User login
FDA approves epcoritamab for r/r DLBCL
Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.
“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.
A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.
The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.
Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.
At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.
The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.
Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.
The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).
The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.
“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.
A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.
The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.
Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.
At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.
The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.
Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.
The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).
The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.
“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.
A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.
The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.
Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.
At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.
The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.
Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.
The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).
The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCO honors Hagop Kantarjian, MD, for leukemia research
This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.
Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.
The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
From Lebanon to Texas
Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.
It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.
“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes
The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).
“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:
- Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
- Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
- Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
- Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
- Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
- Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
- Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
- Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.
“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
Giving back
Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.
He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.
Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.
He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.
Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.
“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.
Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.
Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.
Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.
The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
From Lebanon to Texas
Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.
It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.
“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes
The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).
“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:
- Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
- Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
- Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
- Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
- Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
- Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
- Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
- Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.
“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
Giving back
Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.
He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.
Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.
He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.
Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.
“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.
Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.
Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.
Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.
The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
From Lebanon to Texas
Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.
It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.
“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes
The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).
“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:
- Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
- Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
- Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
- Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
- Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
- Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
- Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
- Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.
“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
Giving back
Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.
He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.
Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.
He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.
Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.
“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.
“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.
Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.
Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
What’s Causing Cancers at Air Force Bases?
It has been a troubling mystery—and yet, is an unsolved one: Last January, at least 9 service members who had worked at Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) in Montana were reported to have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Then more cancer cases were reported, not only at Malmstrom, but at Francis E. Warren AFB in Wyoming, Minot AFB in North Dakota, and Vandenberg AFB in California. The bases operate the silos that house nuclear warheads carried by Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
In all, 36 cancer cases were reported among missileers: 10 developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 2 Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 another form of cancer. Eight of the missileers, the majority of whom served at Malmstrom between 1997 and 2007, have died.
So far, though, the US Air Force (USAF) reports that it has found no current risk factors that could explain the unusual number of cases.
In February, Gen. Thomas Bussiere, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, approved a study to conduct a formal assessment related to specific cancer concerns and examine the possibility of cancer clusters at ICBM bases. The Missile Community Cancer Study, conducted by the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, will look at all ICBM wings, all missileers, and those who maintain, guard, and support the bases. The review also incorporates active-duty medical data, the US Department of Veterans Affairs cancer registry data, mortality data, and public cancer registries.
Missileers may be exposed to a variety of chemicals and toxins. The potential hazardous materials exposure at the missile silos extends to all 3 missile bases, USAF says. The equipment in the launch control center and equipment buildings were identical. However, each of the ICBM bases has specific environmental and agricultural factors that will be considered as studies continue, according to the USAF. The land surrounding missile alert facilities, launch control centers, and launch facilities is not owned by the government; the study teams noted that locations could contain additional unknown agricultural hazards. Procedures for testing and cleaning the facilities vary across installations, creating inconsistencies, according to the USAF.
The study teams recently presented their initial findings. “[O]verall,” they said, “there were no factors identified that would be considered immediate concerns for acute cancer risks,” according to a report from the USAF 711th Human Performance Wing, obtained by the Associated Press.
This isn’t the first time that concerns have been raised about possible cancer clusters at Malmstrom. In 2001, after cases of various cancers from missileers were reported—including cervical, thyroid, Hodgkin lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma—the Air Force Institute for Operational Health conducted a site evaluation and sampling for possible chemical and biologic contaminants at their facilities. Results of all tests, the 2005 report said, did not demonstrate any levels above acceptable standards according to state and federal regulations. The survey concluded that launch control centers provide a safe and healthy working environment.
In 2005, following the release of the report, the USAF said “There is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” The research report noted, “[S]ometimes illnesses tend to occur by chance alone and it is not uncommon to see clustering or what has been referred to as ‘perceived clustering’ of conditions, especially when they occur in a close group of people or certain communities as in the military.”
On its website, though, the Air Force Medical Service now says that the findings from 2 decades ago may have changed.
The findings from the new study are not final. The USAF is continuing its investigation, including conducting an epidemiological study of cancers within the missile community. In the meantime, Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs says that, in response to the review panel’s recommendations, Gen. Bussiere has directed that facilities be deep cleaned regularly, signage denoting the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls be updated, and burning no longer allowed as a means of destroying classified materials inside the facilities.
