The following table lists the 2016 global incidence and mortality figures for all cancers combined and for individual hematologic malignancies.

Leukemia

In 2016, there were 467,000 new cases of leukemia and 310,000 leukemia deaths. Leukemia was responsible for 10.2 million DALYs. Leukemia developed in 1 in 118 men and 1 in 194 women worldwide.

Between 2006 and 2016, the global leukemia incidence increased by 26%—from 370,482 to 466,802 cases.

The researchers said the factors contributing to this increase were population growth (12%), population aging (10%), and an increase in age-specific incidence rates (3%).

NHL

In 2016, there were 461,000 new cases of NHL and 240,000 NHL deaths. NHL was responsible for 6.8 million DALYs. NHL developed in 1 in 110 men and 1 in 161 women worldwide.

Between 2006 and 2016, NHL increased by 45%, from 319,078 to 461,164 cases.

The factors contributing to this increase were increasing age-specific incidence rates (17%), changing population age structure (15%), and population growth (12%).

“A large proportion of the increase in cancer incidence can be explained by improving life expectancy and population growth—a development that can at least partially be attributed to a reduced burden from other common diseases,” the study authors wrote.

The authors also pointed out that prevention efforts are less effective for hematologic malignancies than for other cancers.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Research has shown an increase in the global incidence of leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in recent years.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed that, from 2006 to 2016, the incidence of NHL increased 45%, and the incidence of leukemia increased 26%.

These increases were largely due to population growth and aging.

Results from the GDB study were published in JAMA Oncology.

The study indicated that, in 2016, there were 17.2 million cases of cancer worldwide and 8.9 million cancer deaths.

One in 3 men were likely to get cancer during their lifetime, as were 1 in 5 women. Cancer was associated with 213.2 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

The following table lists the 2016 global incidence and mortality figures for all cancers combined and for individual hematologic malignancies.

Leukemia

In 2016, there were 467,000 new cases of leukemia and 310,000 leukemia deaths. Leukemia was responsible for 10.2 million DALYs. Leukemia developed in 1 in 118 men and 1 in 194 women worldwide.

Between 2006 and 2016, the global leukemia incidence increased by 26%—from 370,482 to 466,802 cases.

The researchers said the factors contributing to this increase were population growth (12%), population aging (10%), and an increase in age-specific incidence rates (3%).

NHL

In 2016, there were 461,000 new cases of NHL and 240,000 NHL deaths. NHL was responsible for 6.8 million DALYs. NHL developed in 1 in 110 men and 1 in 161 women worldwide.

Between 2006 and 2016, NHL increased by 45%, from 319,078 to 461,164 cases.

The factors contributing to this increase were increasing age-specific incidence rates (17%), changing population age structure (15%), and population growth (12%).

“A large proportion of the increase in cancer incidence can be explained by improving life expectancy and population growth—a development that can at least partially be attributed to a reduced burden from other common diseases,” the study authors wrote.

The authors also pointed out that prevention efforts are less effective for hematologic malignancies than for other cancers.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A review of data from more than 19 million people indicates that diabetes significantly raises a person’s risk of developing cancer.

When researchers compared patients with diabetes and without, both male and female diabetics had an increased risk of leukemias and lymphomas as well as certain solid tumors.

Researchers also found that diabetes conferred a higher cancer risk for women than men, both for all cancers combined and for some specific cancers, including leukemia.

“The link between diabetes and the risk of developing cancer is now firmly established,” said Toshiaki Ohkuma, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“We have also demonstrated, for the first time, that women with diabetes are more likely to develop any form of cancer and have a significantly higher chance of developing kidney, oral, and stomach cancers and leukemia.”

Dr Ohkuma and his colleagues reported these findings in Diabetologia.

The researchers conducted a systematic search in PubMed MEDLINE to identify reports on the links between diabetes and cancer. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of the relevant studies.

Only those cohort studies providing relative risks (RRs) for the association between diabetes and cancer for both women and men were included. In total, 107 relevant articles were identified, along with 36 cohorts of individual participant data.

RRs for cancer were obtained for patients with diabetes (types 1 and 2 combined) versus those without diabetes, for both men and women. The women-to-men ratios of these relative risk ratios (RRRs) were then calculated to determine the excess risk in women if present.

Data on all-site cancer was available from 47 studies, involving 121 cohorts and 19,239,302 individuals.

Diabetics vs non-diabetics

Women with diabetes had a 27% higher risk of all-site cancer compared to women without diabetes (RR=1.27; 95% CI 1.21, 1.32; P<0.001).

For men, the risk of all-site cancer was 19% higher among those with diabetes than those without (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.13, 1.25; P<0.001).

There were several hematologic malignancies for which diabetics had an increased risk, as shown in the following table.

Sex comparison

Calculation of the women-to-men ratio revealed that women with diabetes had a 6% greater excess risk of all-site cancer compared to men with diabetes (RRR=1.06; 95% CI 1.03, 1.09; P<0.001).

The women-to-men ratios also showed significantly higher risks for female diabetics for:

• Kidney cancer—RRR=1.11 (99% CI 1.04, 1.18; P<0.001)
• Oral cancer—RRR=1.13 (99% CI 1.00, 1.28; P=0.009)
• Stomach cancer—RRR=1.14 (99% CI 1.07, 1.22; P<0.001)
• Leukemia—RRR=1.15 (99% CI 1.02, 1.28; P=0.002).

However, women had a significantly lower risk of liver cancer (RRR=0.88; 99% CI 0.79, 0.99; P=0.005).

There are several possible reasons for the excess cancer risk observed in women, according to study author Sanne Peters, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of Oxford in the UK.

For example, on average, women are in the pre-diabetic state of impaired glucose tolerance 2 years longer than men.

“Historically, we know that women are often under-treated when they first present with symptoms of diabetes, are less likely to receive intensive care, and are not taking the same levels of medications as men,” Dr Peters said. “All of these could go some way into explaining why women are at greater risk of developing cancer, but, without more research, we can’t be certain.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A review of data from more than 19 million people indicates that diabetes significantly raises a person’s risk of developing cancer.

When researchers compared patients with diabetes and without, both male and female diabetics had an increased risk of leukemias and lymphomas as well as certain solid tumors.

Researchers also found that diabetes conferred a higher cancer risk for women than men, both for all cancers combined and for some specific cancers, including leukemia.

“The link between diabetes and the risk of developing cancer is now firmly established,” said Toshiaki Ohkuma, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“We have also demonstrated, for the first time, that women with diabetes are more likely to develop any form of cancer and have a significantly higher chance of developing kidney, oral, and stomach cancers and leukemia.”

Dr Ohkuma and his colleagues reported these findings in Diabetologia.

The researchers conducted a systematic search in PubMed MEDLINE to identify reports on the links between diabetes and cancer. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of the relevant studies.

Only those cohort studies providing relative risks (RRs) for the association between diabetes and cancer for both women and men were included. In total, 107 relevant articles were identified, along with 36 cohorts of individual participant data.