Notably, the changes will also include improving communication and coordination between medical personnel and missile community members. Bussiere directed his staff to explore specifically assigning medical professionals to ICBM units, to have a better understanding of the environment and missions. He also ordered further engagement with personnel who work with known occupational hazards to collect more data and information. While awaiting the eventual replacement of the Minuteman III ICBM with the LGM-35A Sentinel, preventive maintenance and environmental upgrades will be prioritized and any upgrade or new piece of equipment will be “scrutinized for hazards.”
The USAF has also established a website to address the missileer community’s concerns.
It has been a troubling mystery—and yet, is an unsolved one: Last January, at least 9 service members who had worked at Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) in Montana were reported to have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Then more cancer cases were reported, not only at Malmstrom, but at Francis E. Warren AFB in Wyoming, Minot AFB in North Dakota, and Vandenberg AFB in California. The bases operate the silos that house nuclear warheads carried by Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
In all, 36 cancer cases were reported among missileers: 10 developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 2 Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 another form of cancer. Eight of the missileers, the majority of whom served at Malmstrom between 1997 and 2007, have died.
So far, though, the US Air Force (USAF) reports that it has found no current risk factors that could explain the unusual number of cases.
In February, Gen. Thomas Bussiere, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, approved a study to conduct a formal assessment related to specific cancer concerns and examine the possibility of cancer clusters at ICBM bases. The Missile Community Cancer Study, conducted by the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, will look at all ICBM wings, all missileers, and those who maintain, guard, and support the bases. The review also incorporates active-duty medical data, the US Department of Veterans Affairs cancer registry data, mortality data, and public cancer registries.
Missileers may be exposed to a variety of chemicals and toxins. The potential hazardous materials exposure at the missile silos extends to all 3 missile bases, USAF says. The equipment in the launch control center and equipment buildings were identical. However, each of the ICBM bases has specific environmental and agricultural factors that will be considered as studies continue, according to the USAF. The land surrounding missile alert facilities, launch control centers, and launch facilities is not owned by the government; the study teams noted that locations could contain additional unknown agricultural hazards. Procedures for testing and cleaning the facilities vary across installations, creating inconsistencies, according to the USAF.
The study teams recently presented their initial findings. “[O]verall,” they said, “there were no factors identified that would be considered immediate concerns for acute cancer risks,” according to a report from the USAF 711th Human Performance Wing, obtained by the Associated Press.
This isn’t the first time that concerns have been raised about possible cancer clusters at Malmstrom. In 2001, after cases of various cancers from missileers were reported—including cervical, thyroid, Hodgkin lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma—the Air Force Institute for Operational Health conducted a site evaluation and sampling for possible chemical and biologic contaminants at their facilities. Results of all tests, the 2005 report said, did not demonstrate any levels above acceptable standards according to state and federal regulations. The survey concluded that launch control centers provide a safe and healthy working environment.
In 2005, following the release of the report, the USAF said “There is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” The research report noted, “[S]ometimes illnesses tend to occur by chance alone and it is not uncommon to see clustering or what has been referred to as ‘perceived clustering’ of conditions, especially when they occur in a close group of people or certain communities as in the military.”
On its website, though, the Air Force Medical Service now says that the findings from 2 decades ago may have changed.
The findings from the new study are not final. The USAF is continuing its investigation, including conducting an epidemiological study of cancers within the missile community. In the meantime, Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs says that, in response to the review panel’s recommendations, Gen. Bussiere has directed that facilities be deep cleaned regularly, signage denoting the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls be updated, and burning no longer allowed as a means of destroying classified materials inside the facilities.
Notably, the changes will also include improving communication and coordination between medical personnel and missile community members. Bussiere directed his staff to explore specifically assigning medical professionals to ICBM units, to have a better understanding of the environment and missions. He also ordered further engagement with personnel who work with known occupational hazards to collect more data and information. While awaiting the eventual replacement of the Minuteman III ICBM with the LGM-35A Sentinel, preventive maintenance and environmental upgrades will be prioritized and any upgrade or new piece of equipment will be “scrutinized for hazards.”
The USAF has also established a website to address the missileer community’s concerns.
It has been a troubling mystery—and yet, is an unsolved one: Last January, at least 9 service members who had worked at Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) in Montana were reported to have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Then more cancer cases were reported, not only at Malmstrom, but at Francis E. Warren AFB in Wyoming, Minot AFB in North Dakota, and Vandenberg AFB in California. The bases operate the silos that house nuclear warheads carried by Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
In all, 36 cancer cases were reported among missileers: 10 developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 2 Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 another form of cancer. Eight of the missileers, the majority of whom served at Malmstrom between 1997 and 2007, have died.
So far, though, the US Air Force (USAF) reports that it has found no current risk factors that could explain the unusual number of cases.
In February, Gen. Thomas Bussiere, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, approved a study to conduct a formal assessment related to specific cancer concerns and examine the possibility of cancer clusters at ICBM bases. The Missile Community Cancer Study, conducted by the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, will look at all ICBM wings, all missileers, and those who maintain, guard, and support the bases. The review also incorporates active-duty medical data, the US Department of Veterans Affairs cancer registry data, mortality data, and public cancer registries.
Missileers may be exposed to a variety of chemicals and toxins. The potential hazardous materials exposure at the missile silos extends to all 3 missile bases, USAF says. The equipment in the launch control center and equipment buildings were identical. However, each of the ICBM bases has specific environmental and agricultural factors that will be considered as studies continue, according to the USAF. The land surrounding missile alert facilities, launch control centers, and launch facilities is not owned by the government; the study teams noted that locations could contain additional unknown agricultural hazards. Procedures for testing and cleaning the facilities vary across installations, creating inconsistencies, according to the USAF.
The study teams recently presented their initial findings. “[O]verall,” they said, “there were no factors identified that would be considered immediate concerns for acute cancer risks,” according to a report from the USAF 711th Human Performance Wing, obtained by the Associated Press.
This isn’t the first time that concerns have been raised about possible cancer clusters at Malmstrom. In 2001, after cases of various cancers from missileers were reported—including cervical, thyroid, Hodgkin lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma—the Air Force Institute for Operational Health conducted a site evaluation and sampling for possible chemical and biologic contaminants at their facilities. Results of all tests, the 2005 report said, did not demonstrate any levels above acceptable standards according to state and federal regulations. The survey concluded that launch control centers provide a safe and healthy working environment.
In 2005, following the release of the report, the USAF said “There is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” The research report noted, “[S]ometimes illnesses tend to occur by chance alone and it is not uncommon to see clustering or what has been referred to as ‘perceived clustering’ of conditions, especially when they occur in a close group of people or certain communities as in the military.”
On its website, though, the Air Force Medical Service now says that the findings from 2 decades ago may have changed.
The findings from the new study are not final. The USAF is continuing its investigation, including conducting an epidemiological study of cancers within the missile community. In the meantime, Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs says that, in response to the review panel’s recommendations, Gen. Bussiere has directed that facilities be deep cleaned regularly, signage denoting the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls be updated, and burning no longer allowed as a means of destroying classified materials inside the facilities.
Notably, the changes will also include improving communication and coordination between medical personnel and missile community members. Bussiere directed his staff to explore specifically assigning medical professionals to ICBM units, to have a better understanding of the environment and missions. He also ordered further engagement with personnel who work with known occupational hazards to collect more data and information. While awaiting the eventual replacement of the Minuteman III ICBM with the LGM-35A Sentinel, preventive maintenance and environmental upgrades will be prioritized and any upgrade or new piece of equipment will be “scrutinized for hazards.”
The USAF has also established a website to address the missileer community’s concerns.
CLL: Venetoclax combos top first-line chemoimmunotherapy
according to a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial, dubbed GAIA–CLL13, “is a remarkable demonstration of the quality of fixed-duration therapies for younger, fit patients, and it challenges us to continue to work to develop therapeutic strategies that will ultimately cure patients with CLL,” two hematologic cancer specialists said in an accompanying editorial.
In short, “venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib were superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to both the minimal residual disease end point and progression-free survival, but venetoclax-rituximab was not,” Jennifer Woyach, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and John Byrd, MD, University of Cincinnati, said in their commentary.
Noting that randomized trials involving venetoclax combinations in fit CLL patients “have been lacking,” the investigators compared 6 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) with 12 cycles of venetoclax plus the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, venetoclax plus the third generation anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab, and venetoclax combined with both obinutuzumab and the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in a novel triple-therapy regimen.
The 926 patients in the study were a mean of 61 years old and split about evenly among the four treatment arms. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements if patients had undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD). Subjects did not have TP53 aberrations, a marker of poor prognosis in CLL.
At 15 months, the percentage of patients with uMRD was significantly higher in the triple-therapy arm (92.2%) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%), but there was no statistical difference with venetoclax-rituximab (57%, P = .32).