RRs for cancer were obtained for patients with diabetes (types 1 and 2 combined) versus those without diabetes, for both men and women. The women-to-men ratios of these relative risk ratios (RRRs) were then calculated to determine the excess risk in women if present.

Data on all-site cancer was available from 47 studies, involving 121 cohorts and 19,239,302 individuals.

Diabetics vs non-diabetics

Women with diabetes had a 27% higher risk of all-site cancer compared to women without diabetes (RR=1.27; 95% CI 1.21, 1.32; P<0.001).

For men, the risk of all-site cancer was 19% higher among those with diabetes than those without (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.13, 1.25; P<0.001).

There were several hematologic malignancies for which diabetics had an increased risk, as shown in the following table.

Sex comparison

Calculation of the women-to-men ratio revealed that women with diabetes had a 6% greater excess risk of all-site cancer compared to men with diabetes (RRR=1.06; 95% CI 1.03, 1.09; P<0.001).

The women-to-men ratios also showed significantly higher risks for female diabetics for:

• Kidney cancer—RRR=1.11 (99% CI 1.04, 1.18; P<0.001)
• Oral cancer—RRR=1.13 (99% CI 1.00, 1.28; P=0.009)
• Stomach cancer—RRR=1.14 (99% CI 1.07, 1.22; P<0.001)
• Leukemia—RRR=1.15 (99% CI 1.02, 1.28; P=0.002).

However, women had a significantly lower risk of liver cancer (RRR=0.88; 99% CI 0.79, 0.99; P=0.005).

There are several possible reasons for the excess cancer risk observed in women, according to study author Sanne Peters, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of Oxford in the UK.

For example, on average, women are in the pre-diabetic state of impaired glucose tolerance 2 years longer than men.

“Historically, we know that women are often under-treated when they first present with symptoms of diabetes, are less likely to receive intensive care, and are not taking the same levels of medications as men,” Dr Peters said. “All of these could go some way into explaining why women are at greater risk of developing cancer, but, without more research, we can’t be certain.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A review of data from more than 19 million people indicates that diabetes significantly raises a person’s risk of developing cancer.

When researchers compared patients with diabetes and without, both male and female diabetics had an increased risk of leukemias and lymphomas as well as certain solid tumors.

Researchers also found that diabetes conferred a higher cancer risk for women than men, both for all cancers combined and for some specific cancers, including leukemia.

“The link between diabetes and the risk of developing cancer is now firmly established,” said Toshiaki Ohkuma, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“We have also demonstrated, for the first time, that women with diabetes are more likely to develop any form of cancer and have a significantly higher chance of developing kidney, oral, and stomach cancers and leukemia.”

Dr Ohkuma and his colleagues reported these findings in Diabetologia.

The researchers conducted a systematic search in PubMed MEDLINE to identify reports on the links between diabetes and cancer. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of the relevant studies.

Only those cohort studies providing relative risks (RRs) for the association between diabetes and cancer for both women and men were included. In total, 107 relevant articles were identified, along with 36 cohorts of individual participant data.

RRs for cancer were obtained for patients with diabetes (types 1 and 2 combined) versus those without diabetes, for both men and women. The women-to-men ratios of these relative risk ratios (RRRs) were then calculated to determine the excess risk in women if present.

Data on all-site cancer was available from 47 studies, involving 121 cohorts and 19,239,302 individuals.

Diabetics vs non-diabetics

Women with diabetes had a 27% higher risk of all-site cancer compared to women without diabetes (RR=1.27; 95% CI 1.21, 1.32; P<0.001).

For men, the risk of all-site cancer was 19% higher among those with diabetes than those without (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.13, 1.25; P<0.001).

There were several hematologic malignancies for which diabetics had an increased risk, as shown in the following table.

Sex comparison

Calculation of the women-to-men ratio revealed that women with diabetes had a 6% greater excess risk of all-site cancer compared to men with diabetes (RRR=1.06; 95% CI 1.03, 1.09; P<0.001).

The women-to-men ratios also showed significantly higher risks for female diabetics for:

• Kidney cancer—RRR=1.11 (99% CI 1.04, 1.18; P<0.001)
• Oral cancer—RRR=1.13 (99% CI 1.00, 1.28; P=0.009)
• Stomach cancer—RRR=1.14 (99% CI 1.07, 1.22; P<0.001)
• Leukemia—RRR=1.15 (99% CI 1.02, 1.28; P=0.002).

However, women had a significantly lower risk of liver cancer (RRR=0.88; 99% CI 0.79, 0.99; P=0.005).

There are several possible reasons for the excess cancer risk observed in women, according to study author Sanne Peters, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of Oxford in the UK.

For example, on average, women are in the pre-diabetic state of impaired glucose tolerance 2 years longer than men.

“Historically, we know that women are often under-treated when they first present with symptoms of diabetes, are less likely to receive intensive care, and are not taking the same levels of medications as men,” Dr Peters said. “All of these could go some way into explaining why women are at greater risk of developing cancer, but, without more research, we can’t be certain.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the marketing authorization for dasatinib (Sprycel).

The drug is now approved to treat patients ages 1 to 18 with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP).

The EC has also approved a new formulation of dasatinib—a powder for oral suspension (PFOS) intended for patients who cannot swallow tablets whole or who weigh 10 kg or less.

Dasatinib is also EC-approved to treat adults with:

• Newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP
• Chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib
• Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The EC’s latest approval of dasatinib is supported by results from a phase 2 trial (NCT00777036), which were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in March.

The trial included 29 patients with imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML-CP and 84 patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP.

The previously treated patients received dasatinib tablets. Newly diagnosed patients were treated with dasatinib tablets (n=51) or PFOS (n=33).

Patients who started on PFOS could switch to tablets after receiving PFOS for at least 1 year. Sixty-seven percent of patients on PFOS switched to tablets due to patient preference.

The average daily dose of dasatinib was 58.18 mg/m² in the previously treated patients and 59.84 mg/m² in the newly diagnosed patients (for both tablets and PFOS). The median duration of treatment was 49.91 months (range, 1.9 to 90.2) and 42.30 months (range, 0.1 to 75.2), respectively.

Rates of confirmed complete hematologic response (CHR) at any time were 93% in the previously treated patients and 96% in the newly diagnosed patients.

At 12 months, previously treated patients had a major molecular response (MMR) rate of 41% and a complete molecular response (CMR) rate of 7%. In newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 52%, and CMR was 8%.

At 24 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 55% and a CMR rate of 17%. In the newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 70%, and CMR was 21%.

The rate of major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at any time was 89.7% in all previously treated patients and 90% when the researchers excluded patients with MCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The rate of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at any time was 94% in all newly diagnosed patients and 93.9% when the researchers excluded patients with CCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The median progression-free survival and overall survival had not been reached at last follow-up.

The estimated 48-month progression-free survival was 78% in the previously treated patients and 93% in the newly diagnosed patients. The estimated 48-month overall survival was 96% and 100%, respectively.

Dasatinib-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 10% of the previously treated patients included nausea/vomiting (31%), myalgia/arthralgia (17%), fatigue (14%), rash (14%), diarrhea (14%), hemorrhage (10%), bone growth and development events (10%), and shortness of breath (10%).