The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the triple-therapy arm versus 87.7% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab. The 3-year PFS with venetoclax-rituximab (80.8%) was again not statistically different than the 75.5% with chemoimmunotherapy (P = .18).
Not ready for prime time
The benefits of triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab held only in patients with unmutated IgVH. “The high efficacy of the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab regimen in young, fit patients with mutated IgVH may be difficult to improve on,” noted the investigators, led by Barbara Eichhorst, MD, a hematologic malignancy specialist at the University of Cologne (Germany).
Also, although triple-therapy results were impressive, some of the benefits “are neutralized by the need for dose reductions and early treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events,” they said.
For instance, triple therapy had the highest incidence of both grade 3 and 4 infections (21.2%) and atrial fibrillation (7.8%).
The editorialists noted that there has been “a flurry of interest” in trials combining ibrutinib and venetoclax – as was done in the triple-therapy arm – since both emerged as powerful tools against CLL in recent years. However, even with the study results, they said “the use of triplet therapy should be viewed as investigational.”
For one thing, rates of uMRD were not “dramatically different” between triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and longer follow-up is better gauge differences in PFS and long-term toxicities.
Also, ibrutinib is being eclipsed by the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, because they have better safety profiles, and they are being assessed in CLL combination trials. For now, there are too many unknowns for routine use of triple therapy in fit CLL patients, they said.
The investigators and editorialists both noted that improved uMRD in the study translated into superior PFS, raising the possibility that uMRD might be a valid alternative endpoint to PFS in CLL trials.
With “median remissions in CLL lasting far in excess of 5 years, designing studies that take 8-10 years” to reach a PFS endpoint is simply too slow. Moving to an alternative endpoint such a uMRD would preserve “the momentum that has been generated” with recent advances, Dr. Woyach and Dr. Byrd said.
The work was funded by the companies that market venetoclax, ibrutinib, and obinutuzumab: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Dr. Eichhorst is a consultant and/or speaker for the companies and also reported grants from them. Dr. Byrd is a consultant/adviser for Eilean Therapeutics, Kurome Therapeutics, Newave, and Orbimed. Dr. Woyach disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and other companies.
according to a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial, dubbed GAIA–CLL13, “is a remarkable demonstration of the quality of fixed-duration therapies for younger, fit patients, and it challenges us to continue to work to develop therapeutic strategies that will ultimately cure patients with CLL,” two hematologic cancer specialists said in an accompanying editorial.
In short, “venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib were superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to both the minimal residual disease end point and progression-free survival, but venetoclax-rituximab was not,” Jennifer Woyach, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and John Byrd, MD, University of Cincinnati, said in their commentary.
Noting that randomized trials involving venetoclax combinations in fit CLL patients “have been lacking,” the investigators compared 6 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) with 12 cycles of venetoclax plus the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, venetoclax plus the third generation anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab, and venetoclax combined with both obinutuzumab and the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in a novel triple-therapy regimen.
The 926 patients in the study were a mean of 61 years old and split about evenly among the four treatment arms. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements if patients had undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD). Subjects did not have TP53 aberrations, a marker of poor prognosis in CLL.
At 15 months, the percentage of patients with uMRD was significantly higher in the triple-therapy arm (92.2%) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%), but there was no statistical difference with venetoclax-rituximab (57%, P = .32).
The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the triple-therapy arm versus 87.7% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab. The 3-year PFS with venetoclax-rituximab (80.8%) was again not statistically different than the 75.5% with chemoimmunotherapy (P = .18).
Not ready for prime time
The benefits of triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab held only in patients with unmutated IgVH. “The high efficacy of the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab regimen in young, fit patients with mutated IgVH may be difficult to improve on,” noted the investigators, led by Barbara Eichhorst, MD, a hematologic malignancy specialist at the University of Cologne (Germany).
Also, although triple-therapy results were impressive, some of the benefits “are neutralized by the need for dose reductions and early treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events,” they said.
For instance, triple therapy had the highest incidence of both grade 3 and 4 infections (21.2%) and atrial fibrillation (7.8%).
The editorialists noted that there has been “a flurry of interest” in trials combining ibrutinib and venetoclax – as was done in the triple-therapy arm – since both emerged as powerful tools against CLL in recent years. However, even with the study results, they said “the use of triplet therapy should be viewed as investigational.”
For one thing, rates of uMRD were not “dramatically different” between triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and longer follow-up is better gauge differences in PFS and long-term toxicities.
Also, ibrutinib is being eclipsed by the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, because they have better safety profiles, and they are being assessed in CLL combination trials. For now, there are too many unknowns for routine use of triple therapy in fit CLL patients, they said.
The investigators and editorialists both noted that improved uMRD in the study translated into superior PFS, raising the possibility that uMRD might be a valid alternative endpoint to PFS in CLL trials.
With “median remissions in CLL lasting far in excess of 5 years, designing studies that take 8-10 years” to reach a PFS endpoint is simply too slow. Moving to an alternative endpoint such a uMRD would preserve “the momentum that has been generated” with recent advances, Dr. Woyach and Dr. Byrd said.
The work was funded by the companies that market venetoclax, ibrutinib, and obinutuzumab: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Dr. Eichhorst is a consultant and/or speaker for the companies and also reported grants from them. Dr. Byrd is a consultant/adviser for Eilean Therapeutics, Kurome Therapeutics, Newave, and Orbimed. Dr. Woyach disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and other companies.
according to a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial, dubbed GAIA–CLL13, “is a remarkable demonstration of the quality of fixed-duration therapies for younger, fit patients, and it challenges us to continue to work to develop therapeutic strategies that will ultimately cure patients with CLL,” two hematologic cancer specialists said in an accompanying editorial.
In short, “venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib were superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to both the minimal residual disease end point and progression-free survival, but venetoclax-rituximab was not,” Jennifer Woyach, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and John Byrd, MD, University of Cincinnati, said in their commentary.
Noting that randomized trials involving venetoclax combinations in fit CLL patients “have been lacking,” the investigators compared 6 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) with 12 cycles of venetoclax plus the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, venetoclax plus the third generation anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab, and venetoclax combined with both obinutuzumab and the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in a novel triple-therapy regimen.
The 926 patients in the study were a mean of 61 years old and split about evenly among the four treatment arms. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements if patients had undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD). Subjects did not have TP53 aberrations, a marker of poor prognosis in CLL.
At 15 months, the percentage of patients with uMRD was significantly higher in the triple-therapy arm (92.2%) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%), but there was no statistical difference with venetoclax-rituximab (57%, P = .32).
The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the triple-therapy arm versus 87.7% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab. The 3-year PFS with venetoclax-rituximab (80.8%) was again not statistically different than the 75.5% with chemoimmunotherapy (P = .18).
Not ready for prime time
The benefits of triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab held only in patients with unmutated IgVH. “The high efficacy of the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab regimen in young, fit patients with mutated IgVH may be difficult to improve on,” noted the investigators, led by Barbara Eichhorst, MD, a hematologic malignancy specialist at the University of Cologne (Germany).
Also, although triple-therapy results were impressive, some of the benefits “are neutralized by the need for dose reductions and early treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events,” they said.
For instance, triple therapy had the highest incidence of both grade 3 and 4 infections (21.2%) and atrial fibrillation (7.8%).
The editorialists noted that there has been “a flurry of interest” in trials combining ibrutinib and venetoclax – as was done in the triple-therapy arm – since both emerged as powerful tools against CLL in recent years. However, even with the study results, they said “the use of triplet therapy should be viewed as investigational.”
For one thing, rates of uMRD were not “dramatically different” between triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and longer follow-up is better gauge differences in PFS and long-term toxicities.
Also, ibrutinib is being eclipsed by the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, because they have better safety profiles, and they are being assessed in CLL combination trials. For now, there are too many unknowns for routine use of triple therapy in fit CLL patients, they said.
The investigators and editorialists both noted that improved uMRD in the study translated into superior PFS, raising the possibility that uMRD might be a valid alternative endpoint to PFS in CLL trials.
With “median remissions in CLL lasting far in excess of 5 years, designing studies that take 8-10 years” to reach a PFS endpoint is simply too slow. Moving to an alternative endpoint such a uMRD would preserve “the momentum that has been generated” with recent advances, Dr. Woyach and Dr. Byrd said.
The work was funded by the companies that market venetoclax, ibrutinib, and obinutuzumab: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Dr. Eichhorst is a consultant and/or speaker for the companies and also reported grants from them. Dr. Byrd is a consultant/adviser for Eilean Therapeutics, Kurome Therapeutics, Newave, and Orbimed. Dr. Woyach disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and other companies.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Number of cancer survivors with functional limitations doubled in 20 years
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
“Terrific progress”: Adding blinatumomab for infant leukemia
.