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the newly diagnosed patients included nausea/vomiting (20%), myalgia/arthralgia (10%), fatigue (11%), rash (19%), diarrhea (18%), and hemorrhage (10%).

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the marketing authorization for dasatinib (Sprycel).

The drug is now approved to treat patients ages 1 to 18 with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP).

The EC has also approved a new formulation of dasatinib—a powder for oral suspension (PFOS) intended for patients who cannot swallow tablets whole or who weigh 10 kg or less.

Dasatinib is also EC-approved to treat adults with:

• Newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP
• Chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib
• Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The EC’s latest approval of dasatinib is supported by results from a phase 2 trial (NCT00777036), which were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in March.

The trial included 29 patients with imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML-CP and 84 patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP.

The previously treated patients received dasatinib tablets. Newly diagnosed patients were treated with dasatinib tablets (n=51) or PFOS (n=33).

Patients who started on PFOS could switch to tablets after receiving PFOS for at least 1 year. Sixty-seven percent of patients on PFOS switched to tablets due to patient preference.

The average daily dose of dasatinib was 58.18 mg/m² in the previously treated patients and 59.84 mg/m² in the newly diagnosed patients (for both tablets and PFOS). The median duration of treatment was 49.91 months (range, 1.9 to 90.2) and 42.30 months (range, 0.1 to 75.2), respectively.

Rates of confirmed complete hematologic response (CHR) at any time were 93% in the previously treated patients and 96% in the newly diagnosed patients.

At 12 months, previously treated patients had a major molecular response (MMR) rate of 41% and a complete molecular response (CMR) rate of 7%. In newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 52%, and CMR was 8%.

At 24 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 55% and a CMR rate of 17%. In the newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 70%, and CMR was 21%.

The rate of major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at any time was 89.7% in all previously treated patients and 90% when the researchers excluded patients with MCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The rate of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at any time was 94% in all newly diagnosed patients and 93.9% when the researchers excluded patients with CCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The median progression-free survival and overall survival had not been reached at last follow-up.

The estimated 48-month progression-free survival was 78% in the previously treated patients and 93% in the newly diagnosed patients. The estimated 48-month overall survival was 96% and 100%, respectively.

Dasatinib-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 10% of the previously treated patients included nausea/vomiting (31%), myalgia/arthralgia (17%), fatigue (14%), rash (14%), diarrhea (14%), hemorrhage (10%), bone growth and development events (10%), and shortness of breath (10%).

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the newly diagnosed patients included nausea/vomiting (20%), myalgia/arthralgia (10%), fatigue (11%), rash (19%), diarrhea (18%), and hemorrhage (10%).

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the marketing authorization for dasatinib (Sprycel).

The drug is now approved to treat patients ages 1 to 18 with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP).

The EC has also approved a new formulation of dasatinib—a powder for oral suspension (PFOS) intended for patients who cannot swallow tablets whole or who weigh 10 kg or less.

Dasatinib is also EC-approved to treat adults with:

• Newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP
• Chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib
• Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The EC’s latest approval of dasatinib is supported by results from a phase 2 trial (NCT00777036), which were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in March.

The trial included 29 patients with imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML-CP and 84 patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP.

The previously treated patients received dasatinib tablets. Newly diagnosed patients were treated with dasatinib tablets (n=51) or PFOS (n=33).

Patients who started on PFOS could switch to tablets after receiving PFOS for at least 1 year. Sixty-seven percent of patients on PFOS switched to tablets due to patient preference.

The average daily dose of dasatinib was 58.18 mg/m² in the previously treated patients and 59.84 mg/m² in the newly diagnosed patients (for both tablets and PFOS). The median duration of treatment was 49.91 months (range, 1.9 to 90.2) and 42.30 months (range, 0.1 to 75.2), respectively.

Rates of confirmed complete hematologic response (CHR) at any time were 93% in the previously treated patients and 96% in the newly diagnosed patients.

At 12 months, previously treated patients had a major molecular response (MMR) rate of 41% and a complete molecular response (CMR) rate of 7%. In newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 52%, and CMR was 8%.

At 24 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 55% and a CMR rate of 17%. In the newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 70%, and CMR was 21%.

The rate of major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at any time was 89.7% in all previously treated patients and 90% when the researchers excluded patients with MCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The rate of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at any time was 94% in all newly diagnosed patients and 93.9% when the researchers excluded patients with CCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The median progression-free survival and overall survival had not been reached at last follow-up.

The estimated 48-month progression-free survival was 78% in the previously treated patients and 93% in the newly diagnosed patients. The estimated 48-month overall survival was 96% and 100%, respectively.

Dasatinib-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 10% of the previously treated patients included nausea/vomiting (31%), myalgia/arthralgia (17%), fatigue (14%), rash (14%), diarrhea (14%), hemorrhage (10%), bone growth and development events (10%), and shortness of breath (10%).

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the newly diagnosed patients included nausea/vomiting (20%), myalgia/arthralgia (10%), fatigue (11%), rash (19%), diarrhea (18%), and hemorrhage (10%).

ORLANDO – Not all oncology drugs are equal when it comes to their risk of treatment-induced cardiac arrhythmias.

Indeed, compared with anthracycline-based regimens, long the workhorse in treating many forms of cancer, the novel targeted agents – tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies – were 40% less likely to result in a new arrhythmia diagnosis within 6 months of treatment initiation, in a large, single-center retrospective study reported by Andrew Nickel at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nickel A et al. ACC 18. Abstract 900-06.

ORLANDO – Not all oncology drugs are equal when it comes to their risk of treatment-induced cardiac arrhythmias.

Indeed, compared with anthracycline-based regimens, long the workhorse in treating many forms of cancer, the novel targeted agents – tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies – were 40% less likely to result in a new arrhythmia diagnosis within 6 months of treatment initiation, in a large, single-center retrospective study reported by Andrew Nickel at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nickel A et al. ACC 18. Abstract 900-06.

ORLANDO – Not all oncology drugs are equal when it comes to their risk of treatment-induced cardiac arrhythmias.

Indeed, compared with anthracycline-based regimens, long the workhorse in treating many forms of cancer, the novel targeted agents – tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies – were 40% less likely to result in a new arrhythmia diagnosis within 6 months of treatment initiation, in a large, single-center retrospective study reported by Andrew Nickel at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nickel A et al. ACC 18. Abstract 900-06.

Photo by Patrick Pelletier

The availability of generic imatinib has had limited effects on costs of the drug, according to research published in Health Affairs.

Data suggest the cost of Gleevec in the US has more than doubled since the drug was approved in 2001, and the introduction of generic imatinib has reduced costs only slightly.

Two years after generic imatinib hit the market, a month’s supply of Gleevec cost about $9000, and the cost for generic imatinib was about $8000.

“Patients and providers have all looked forward to generic entry, expecting major price reductions,” said study author Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee.

“Unfortunately, we don’t see prices drop as quickly and as low as we would hope when generics are available.”