Two-year disease-free and overall survival measures, as well as the percentage of children who had complete minimal residual disease (MRD) responses, were substantially higher among the 30 infants in the study than in historical controls treated with the same chemotherapy backbone in an earlier trial, Interfant-06.
“These outcome data are very promising, given the poor survival and lack of improvements in outcomes among infants with KMT2A-rearranged ALL in recent decades,” said the investigators, led by Inge M. van der Sluis, MD, PhD, a hematologist-oncologist at Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“The low incidence of relapse after treatment with blinatumomab is remarkable, given that in historical controls relapses occur frequently and early during therapy,” the investigators stated. Although the “follow-up time was relatively short” in the study, “it included the period historically defined” as being at high risk of relapse, they said.
The team suggested that future research should assess whether infants benefit from multiple courses of blinatumomab, rather than the one course used in the study, and whether blinatumomab plus chemotherapy can replace stem cell transplants for high-risk infants.
Pediatric community responds
There was excitement on Twitter about the results; a number of pediatric blood cancer specialists were impressed and posted the study on that platform. Comments included, “Wow! After years of stagnation, a huge step forward for infant leukemia” and “great news for infant lymphoblastic leukemia.”
Akshay Sharma, MBBS, a pediatric bone marrow transplant and cellular therapy specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, also posted. He said in an interview that the findings are “very exciting.”
The “outcomes of children diagnosed with leukemia in their infancy, particularly if they have a KMT2A rearrangement, have been dismal. This is terrific progress and a testament to the role that immunotherapy and novel agents will be playing in treatment of several malignant diseases in the decade to come,” he said.
Another poster, Pratik “Tik” Patel, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncology fellow at Emory University in Atlanta, told this news organization that the study “is welcome news to pediatric oncologists” and highlights “the success in incorporating newer immune-based therapeutics upfront in treatment rather than in relapsed/refractory settings.”
The National Cancer Institute–funded Children’s Oncology Group is thinking the same way. The group is launching a large, randomized trial to test if adding blinatumomab to chemotherapy upfront for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma improves outcomes in children and young adults aged 1-31 years. Results are due after 2029.
Study details
Blinatumomab is an expensive “T-cell engager” that helps cytotoxic CD3+T cells link to and destroy leukemic CD19+ B cells. Past studies have shown that it’s safe and works in older children and adults with B-lineage ALL after intensive chemotherapy, but until now the approach hadn’t been tested in infants, the investigators said.
The 30 subjects in the study were under a year old and newly diagnosed with KMT2A-rearranged ALL. They were treated with the Interfant-06 chemotherapy regimen – cytosine arabinoside and other agents – plus one postinduction course of blinatumomab at 15 micrograms/m2 per day as a 4-week continuous infusion. Eight of nine high-risk patients had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.
Overall survival was 93.3% over a median follow up of 26.3 months, substantially higher than the 65.8% in the Interfant-06 trial. Two-year disease-free survival was 81.6% versus 49.4% in Interfant-06.
Sixteen patients (53%) were MRD negative after blinatumomab infusion and 12 (40%) had low levels of MRD. All of the children who continued chemotherapy went on to become MRD negative.
There were no permanent blinatumomab discontinuations and no treatment related deaths. Serious toxic effects were consistent with those in older patients and included four fevers, four infections, and one case each of hypertension and vomiting.
There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) because of the low tumor burden of the subjects. Likewise, there were no obvious neurologic adverse events – like CRS, a particular concern with blinatumomab – but “we cannot rule out underreporting of mild neurologic symptoms that may have been unrecognized in infants,” the investigators said.
Patients who relapsed in the study had CNS involvement at relapse. “This underscores the need for adequate intrathecal chemotherapy during the blinatumomab infusion, because the efficacy of blinatumomab for the treatment of CNS leukemia may be limited,” they said.
The work was supported by Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab, as well as the Princess Maxima Center Foundation, the Danish Childhood Cancer Foundation, and others. Dr. Sluis is a consultant and researcher for Amgen. Five other authors were also consultants/advisers/researchers for the company. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Patel didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
.
Two-year disease-free and overall survival measures, as well as the percentage of children who had complete minimal residual disease (MRD) responses, were substantially higher among the 30 infants in the study than in historical controls treated with the same chemotherapy backbone in an earlier trial, Interfant-06.