For this study, Dr Dusetzina and a colleague analyzed data from the MarketScan Commercial Research Database. The database contained records of 139,233 prescription fills for imatinib, which were made by 7201 patients from May 2001 through September 2017.

The researchers noted that Gleevec was priced at nearly $4000 for a 1-month (400 mg) supply when it came on the market in 2001. That price escalated to nearly $10,000 by 2015 before a generic competitor entered the market.

However, prices for Gleevec and generic imatinib remained high 2 years later. In 2017, a month’s supply of Gleevec cost about $9000, and the cost of generic imatinib was about $8000.

The researchers said the Gleevec case demonstrates several potential barriers to effective generic price competition, including shifts in prescribing toward more expensive brand-name treatments and smaller-than-expected price reductions.

Twenty-four percent of imatinib (Gleevec) prescriptions claims were for “dispense as written,” according to the researchers. This suggests that patients or providers specifically wanted to stay on the brand-name drug instead of switching to the generic.

“The more than doubling of the drug price over time and the lack of price reductions observed with nearly 2 years of generic drug competition is concerning,” Dr Dusetzina said.

“It begs the question whether we can rely on generic entry as a primary approach to address drug pricing for high-priced specialty medications. We need robust competition to move prices in this space.”

Photo by Patrick Pelletier

The availability of generic imatinib has had limited effects on costs of the drug, according to research published in Health Affairs.

Data suggest the cost of Gleevec in the US has more than doubled since the drug was approved in 2001, and the introduction of generic imatinib has reduced costs only slightly.

Two years after generic imatinib hit the market, a month’s supply of Gleevec cost about $9000, and the cost for generic imatinib was about $8000.

“Patients and providers have all looked forward to generic entry, expecting major price reductions,” said study author Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee.

“Unfortunately, we don’t see prices drop as quickly and as low as we would hope when generics are available.”

For this study, Dr Dusetzina and a colleague analyzed data from the MarketScan Commercial Research Database. The database contained records of 139,233 prescription fills for imatinib, which were made by 7201 patients from May 2001 through September 2017.

The researchers noted that Gleevec was priced at nearly $4000 for a 1-month (400 mg) supply when it came on the market in 2001. That price escalated to nearly $10,000 by 2015 before a generic competitor entered the market.

However, prices for Gleevec and generic imatinib remained high 2 years later. In 2017, a month’s supply of Gleevec cost about $9000, and the cost of generic imatinib was about $8000.

The researchers said the Gleevec case demonstrates several potential barriers to effective generic price competition, including shifts in prescribing toward more expensive brand-name treatments and smaller-than-expected price reductions.

Twenty-four percent of imatinib (Gleevec) prescriptions claims were for “dispense as written,” according to the researchers. This suggests that patients or providers specifically wanted to stay on the brand-name drug instead of switching to the generic.

“The more than doubling of the drug price over time and the lack of price reductions observed with nearly 2 years of generic drug competition is concerning,” Dr Dusetzina said.

“It begs the question whether we can rely on generic entry as a primary approach to address drug pricing for high-priced specialty medications. We need robust competition to move prices in this space.”

Photo by Patrick Pelletier

The availability of generic imatinib has had limited effects on costs of the drug, according to research published in Health Affairs.

Data suggest the cost of Gleevec in the US has more than doubled since the drug was approved in 2001, and the introduction of generic imatinib has reduced costs only slightly.

Two years after generic imatinib hit the market, a month’s supply of Gleevec cost about $9000, and the cost for generic imatinib was about $8000.

“Patients and providers have all looked forward to generic entry, expecting major price reductions,” said study author Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee.

“Unfortunately, we don’t see prices drop as quickly and as low as we would hope when generics are available.”

For this study, Dr Dusetzina and a colleague analyzed data from the MarketScan Commercial Research Database. The database contained records of 139,233 prescription fills for imatinib, which were made by 7201 patients from May 2001 through September 2017.

The researchers noted that Gleevec was priced at nearly $4000 for a 1-month (400 mg) supply when it came on the market in 2001. That price escalated to nearly $10,000 by 2015 before a generic competitor entered the market.

However, prices for Gleevec and generic imatinib remained high 2 years later. In 2017, a month’s supply of Gleevec cost about $9000, and the cost of generic imatinib was about $8000.

The researchers said the Gleevec case demonstrates several potential barriers to effective generic price competition, including shifts in prescribing toward more expensive brand-name treatments and smaller-than-expected price reductions.

Twenty-four percent of imatinib (Gleevec) prescriptions claims were for “dispense as written,” according to the researchers. This suggests that patients or providers specifically wanted to stay on the brand-name drug instead of switching to the generic.

“The more than doubling of the drug price over time and the lack of price reductions observed with nearly 2 years of generic drug competition is concerning,” Dr Dusetzina said.

“It begs the question whether we can rely on generic entry as a primary approach to address drug pricing for high-priced specialty medications. We need robust competition to move prices in this space.”

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended changes to the marketing authorization for dasatinib (Sprycel).

The CHMP is recommending approval for dasatinib as a treatment for pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP) or Ph+ CML-CP that is resistant or intolerant to prior therapy, including imatinib.

The CHMP has also recommended approval of a new formulation of dasatinib—a powder for oral suspension (PFOS)—for use in pediatric patients.

Dasatinib is already approved in the European Union to treat adults with:

• Newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP
• Chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib
• Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on dasatinib for pediatric patients will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s opinion on dasatinib for pediatric patients is supported by 2 studies. Results from the phase 1 study (NCT00306202) were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2013. Phase 2 (NCT00777036) results were published in the same journal this year.

Phase 1

The phase 1 trial included 17 patients with CML-CP, all of whom had received prior imatinib.

Eleven patients received dasatinib at a starting dose of 60 mg/m² once daily, and 6 received the drug at a starting dose of 80 mg/m² once daily. Dose escalation was allowed based on tolerance and response. The median duration of treatment was 24.1 months (range, 2.3 to 50.6 months).

The 60 mg/m² starting dose appeared more tolerable than 80 mg/m² dose.

Drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 20% of patients included neutropenia (82.4%), anemia (70.6%), thrombocytopenia (64.7%), nausea (29.4%), headache (35.3%), diarrhea (23.5%), and pain in extremity (23.5%). Grade 3-4 AEs included neutropenia (23.5%), thrombocytopenia (11.8%), and headache (5.9%). There were no drug-related deaths.

Ninety-four percent of patients achieved a complete hematologic response (CHR), 88% had a major cytogenetic response (MCyR), 82% had a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), 47% had a major molecular response (MMR), and 24% had a complete molecular response (CMR).

Patients who received the lower starting dose of dasatinib had lower rates of cumulative CCyR (72.7% vs 100%) and CHR (90.9% vs 100%) but higher rates of cumulative MMR (54.5% vs 33.3%) and CMR (27.3% vs 16.7).

The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) had not been reached at last follow-up. At 24 months, the estimated PFS was 61%, and the estimated OS was 88%.

Phase 2

The phase 2 trial included 29 patients with imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML-CP and 84 with newly diagnosed CML-CP.

The previously treated patients received dasatinib tablets. Newly diagnosed patients were treated with dasatinib tablets (n=51) or PFOS (n=33). Patients who started on PFOS could switch to tablets after receiving PFOS for at least 1 year. Sixty-seven percent of patients on PFOS switched to tablets due to patient preference.

The average daily dose of dasatinib was 58.18 mg/m² in the previously treated patients and 59.84 mg/m² in the newly diagnosed patients (for both tablets and PFOS). The median duration of treatment was 49.91 months (range, 1.9 to 90.2) and 42.30 months (range, 0.1 to 75.2), respectively.

Rates of confirmed CHR (at any time) were 93% in the previously treated patients and 96% in the newly diagnosed patients.

At 12 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 41% and a CMR rate of 7%. In newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 52%, and CMR was 8%.

At 24 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 55% and a CMR rate of 17%. In the newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 70%, and CMR was 21%.

The rate of MCyR at any time was 89.7% in all previously treated patients and 90% when the researchers excluded patients with MCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The rate of CCyR at any time was 94% in all newly diagnosed patients and 93.9% when the researchers excluded patients with CCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The median PFS and OS had not been reached at last follow-up. The estimated 48-month PFS was 78% in the previously treated patients and 93% in the newly diagnosed patients. The estimated 48-month OS was 96% and 100%, respectively.

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the previously treated patients included nausea/vomiting (31%), myalgia/arthralgia (17%), fatigue (14%), rash (14%), diarrhea (14%), hemorrhage (10%), bone growth and development events (10%), and shortness of breath (10%).

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the newly diagnosed patients included nausea/vomiting (20%), myalgia/arthralgia (10%), fatigue (11%), rash (19%), diarrhea (18%), and hemorrhage (10%).

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended changes to the marketing authorization for dasatinib (Sprycel).

The CHMP is recommending approval for dasatinib as a treatment for pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP) or Ph+ CML-CP that is resistant or intolerant to prior therapy, including imatinib.

The CHMP has also recommended approval of a new formulation of dasatinib—a powder for oral suspension (PFOS)—for use in pediatric patients.

Dasatinib is already approved in the European Union to treat adults with:

• Newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP
• Chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib
• Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on dasatinib for pediatric patients will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s opinion on dasatinib for pediatric patients is supported by 2 studies. Results from the phase 1 study (NCT00306202) were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2013. Phase 2 (NCT00777036) results were published in the same journal this year.

Phase 1

The phase 1 trial included 17 patients with CML-CP, all of whom had received prior imatinib.

Eleven patients received dasatinib at a starting dose of 60 mg/m² once daily, and 6 received the drug at a starting dose of 80 mg/m² once daily. Dose escalation was allowed based on tolerance and response. The median duration of treatment was 24.1 months (range, 2.3 to 50.6 months).

The 60 mg/m² starting dose appeared more tolerable than 80 mg/m² dose.

Drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 20% of patients included neutropenia (82.4%), anemia (70.6%), thrombocytopenia (64.7%), nausea (29.4%), headache (35.3%), diarrhea (23.5%), and pain in extremity (23.5%). Grade 3-4 AEs included neutropenia (23.5%), thrombocytopenia (11.8%), and headache (5.9%). There were no drug-related deaths.

Ninety-four percent of patients achieved a complete hematologic response (CHR), 88% had a major cytogenetic response (MCyR), 82% had a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), 47% had a major molecular response (MMR), and 24% had a complete molecular response (CMR).

Patients who received the lower starting dose of dasatinib had lower rates of cumulative CCyR (72.7% vs 100%) and CHR (90.9% vs 100%) but higher rates of cumulative MMR (54.5% vs 33.3%) and CMR (27.3% vs 16.7).

The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) had not been reached at last follow-up. At 24 months, the estimated PFS was 61%, and the estimated OS was 88%.

Phase 2

The phase 2 trial included 29 patients with imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML-CP and 84 with newly diagnosed CML-CP.

The previously treated patients received dasatinib tablets. Newly diagnosed patients were treated with dasatinib tablets (n=51) or PFOS (n=33). Patients who started on PFOS could switch to tablets after receiving PFOS for at least 1 year. Sixty-seven percent of patients on PFOS switched to tablets due to patient preference.

The average daily dose of dasatinib was 58.18 mg/m² in the previously treated patients and 59.84 mg/m² in the newly diagnosed patients (for both tablets and PFOS). The median duration of treatment was 49.91 months (range, 1.9 to 90.2) and 42.30 months (range, 0.1 to 75.2), respectively.

Rates of confirmed CHR (at any time) were 93% in the previously treated patients and 96% in the newly diagnosed patients.

At 12 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 41% and a CMR rate of 7%. In newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 52%, and CMR was 8%.

At 24 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 55% and a CMR rate of 17%. In the newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 70%, and CMR was 21%.

The rate of MCyR at any time was 89.7% in all previously treated patients and 90% when the researchers excluded patients with MCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The rate of CCyR at any time was 94% in all newly diagnosed patients and 93.9% when the researchers excluded patients with CCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The median PFS and OS had not been reached at last follow-up. The estimated 48-month PFS was 78% in the previously treated patients and 93% in the newly diagnosed patients. The estimated 48-month OS was 96% and 100%, respectively.

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the previously treated patients included nausea/vomiting (31%), myalgia/arthralgia (17%), fatigue (14%), rash (14%), diarrhea (14%), hemorrhage (10%), bone growth and development events (10%), and shortness of breath (10%).

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the newly diagnosed patients included nausea/vomiting (20%), myalgia/arthralgia (10%), fatigue (11%), rash (19%), diarrhea (18%), and hemorrhage (10%).

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended changes to the marketing authorization for dasatinib (Sprycel).

The CHMP is recommending approval for dasatinib as a treatment for pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP) or Ph+ CML-CP that is resistant or intolerant to prior therapy, including imatinib.

The CHMP has also recommended approval of a new formulation of dasatinib—a powder for oral suspension (PFOS)—for use in pediatric patients.

Dasatinib is already approved in the European Union to treat adults with:

• Newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP
• Chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib
• Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on dasatinib for pediatric patients will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s opinion on dasatinib for pediatric patients is supported by 2 studies. Results from the phase 1 study (NCT00306202) were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2013. Phase 2 (NCT00777036) results were published in the same journal this year.

Phase 1

The phase 1 trial included 17 patients with CML-CP, all of whom had received prior imatinib.

Eleven patients received dasatinib at a starting dose of 60 mg/m² once daily, and 6 received the drug at a starting dose of 80 mg/m² once daily. Dose escalation was allowed based on tolerance and response. The median duration of treatment was 24.1 months (range, 2.3 to 50.6 months).

The 60 mg/m² starting dose appeared more tolerable than 80 mg/m² dose.

Drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 20% of patients included neutropenia (82.4%), anemia (70.6%), thrombocytopenia (64.7%), nausea (29.4%), headache (35.3%), diarrhea (23.5%), and pain in extremity (23.5%). Grade 3-4 AEs included neutropenia (23.5%), thrombocytopenia (11.8%), and headache (5.9%). There were no drug-related deaths.