“These outcome data are very promising, given the poor survival and lack of improvements in outcomes among infants with KMT2A-rearranged ALL in recent decades,” said the investigators, led by Inge M. van der Sluis, MD, PhD, a hematologist-oncologist at Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“The low incidence of relapse after treatment with blinatumomab is remarkable, given that in historical controls relapses occur frequently and early during therapy,” the investigators stated. Although the “follow-up time was relatively short” in the study, “it included the period historically defined” as being at high risk of relapse, they said.
The team suggested that future research should assess whether infants benefit from multiple courses of blinatumomab, rather than the one course used in the study, and whether blinatumomab plus chemotherapy can replace stem cell transplants for high-risk infants.
Pediatric community responds
There was excitement on Twitter about the results; a number of pediatric blood cancer specialists were impressed and posted the study on that platform. Comments included, “Wow! After years of stagnation, a huge step forward for infant leukemia” and “great news for infant lymphoblastic leukemia.”
Akshay Sharma, MBBS, a pediatric bone marrow transplant and cellular therapy specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, also posted. He said in an interview that the findings are “very exciting.”
The “outcomes of children diagnosed with leukemia in their infancy, particularly if they have a KMT2A rearrangement, have been dismal. This is terrific progress and a testament to the role that immunotherapy and novel agents will be playing in treatment of several malignant diseases in the decade to come,” he said.
Another poster, Pratik “Tik” Patel, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncology fellow at Emory University in Atlanta, told this news organization that the study “is welcome news to pediatric oncologists” and highlights “the success in incorporating newer immune-based therapeutics upfront in treatment rather than in relapsed/refractory settings.”
The National Cancer Institute–funded Children’s Oncology Group is thinking the same way. The group is launching a large, randomized trial to test if adding blinatumomab to chemotherapy upfront for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma improves outcomes in children and young adults aged 1-31 years. Results are due after 2029.
Study details
Blinatumomab is an expensive “T-cell engager” that helps cytotoxic CD3+T cells link to and destroy leukemic CD19+ B cells. Past studies have shown that it’s safe and works in older children and adults with B-lineage ALL after intensive chemotherapy, but until now the approach hadn’t been tested in infants, the investigators said.
The 30 subjects in the study were under a year old and newly diagnosed with KMT2A-rearranged ALL. They were treated with the Interfant-06 chemotherapy regimen – cytosine arabinoside and other agents – plus one postinduction course of blinatumomab at 15 micrograms/m2 per day as a 4-week continuous infusion. Eight of nine high-risk patients had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.
Overall survival was 93.3% over a median follow up of 26.3 months, substantially higher than the 65.8% in the Interfant-06 trial. Two-year disease-free survival was 81.6% versus 49.4% in Interfant-06.
Sixteen patients (53%) were MRD negative after blinatumomab infusion and 12 (40%) had low levels of MRD. All of the children who continued chemotherapy went on to become MRD negative.
There were no permanent blinatumomab discontinuations and no treatment related deaths. Serious toxic effects were consistent with those in older patients and included four fevers, four infections, and one case each of hypertension and vomiting.
There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) because of the low tumor burden of the subjects. Likewise, there were no obvious neurologic adverse events – like CRS, a particular concern with blinatumomab – but “we cannot rule out underreporting of mild neurologic symptoms that may have been unrecognized in infants,” the investigators said.
Patients who relapsed in the study had CNS involvement at relapse. “This underscores the need for adequate intrathecal chemotherapy during the blinatumomab infusion, because the efficacy of blinatumomab for the treatment of CNS leukemia may be limited,” they said.
The work was supported by Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab, as well as the Princess Maxima Center Foundation, the Danish Childhood Cancer Foundation, and others. Dr. Sluis is a consultant and researcher for Amgen. Five other authors were also consultants/advisers/researchers for the company. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Patel didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
.
Two-year disease-free and overall survival measures, as well as the percentage of children who had complete minimal residual disease (MRD) responses, were substantially higher among the 30 infants in the study than in historical controls treated with the same chemotherapy backbone in an earlier trial, Interfant-06.
“These outcome data are very promising, given the poor survival and lack of improvements in outcomes among infants with KMT2A-rearranged ALL in recent decades,” said the investigators, led by Inge M. van der Sluis, MD, PhD, a hematologist-oncologist at Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“The low incidence of relapse after treatment with blinatumomab is remarkable, given that in historical controls relapses occur frequently and early during therapy,” the investigators stated. Although the “follow-up time was relatively short” in the study, “it included the period historically defined” as being at high risk of relapse, they said.