Ninety-four percent of patients achieved a complete hematologic response (CHR), 88% had a major cytogenetic response (MCyR), 82% had a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), 47% had a major molecular response (MMR), and 24% had a complete molecular response (CMR).

Patients who received the lower starting dose of dasatinib had lower rates of cumulative CCyR (72.7% vs 100%) and CHR (90.9% vs 100%) but higher rates of cumulative MMR (54.5% vs 33.3%) and CMR (27.3% vs 16.7).

The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) had not been reached at last follow-up. At 24 months, the estimated PFS was 61%, and the estimated OS was 88%.

Phase 2

The phase 2 trial included 29 patients with imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML-CP and 84 with newly diagnosed CML-CP.

The previously treated patients received dasatinib tablets. Newly diagnosed patients were treated with dasatinib tablets (n=51) or PFOS (n=33). Patients who started on PFOS could switch to tablets after receiving PFOS for at least 1 year. Sixty-seven percent of patients on PFOS switched to tablets due to patient preference.

The average daily dose of dasatinib was 58.18 mg/m² in the previously treated patients and 59.84 mg/m² in the newly diagnosed patients (for both tablets and PFOS). The median duration of treatment was 49.91 months (range, 1.9 to 90.2) and 42.30 months (range, 0.1 to 75.2), respectively.

Rates of confirmed CHR (at any time) were 93% in the previously treated patients and 96% in the newly diagnosed patients.

At 12 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 41% and a CMR rate of 7%. In newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 52%, and CMR was 8%.

At 24 months, previously treated patients had an MMR rate of 55% and a CMR rate of 17%. In the newly diagnosed patients, MMR was 70%, and CMR was 21%.

The rate of MCyR at any time was 89.7% in all previously treated patients and 90% when the researchers excluded patients with MCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The rate of CCyR at any time was 94% in all newly diagnosed patients and 93.9% when the researchers excluded patients with CCyR or unknown cytogenetic status at baseline.

The median PFS and OS had not been reached at last follow-up. The estimated 48-month PFS was 78% in the previously treated patients and 93% in the newly diagnosed patients. The estimated 48-month OS was 96% and 100%, respectively.

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the previously treated patients included nausea/vomiting (31%), myalgia/arthralgia (17%), fatigue (14%), rash (14%), diarrhea (14%), hemorrhage (10%), bone growth and development events (10%), and shortness of breath (10%).

Dasatinib-related AEs occurring in at least 10% of the newly diagnosed patients included nausea/vomiting (20%), myalgia/arthralgia (10%), fatigue (11%), rash (19%), diarrhea (18%), and hemorrhage (10%).

Physicians receiving general payments from the company marketing a targeted cancer therapy were more likely to prescribe it in three out of six drugs evaluated, researchers reported.

Prescribing of sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib was increased for physicians receiving such payments versus not receiving them, while prescribing of imatinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib were not, according to the analysis by Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors.

In previous studies, pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians have been associated with “higher-cost, brand-name pharmaceutical prescribing,” Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues wrote. The report was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Whether industry payments are associated with physician treatment choice in oncology is uncertain,” they said.

To evaluate the association between payments to oncologists and drug selection, Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues linked Open Payments data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to data from Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File for the years 2013-2014.

The primary variable in the study was payments received during 2013, according to investigators, and the primary outcome of the analysis was prescriptions filled during 2014.

Open Payments reported in 2013 had a total dollar value of $4.08 billion, including $1.20 billion paid to physicians, according to CMS data.

The researchers focused on targeted therapies for two therapeutic areas: metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib; and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), including imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib.

They limited their analysis to physicians listed as oncologists who filled at least 20 prescriptions for each of the three drugs in metastatic RCC (n = 354) or in CML (n = 2,225).

Receiving payments categorized as “general,” such as gifts, speaker fees, meals, and travel, increased the odds of prescribing drugs for both metastatic RCC (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.14; P = .001) and for CML (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47; P less than .001).

By contrast, research payments did not increase the odds of prescribing those drugs, the investigators reported.

Looking at specific drugs, they found that receipt of general payments from a drug’s manufacturer was associated with increased prescribing of sunitinib (50.5% versus 34.4%, P = .01), dasatinib (13.8% versus 11.4%, P = .02), and nilotinib (15.4% vs 12.5%, P = .01).

However, no such association was found for sorafenib or pazopanib.

For imatinib, by contrast, investigators said industry payments were associated with a prescribing decrease.

“This may reflect a strategy by the manufacturer of imatinib, which also produces nilotinib, to promote switching to nilotinib before the patent expiration of imatinib in 2015,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Mitchell and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mitchell AP, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 0.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0776.

Physicians receiving general payments from the company marketing a targeted cancer therapy were more likely to prescribe it in three out of six drugs evaluated, researchers reported.

Prescribing of sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib was increased for physicians receiving such payments versus not receiving them, while prescribing of imatinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib were not, according to the analysis by Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors.

In previous studies, pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians have been associated with “higher-cost, brand-name pharmaceutical prescribing,” Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues wrote. The report was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Whether industry payments are associated with physician treatment choice in oncology is uncertain,” they said.

To evaluate the association between payments to oncologists and drug selection, Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues linked Open Payments data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to data from Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File for the years 2013-2014.

The primary variable in the study was payments received during 2013, according to investigators, and the primary outcome of the analysis was prescriptions filled during 2014.

Open Payments reported in 2013 had a total dollar value of $4.08 billion, including $1.20 billion paid to physicians, according to CMS data.

The researchers focused on targeted therapies for two therapeutic areas: metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib; and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), including imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib.

They limited their analysis to physicians listed as oncologists who filled at least 20 prescriptions for each of the three drugs in metastatic RCC (n = 354) or in CML (n = 2,225).

Receiving payments categorized as “general,” such as gifts, speaker fees, meals, and travel, increased the odds of prescribing drugs for both metastatic RCC (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.14; P = .001) and for CML (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47; P less than .001).

By contrast, research payments did not increase the odds of prescribing those drugs, the investigators reported.

Looking at specific drugs, they found that receipt of general payments from a drug’s manufacturer was associated with increased prescribing of sunitinib (50.5% versus 34.4%, P = .01), dasatinib (13.8% versus 11.4%, P = .02), and nilotinib (15.4% vs 12.5%, P = .01).

However, no such association was found for sorafenib or pazopanib.

For imatinib, by contrast, investigators said industry payments were associated with a prescribing decrease.

“This may reflect a strategy by the manufacturer of imatinib, which also produces nilotinib, to promote switching to nilotinib before the patent expiration of imatinib in 2015,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Mitchell and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mitchell AP, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 0.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0776.

Physicians receiving general payments from the company marketing a targeted cancer therapy were more likely to prescribe it in three out of six drugs evaluated, researchers reported.

Prescribing of sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib was increased for physicians receiving such payments versus not receiving them, while prescribing of imatinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib were not, according to the analysis by Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors.

In previous studies, pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians have been associated with “higher-cost, brand-name pharmaceutical prescribing,” Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues wrote. The report was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Whether industry payments are associated with physician treatment choice in oncology is uncertain,” they said.

To evaluate the association between payments to oncologists and drug selection, Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues linked Open Payments data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to data from Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File for the years 2013-2014.

The primary variable in the study was payments received during 2013, according to investigators, and the primary outcome of the analysis was prescriptions filled during 2014.

Open Payments reported in 2013 had a total dollar value of $4.08 billion, including $1.20 billion paid to physicians, according to CMS data.

The researchers focused on targeted therapies for two therapeutic areas: metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib; and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), including imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib.

They limited their analysis to physicians listed as oncologists who filled at least 20 prescriptions for each of the three drugs in metastatic RCC (n = 354) or in CML (n = 2,225).

Receiving payments categorized as “general,” such as gifts, speaker fees, meals, and travel, increased the odds of prescribing drugs for both metastatic RCC (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.14; P = .001) and for CML (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47; P less than .001).

By contrast, research payments did not increase the odds of prescribing those drugs, the investigators reported.

Looking at specific drugs, they found that receipt of general payments from a drug’s manufacturer was associated with increased prescribing of sunitinib (50.5% versus 34.4%, P = .01), dasatinib (13.8% versus 11.4%, P = .02), and nilotinib (15.4% vs 12.5%, P = .01).

However, no such association was found for sorafenib or pazopanib.

For imatinib, by contrast, investigators said industry payments were associated with a prescribing decrease.

“This may reflect a strategy by the manufacturer of imatinib, which also produces nilotinib, to promote switching to nilotinib before the patent expiration of imatinib in 2015,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Mitchell and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mitchell AP, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 0.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0776.

AML cells

The experimental agent prexigebersen (formerly BP1001) was considered well-tolerated and demonstrated early evidence of activity against relapsed/refractory hematologic disorders in a phase 1/1b trial.

The drug reduced blasts in the bone marrow and peripheral blood for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

When given in combination with low-dose cytarabine, prexigebersen produced complete responses (CRs) in patients with AML.

Researchers said that, overall, the toxic effects of prexigebersen were manageable.

There was 1 patient who had dose-limiting toxicities, 1 who discontinued treatment due to possible drug-related toxic effects, and 1 treatment-related death.

Still, the maximum tolerated dose of prexigebersen was not established.

These results were published in The Lancet Haematology. The study was sponsored by Bio-Path Holdings, Inc., the company developing prexigebersen.

Prexigebersen is an anti-sense oligodeoxynucleotide developed to block Grb2 expression and function. Researchers tested the drug in a single-center, dose-escalation, phase 1/1b trial that enrolled and treated 39 patients.

In the phase 1 portion of the trial, patients received prexigebersen monotherapy. In the phase 1b portion, they received the drug in combination with low-dose cytarabine.

There were 32 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial. Most (n=23) had AML, 5 had CML in blast phase, and 4 had MDS. The patients’ median age was 63 (range, 56-73), and they had received a median of 4 prior therapies.

All 7 patients in the phase 1b portion had AML. They had a median age of 72 (range, 70-76) and had all received 1 prior therapy.

For phase 1, prexigebersen was administered intravenously, twice weekly for 28 days at doses of 5 mg/m² in cohort 1 (n=13), 10 mg/m² in cohort 2 (n=6), 20 mg/m² in cohort 3 (n=3), 40 mg/m² in cohort 4 (n=3), 60 mg/m² in cohort 5 (n=3), and 90 mg/m² in cohort 6 (n=4).

In the phase 1b portion, patients received prexigebersen at 60 mg/m² (n=4) or 90 mg/m² (n=3) in combination with 20 mg of cytarabine (twice-daily subcutaneous injections).

Safety

Twenty-seven patients were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity—21 from phase 1 and 6 from 1b.

One patient in cohort 1 developed mucositis and hand-foot syndrome, which were considered possibly related to prexigebersen and deemed dose-limiting toxicities. The patient was also receiving hydroxyurea (3 g/day) for CML and had a history of hydroxyurea-induced mucositis.

There were no other dose-limiting toxicities, and the researchers did not identify a maximum tolerated dose of prexigebersen.

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were cardiopulmonary disorders and fevers (including neutropenic fevers and infections).

In the monotherapy group, 17% of patients had grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary AEs, and 11% had fevers. In the prexigebersen-cytarabine combination group, 8% had grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary AEs, and 6% had fevers.

There were 5 grade 5 AEs in 4 patients, all of whom received monotherapy. These included cardiopulmonary disorders (n=2), fevers (n=2), and multi-organ failure (n=1). One patient had both fever (sepsis) and multi-organ failure.

Efficacy

According to the researchers’ assessments, 22% of phase 1 patients (7/32) benefited from prexigebersen monotherapy and therefore received more than 1 cycle of treatment. Five of these patients had AML, and 2 had MDS.

Single-agent activity was observed in other patients as well.

Thirty-three percent (9/27) of patients who had peripheral blood blasts at baseline saw their blasts reduced by 50% or more while receiving monotherapy. One of these patients had CML, and the rest had AML.

Ten percent (3/29) of patients with bone marrow blasts at baseline had a reduction in blasts of 50% or more while receiving monotherapy.  Two of these patients had AML, and 1 had MDS.

Of the 7 patients receiving prexigebersen with cytarabine, 2 achieved a CR, and 1 had a CR with incomplete hematological recovery.

Two of the patients had stable disease, and the remaining 2 patients progressed. One of the patients with progressive disease withdrew from the study, and the other died.

Deaths

There were a total of 8 deaths.

One death was considered treatment-related. This patient had progressive CML in blast phase and died of multiple organ failure. This was the first patient treated on the trial, who also had the only dose-limiting toxicities.

Two patients with AML and 1 with MDS died of disease progression. Three AML patients died of sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest. And a CML patient died of respiratory distress.

AML cells

The experimental agent prexigebersen (formerly BP1001) was considered well-tolerated and demonstrated early evidence of activity against relapsed/refractory hematologic disorders in a phase 1/1b trial.

The drug reduced blasts in the bone marrow and peripheral blood for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

When given in combination with low-dose cytarabine, prexigebersen produced complete responses (CRs) in patients with AML.

Researchers said that, overall, the toxic effects of prexigebersen were manageable.

There was 1 patient who had dose-limiting toxicities, 1 who discontinued treatment due to possible drug-related toxic effects, and 1 treatment-related death.

Still, the maximum tolerated dose of prexigebersen was not established.

These results were published in The Lancet Haematology. The study was sponsored by Bio-Path Holdings, Inc., the company developing prexigebersen.

Prexigebersen is an anti-sense oligodeoxynucleotide developed to block Grb2 expression and function. Researchers tested the drug in a single-center, dose-escalation, phase 1/1b trial that enrolled and treated 39 patients.

In the phase 1 portion of the trial, patients received prexigebersen monotherapy. In the phase 1b portion, they received the drug in combination with low-dose cytarabine.

There were 32 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial. Most (n=23) had AML, 5 had CML in blast phase, and 4 had MDS. The patients’ median age was 63 (range, 56-73), and they had received a median of 4 prior therapies.

All 7 patients in the phase 1b portion had AML. They had a median age of 72 (range, 70-76) and had all received 1 prior therapy.

For phase 1, prexigebersen was administered intravenously, twice weekly for 28 days at doses of 5 mg/m² in cohort 1 (n=13), 10 mg/m² in cohort 2 (n=6), 20 mg/m² in cohort 3 (n=3), 40 mg/m² in cohort 4 (n=3), 60 mg/m² in cohort 5 (n=3), and 90 mg/m² in cohort 6 (n=4).

In the phase 1b portion, patients received prexigebersen at 60 mg/m² (n=4) or 90 mg/m² (n=3) in combination with 20 mg of cytarabine (twice-daily subcutaneous injections).

Safety

Twenty-seven patients were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity—21 from phase 1 and 6 from 1b.

One patient in cohort 1 developed mucositis and hand-foot syndrome, which were considered possibly related to prexigebersen and deemed dose-limiting toxicities. The patient was also receiving hydroxyurea (3 g/day) for CML and had a history of hydroxyurea-induced mucositis.

There were no other dose-limiting toxicities, and the researchers did not identify a maximum tolerated dose of prexigebersen.

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were cardiopulmonary disorders and fevers (including neutropenic fevers and infections).

In the monotherapy group, 17% of patients had grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary AEs, and 11% had fevers. In the prexigebersen-cytarabine combination group, 8% had grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary AEs, and 6% had fevers.

There were 5 grade 5 AEs in 4 patients, all of whom received monotherapy. These included cardiopulmonary disorders (n=2), fevers (n=2), and multi-organ failure (n=1). One patient had both fever (sepsis) and multi-organ failure.

Efficacy

According to the researchers’ assessments, 22% of phase 1 patients (7/32) benefited from prexigebersen monotherapy and therefore received more than 1 cycle of treatment. Five of these patients had AML, and 2 had MDS.

Single-agent activity was observed in other patients as well.

Thirty-three percent (9/27) of patients who had peripheral blood blasts at baseline saw their blasts reduced by 50% or more while receiving monotherapy. One of these patients had CML, and the rest had AML.

Ten percent (3/29) of patients with bone marrow blasts at baseline had a reduction in blasts of 50% or more while receiving monotherapy.  Two of these patients had AML, and 1 had MDS.

Of the 7 patients receiving prexigebersen with cytarabine, 2 achieved a CR, and 1 had a CR with incomplete hematological recovery.

Two of the patients had stable disease, and the remaining 2 patients progressed. One of the patients with progressive disease withdrew from the study, and the other died.

Deaths

There were a total of 8 deaths.

One death was considered treatment-related. This patient had progressive CML in blast phase and died of multiple organ failure. This was the first patient treated on the trial, who also had the only dose-limiting toxicities.

Two patients with AML and 1 with MDS died of disease progression. Three AML patients died of sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest. And a CML patient died of respiratory distress.

AML cells

The experimental agent prexigebersen (formerly BP1001) was considered well-tolerated and demonstrated early evidence of activity against relapsed/refractory hematologic disorders in a phase 1/1b trial.

The drug reduced blasts in the bone marrow and peripheral blood for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

When given in combination with low-dose cytarabine, prexigebersen produced complete responses (CRs) in patients with AML.

Researchers said that, overall, the toxic effects of prexigebersen were manageable.

There was 1 patient who had dose-limiting toxicities, 1 who discontinued treatment due to possible drug-related toxic effects, and 1 treatment-related death.

Still, the maximum tolerated dose of prexigebersen was not established.

These results were published in The Lancet Haematology. The study was sponsored by Bio-Path Holdings, Inc., the company developing prexigebersen.

Prexigebersen is an anti-sense oligodeoxynucleotide developed to block Grb2 expression and function. Researchers tested the drug in a single-center, dose-escalation, phase 1/1b trial that enrolled and treated 39 patients.

In the phase 1 portion of the trial, patients received prexigebersen monotherapy. In the phase 1b portion, they received the drug in combination with low-dose cytarabine.

There were 32 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial. Most (n=23) had AML, 5 had CML in blast phase, and 4 had MDS. The patients’ median age was 63 (range, 56-73), and they had received a median of 4 prior therapies.

All 7 patients in the phase 1b portion had AML. They had a median age of 72 (range, 70-76) and had all received 1 prior therapy.

For phase 1, prexigebersen was administered intravenously, twice weekly for 28 days at doses of 5 mg/m² in cohort 1 (n=13), 10 mg/m² in cohort 2 (n=6), 20 mg/m² in cohort 3 (n=3), 40 mg/m² in cohort 4 (n=3), 60 mg/m² in cohort 5 (n=3), and 90 mg/m² in cohort 6 (n=4).

In the phase 1b portion, patients received prexigebersen at 60 mg/m² (n=4) or 90 mg/m² (n=3) in combination with 20 mg of cytarabine (twice-daily subcutaneous injections).

Safety

Twenty-seven patients were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity—21 from phase 1 and 6 from 1b.

One patient in cohort 1 developed mucositis and hand-foot syndrome, which were considered possibly related to prexigebersen and deemed dose-limiting toxicities. The patient was also receiving hydroxyurea (3 g/day) for CML and had a history of hydroxyurea-induced mucositis.

There were no other dose-limiting toxicities, and the researchers did not identify a maximum tolerated dose of prexigebersen.

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were cardiopulmonary disorders and fevers (including neutropenic fevers and infections).

In the monotherapy group, 17% of patients had grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary AEs, and 11% had fevers. In the prexigebersen-cytarabine combination group, 8% had grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary AEs, and 6% had fevers.

There were 5 grade 5 AEs in 4 patients, all of whom received monotherapy. These included cardiopulmonary disorders (n=2), fevers (n=2), and multi-organ failure (n=1). One patient had both fever (sepsis) and multi-organ failure.

Efficacy

According to the researchers’ assessments, 22% of phase 1 patients (7/32) benefited from prexigebersen monotherapy and therefore received more than 1 cycle of treatment. Five of these patients had AML, and 2 had MDS.

Single-agent activity was observed in other patients as well.

Thirty-three percent (9/27) of patients who had peripheral blood blasts at baseline saw their blasts reduced by 50% or more while receiving monotherapy. One of these patients had CML, and the rest had AML.

Ten percent (3/29) of patients with bone marrow blasts at baseline had a reduction in blasts of 50% or more while receiving monotherapy.  Two of these patients had AML, and 1 had MDS.

Of the 7 patients receiving prexigebersen with cytarabine, 2 achieved a CR, and 1 had a CR with incomplete hematological recovery.

Two of the patients had stable disease, and the remaining 2 patients progressed. One of the patients with progressive disease withdrew from the study, and the other died.

Deaths

There were a total of 8 deaths.

One death was considered treatment-related. This patient had progressive CML in blast phase and died of multiple organ failure. This was the first patient treated on the trial, who also had the only dose-limiting toxicities.

Two patients with AML and 1 with MDS died of disease progression. Three AML patients died of sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest. And a CML patient died of respiratory distress.