The team suggested that future research should assess whether infants benefit from multiple courses of blinatumomab, rather than the one course used in the study, and whether blinatumomab plus chemotherapy can replace stem cell transplants for high-risk infants.
Pediatric community responds
There was excitement on Twitter about the results; a number of pediatric blood cancer specialists were impressed and posted the study on that platform. Comments included, “Wow! After years of stagnation, a huge step forward for infant leukemia” and “great news for infant lymphoblastic leukemia.”
Akshay Sharma, MBBS, a pediatric bone marrow transplant and cellular therapy specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, also posted. He said in an interview that the findings are “very exciting.”
The “outcomes of children diagnosed with leukemia in their infancy, particularly if they have a KMT2A rearrangement, have been dismal. This is terrific progress and a testament to the role that immunotherapy and novel agents will be playing in treatment of several malignant diseases in the decade to come,” he said.
Another poster, Pratik “Tik” Patel, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncology fellow at Emory University in Atlanta, told this news organization that the study “is welcome news to pediatric oncologists” and highlights “the success in incorporating newer immune-based therapeutics upfront in treatment rather than in relapsed/refractory settings.”
The National Cancer Institute–funded Children’s Oncology Group is thinking the same way. The group is launching a large, randomized trial to test if adding blinatumomab to chemotherapy upfront for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma improves outcomes in children and young adults aged 1-31 years. Results are due after 2029.
Study details
Blinatumomab is an expensive “T-cell engager” that helps cytotoxic CD3+T cells link to and destroy leukemic CD19+ B cells. Past studies have shown that it’s safe and works in older children and adults with B-lineage ALL after intensive chemotherapy, but until now the approach hadn’t been tested in infants, the investigators said.
The 30 subjects in the study were under a year old and newly diagnosed with KMT2A-rearranged ALL. They were treated with the Interfant-06 chemotherapy regimen – cytosine arabinoside and other agents – plus one postinduction course of blinatumomab at 15 micrograms/m2 per day as a 4-week continuous infusion. Eight of nine high-risk patients had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.
Overall survival was 93.3% over a median follow up of 26.3 months, substantially higher than the 65.8% in the Interfant-06 trial. Two-year disease-free survival was 81.6% versus 49.4% in Interfant-06.
Sixteen patients (53%) were MRD negative after blinatumomab infusion and 12 (40%) had low levels of MRD. All of the children who continued chemotherapy went on to become MRD negative.
There were no permanent blinatumomab discontinuations and no treatment related deaths. Serious toxic effects were consistent with those in older patients and included four fevers, four infections, and one case each of hypertension and vomiting.
There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) because of the low tumor burden of the subjects. Likewise, there were no obvious neurologic adverse events – like CRS, a particular concern with blinatumomab – but “we cannot rule out underreporting of mild neurologic symptoms that may have been unrecognized in infants,” the investigators said.
Patients who relapsed in the study had CNS involvement at relapse. “This underscores the need for adequate intrathecal chemotherapy during the blinatumomab infusion, because the efficacy of blinatumomab for the treatment of CNS leukemia may be limited,” they said.
The work was supported by Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab, as well as the Princess Maxima Center Foundation, the Danish Childhood Cancer Foundation, and others. Dr. Sluis is a consultant and researcher for Amgen. Five other authors were also consultants/advisers/researchers for the company. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Patel didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Frontline CLL treatment: Avoiding adverse events
NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.
Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.
said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”
Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.
The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.
Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.
“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”
The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”
Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.
NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.
Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.
said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”
Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.
The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.
Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.
“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”
The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”
Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.
NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.
Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.
said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”
Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.
The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.
Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.
“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”
The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”
Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.
AT 2023 GREAT DEBATES AND UPDATES HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES CONFERENCE
Relapsed CLL: New approaches prolong survival
NEW YORK –
“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.
The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.
Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”
Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.
The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).
Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.
“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.
Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”
Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”
Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
NEW YORK –
“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.
The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.
Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”
Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.
The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).
Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.
“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.
Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”
Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”
Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
NEW YORK –
“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.
The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.
Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”
Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.
The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).
Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.
“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.
Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”
Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”
Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
AT 2023 GREAT DEBATES AND UPDATES HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES CONFERENCE
Price of CLL Rx rises, despite competition
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
MRD: Powerful metric for CLL research
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
FROM FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY