Hematology

For many patients with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors, a monthly emicizumab injection is enough to ensure a high level of bleed control, based on results from the ongoing HAVEN 4 trial.

Most patients reported three or fewer treated bleeds, while slightly more than half had no treated bleeds at all, according to lead author Steven W. Pipe, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his colleagues. The investigators noted that results from this trial have already led to approval of a monthly dosing schedule in the United States and several other countries.

“This convenient regimen has the potential to improve the care of patients by decreasing their treatment burden, and increasing uptake and adherence to effective prophylaxis, which is known to decrease the development of debilitating secondary complications,” the investigators wrote. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

The data were collected at 20 centers in 8 countries. Eligibility required that patients have severe congenital hemophilia A (less than 1% normal FVIII activity), or hemophilia A with FVIII inhibitors and concurrent treatment with bypassing agents or FVIII concentrates.

An initial run-in cohort that included seven patients assessed pharmacokinetics and safety. These patients received 6 mg/kg of emicizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks for at least 24 weeks. After this group showed good responses, 41 additional patients were enrolled in an expansion cohort, which involved an initial loading phase of weekly doses at 3 mg/kg for the first month, followed by monthly dosing at 6 mg/kg for at least 6 months (24 weeks).

The efficacy endpoint of the study was bleed prevention, as measured by treated target joint bleeds, treated joint bleeds, treated spontaneous bleeds, all bleeds (untreated and treated), and annualized bleed rates for treated bleeds.

In the expansion cohort, the median number of bleeds in the 24-week period preceding enrollment was five. In the same group, five patients (12%) had FVIII inhibitors and 61% of patients exhibited at least one target joint.

After a median treatment of 25.6 weeks, the model-based annualized bleed rate for treated bleeds was 2.4, while the median annualized bleed rate was zero.

Slightly more than half of the patients (56.1%) reported no treated bleeds, 90% of patients reported 0-3 treated bleeds, and 85% of patients did not require treatment for targeted joint bleeds.

When untreated bleeds were included, the model-based annualized bleed rate was 4.5, while the median annualized bleed rate was 2.1. Almost one-third of patients (29%) had no bleeding events of any kind and most (80%) had 0-3 treated or untreated bleeds.

Overall, treatment was well tolerated, with no patients withdrawing from the study, discontinuing treatment, or requiring dose modifications. Laboratory parameters remained stable throughout. The most common treatment-related adverse event was injection-site reaction (22%), followed distantly by pre-syncope, chills, rash, and erythema, each of which occurred in 2% of patients.

“Overall, the results of HAVEN 4 are consistent with the findings of other HAVEN studies,” the investigators wrote. “The option of treatment with emicizumab every 4 weeks broadens the range of administration frequencies and allows clinicians to tailor treatment to each patient’s needs and preferences.”

F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with the study sponsors and other companies.

SOURCE: Pipe SW et al. Lancet Haem. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30054-7.

For many patients with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors, a monthly emicizumab injection is enough to ensure a high level of bleed control, based on results from the ongoing HAVEN 4 trial.

Most patients reported three or fewer treated bleeds, while slightly more than half had no treated bleeds at all, according to lead author Steven W. Pipe, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his colleagues. The investigators noted that results from this trial have already led to approval of a monthly dosing schedule in the United States and several other countries.

“This convenient regimen has the potential to improve the care of patients by decreasing their treatment burden, and increasing uptake and adherence to effective prophylaxis, which is known to decrease the development of debilitating secondary complications,” the investigators wrote. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

The data were collected at 20 centers in 8 countries. Eligibility required that patients have severe congenital hemophilia A (less than 1% normal FVIII activity), or hemophilia A with FVIII inhibitors and concurrent treatment with bypassing agents or FVIII concentrates.

An initial run-in cohort that included seven patients assessed pharmacokinetics and safety. These patients received 6 mg/kg of emicizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks for at least 24 weeks. After this group showed good responses, 41 additional patients were enrolled in an expansion cohort, which involved an initial loading phase of weekly doses at 3 mg/kg for the first month, followed by monthly dosing at 6 mg/kg for at least 6 months (24 weeks).

The efficacy endpoint of the study was bleed prevention, as measured by treated target joint bleeds, treated joint bleeds, treated spontaneous bleeds, all bleeds (untreated and treated), and annualized bleed rates for treated bleeds.

In the expansion cohort, the median number of bleeds in the 24-week period preceding enrollment was five. In the same group, five patients (12%) had FVIII inhibitors and 61% of patients exhibited at least one target joint.

After a median treatment of 25.6 weeks, the model-based annualized bleed rate for treated bleeds was 2.4, while the median annualized bleed rate was zero.

Slightly more than half of the patients (56.1%) reported no treated bleeds, 90% of patients reported 0-3 treated bleeds, and 85% of patients did not require treatment for targeted joint bleeds.

When untreated bleeds were included, the model-based annualized bleed rate was 4.5, while the median annualized bleed rate was 2.1. Almost one-third of patients (29%) had no bleeding events of any kind and most (80%) had 0-3 treated or untreated bleeds.

Overall, treatment was well tolerated, with no patients withdrawing from the study, discontinuing treatment, or requiring dose modifications. Laboratory parameters remained stable throughout. The most common treatment-related adverse event was injection-site reaction (22%), followed distantly by pre-syncope, chills, rash, and erythema, each of which occurred in 2% of patients.

“Overall, the results of HAVEN 4 are consistent with the findings of other HAVEN studies,” the investigators wrote. “The option of treatment with emicizumab every 4 weeks broadens the range of administration frequencies and allows clinicians to tailor treatment to each patient’s needs and preferences.”

F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with the study sponsors and other companies.

SOURCE: Pipe SW et al. Lancet Haem. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30054-7.

For many patients with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors, a monthly emicizumab injection is enough to ensure a high level of bleed control, based on results from the ongoing HAVEN 4 trial.

Most patients reported three or fewer treated bleeds, while slightly more than half had no treated bleeds at all, according to lead author Steven W. Pipe, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his colleagues. The investigators noted that results from this trial have already led to approval of a monthly dosing schedule in the United States and several other countries.

“This convenient regimen has the potential to improve the care of patients by decreasing their treatment burden, and increasing uptake and adherence to effective prophylaxis, which is known to decrease the development of debilitating secondary complications,” the investigators wrote. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

The data were collected at 20 centers in 8 countries. Eligibility required that patients have severe congenital hemophilia A (less than 1% normal FVIII activity), or hemophilia A with FVIII inhibitors and concurrent treatment with bypassing agents or FVIII concentrates.

An initial run-in cohort that included seven patients assessed pharmacokinetics and safety. These patients received 6 mg/kg of emicizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks for at least 24 weeks. After this group showed good responses, 41 additional patients were enrolled in an expansion cohort, which involved an initial loading phase of weekly doses at 3 mg/kg for the first month, followed by monthly dosing at 6 mg/kg for at least 6 months (24 weeks).

The efficacy endpoint of the study was bleed prevention, as measured by treated target joint bleeds, treated joint bleeds, treated spontaneous bleeds, all bleeds (untreated and treated), and annualized bleed rates for treated bleeds.

In the expansion cohort, the median number of bleeds in the 24-week period preceding enrollment was five. In the same group, five patients (12%) had FVIII inhibitors and 61% of patients exhibited at least one target joint.

After a median treatment of 25.6 weeks, the model-based annualized bleed rate for treated bleeds was 2.4, while the median annualized bleed rate was zero.

Slightly more than half of the patients (56.1%) reported no treated bleeds, 90% of patients reported 0-3 treated bleeds, and 85% of patients did not require treatment for targeted joint bleeds.

When untreated bleeds were included, the model-based annualized bleed rate was 4.5, while the median annualized bleed rate was 2.1. Almost one-third of patients (29%) had no bleeding events of any kind and most (80%) had 0-3 treated or untreated bleeds.

Overall, treatment was well tolerated, with no patients withdrawing from the study, discontinuing treatment, or requiring dose modifications. Laboratory parameters remained stable throughout. The most common treatment-related adverse event was injection-site reaction (22%), followed distantly by pre-syncope, chills, rash, and erythema, each of which occurred in 2% of patients.

“Overall, the results of HAVEN 4 are consistent with the findings of other HAVEN studies,” the investigators wrote. “The option of treatment with emicizumab every 4 weeks broadens the range of administration frequencies and allows clinicians to tailor treatment to each patient’s needs and preferences.”

F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with the study sponsors and other companies.

SOURCE: Pipe SW et al. Lancet Haem. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30054-7.

HOUSTON – Cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity frequently occur with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, but targetable factors for mitigating the risk and effects of these complications are emerging, according to Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD.

Novartis

These factors include infused CAR T-cell dose, bone marrow disease burden, immune response, and the lymphodepletion regimen used, Dr. Turtle, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings. This list is based on an analysis of several studies that included a total of 195 patients with B-cell malignancies who were treated with defined-composition CD19 CAR T cells.

In a 2016 study included in the analysis, for instance, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues found that CD19 CAR T cells administered to adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after lymphodepletion chemotherapy were “remarkably potent.” Remission was achieved in 27 of 29 patients (J Clin Invest. 2016 Jun 1;126[6]:2123-38).

However, the study also established that high CAR T-cell doses and tumor burden increased the risk of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle said at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).

“Importantly, we identified serum biomarkers that allow testing of early intervention strategies in the patients who have the highest risk of toxicity,” he said.

Dr. Turtle explained that significantly higher peak interleuken-6 (IL-6) and interferon (IFN)-gamma levels were seen after CAR T-cell infusion in patients with high bone marrow tumor burden and in patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU).


ICU care correlated with a higher percentage of bone marrow blasts before lymphodepletion chemotherapy, he added.

Elevations of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin also correlated with bone marrow disease burden and with the occurrence of severe CRS requiring ICU care, he said, noting that ferritin and CRP levels declined after tocilizumab or corticosteroid therapy.

In addition, all patients in the study who developed neurotoxicity had evidence of CRS. Peak levels of IL-6, IFN-gamma, ferritin, and CRP were significantly higher in those who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity. Further, serum IL-6 and IFN-gamma concentrations on day 1 after infusion were significantly higher in those who required ICU care and in those who subsequently developed grade 4 neurotoxicity than in patients who developed grade 3 neurotoxicity.

Multivariate analysis indicated that serum IL-6 concentration of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 and the total number of CD19+ cells in bone marrow before therapy were independent predictors of subsequent development of grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.

Notably, serum IL-6 of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 identified all patients in the study who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues noted.

“The findings suggested that evaluation of serum IL-6 concentration early after CAR T-cell infusion might be useful for identifying patients at high risk of severe neurotoxicity and to evaluate early intervention approaches,” he said.

Neurotoxicity

In a 2017 study from Juliane Gust, MD, PhD, and her colleagues, bone marrow disease burden, lymphodepletion regimen, and CAR T-cell dose were found to be significantly associated with neurotoxicity during multivariate analysis (Cancer Discov. 2017 Dec;7[12]:1404-19).

Patients with severe neurotoxicity in that study demonstrated evidence of endothelial activation, including disseminated intravascular coagulation, capillary leak, and increased blood-brain barrier permeability – with the latter leading to a failure to protect the cerebrospinal fluid from high concentrations of systemic cytokines, including IFN-gamma. These high levels of cytokines may cause vascular pericyte activation and stress, Dr. Turtle explained.

Patients who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity had higher pretreatment levels of endothelial activation biomarkers.

CRS

In another 2017 study, from Kevin A. Hay, MD, and his colleagues, similar factors were found to be associated with CRS (Blood. 2017 Nov 23;130[21]:2295-306).

Multivariable analysis identified high marrow tumor burden, lymphodepletion using cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, higher CAR T-cell dose, thrombocytopenia before lymphodepletion, and manufacturing of CAR T cells without selection of CD8+ central memory T cells as independent predictors of CRS.

Severe CRS was characterized by hemodynamic instability, capillary leak, and consumptive coagulopathy. As in the study by Dr. Gust and her colleagues, biomarkers of endothelial activation, including angiopoietin-2 and von Willebrand factor, were increased during severe CRS and before lymphodepletion in patients who subsequently developed CRS.
 

Potential modifications

The findings to date suggest that risk stratification, prophylaxis, early intervention and therapeutic intervention are among potential strategies for mitigating the risk of CD19-directed CAR T toxicity, Dr. Turtle said. Steroids, tocilizumab, siltuximab, anakinra, anti-GM-CSF, small molecules, plasma exchange, angiopoietin-1, and hypertransfusion are among candidates under consideration for such interventions, he noted.

Other approaches that have been tested in small studies, and which may reduce toxicity and improve the therapeutic index of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL, include split dosing and risk-adapted dosing.

“These approaches do appear to mitigate toxicity, but larger studies are needed to confirm that treatment efficacy is maintained,” Dr. Turtle said.

Toxicity prediction and early intervention to maintain the CAR T-cell dose while avoiding grade 4 or greater toxicities would be helpful and is within reach, he said, noting that the findings by Dr. Hay and his colleagues led to the development of “day-1 cytokine combination algorithms that predict grade 4-5 CRS and could direct preemptive intervention.”

One algorithm based on three cytokines had high sensitivity and specificity, but would require screening of all patients.

Early intervention in patients in whom toxicity is predicted has not been extensively evaluated in clinical studies, he said.

Dr. Hay and his colleagues did, however, develop a “classification tree model of early intervention strategies” using their findings.

A complicating factor in predicting risk and intervening is that each CAR T-cell product is associated with differing levels of toxicity risk. The varying rates of toxicity suggest that promising approaches for addressing CAR T toxicity require validation for each product with respect to cutpoints, efficacy, and maintenance of response, Dr. Turtle said.

“The findings to date are encouraging and show that potentially targetable factors for mitigating the toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy can be identified,” he said. “But clinical studies have yet to convincingly establish the best approach.”

Dr. Turtle has served on advisory boards for Juno/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Humanigen, and Aptevo; has intellectual property rights licensed to Juno; has stock options with Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences; and has received research funding from Juno and Nektar Therapeutics.

[email protected]

HOUSTON – Cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity frequently occur with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, but targetable factors for mitigating the risk and effects of these complications are emerging, according to Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD.

Novartis

These factors include infused CAR T-cell dose, bone marrow disease burden, immune response, and the lymphodepletion regimen used, Dr. Turtle, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings. This list is based on an analysis of several studies that included a total of 195 patients with B-cell malignancies who were treated with defined-composition CD19 CAR T cells.

In a 2016 study included in the analysis, for instance, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues found that CD19 CAR T cells administered to adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after lymphodepletion chemotherapy were “remarkably potent.” Remission was achieved in 27 of 29 patients (J Clin Invest. 2016 Jun 1;126[6]:2123-38).

However, the study also established that high CAR T-cell doses and tumor burden increased the risk of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle said at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).

“Importantly, we identified serum biomarkers that allow testing of early intervention strategies in the patients who have the highest risk of toxicity,” he said.

Dr. Turtle explained that significantly higher peak interleuken-6 (IL-6) and interferon (IFN)-gamma levels were seen after CAR T-cell infusion in patients with high bone marrow tumor burden and in patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU).


ICU care correlated with a higher percentage of bone marrow blasts before lymphodepletion chemotherapy, he added.

Elevations of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin also correlated with bone marrow disease burden and with the occurrence of severe CRS requiring ICU care, he said, noting that ferritin and CRP levels declined after tocilizumab or corticosteroid therapy.

In addition, all patients in the study who developed neurotoxicity had evidence of CRS. Peak levels of IL-6, IFN-gamma, ferritin, and CRP were significantly higher in those who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity. Further, serum IL-6 and IFN-gamma concentrations on day 1 after infusion were significantly higher in those who required ICU care and in those who subsequently developed grade 4 neurotoxicity than in patients who developed grade 3 neurotoxicity.

Multivariate analysis indicated that serum IL-6 concentration of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 and the total number of CD19+ cells in bone marrow before therapy were independent predictors of subsequent development of grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.

Notably, serum IL-6 of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 identified all patients in the study who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues noted.

“The findings suggested that evaluation of serum IL-6 concentration early after CAR T-cell infusion might be useful for identifying patients at high risk of severe neurotoxicity and to evaluate early intervention approaches,” he said.

Neurotoxicity

In a 2017 study from Juliane Gust, MD, PhD, and her colleagues, bone marrow disease burden, lymphodepletion regimen, and CAR T-cell dose were found to be significantly associated with neurotoxicity during multivariate analysis (Cancer Discov. 2017 Dec;7[12]:1404-19).

Patients with severe neurotoxicity in that study demonstrated evidence of endothelial activation, including disseminated intravascular coagulation, capillary leak, and increased blood-brain barrier permeability – with the latter leading to a failure to protect the cerebrospinal fluid from high concentrations of systemic cytokines, including IFN-gamma. These high levels of cytokines may cause vascular pericyte activation and stress, Dr. Turtle explained.

Patients who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity had higher pretreatment levels of endothelial activation biomarkers.

CRS

In another 2017 study, from Kevin A. Hay, MD, and his colleagues, similar factors were found to be associated with CRS (Blood. 2017 Nov 23;130[21]:2295-306).

Multivariable analysis identified high marrow tumor burden, lymphodepletion using cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, higher CAR T-cell dose, thrombocytopenia before lymphodepletion, and manufacturing of CAR T cells without selection of CD8+ central memory T cells as independent predictors of CRS.

Severe CRS was characterized by hemodynamic instability, capillary leak, and consumptive coagulopathy. As in the study by Dr. Gust and her colleagues, biomarkers of endothelial activation, including angiopoietin-2 and von Willebrand factor, were increased during severe CRS and before lymphodepletion in patients who subsequently developed CRS.
 

Potential modifications

The findings to date suggest that risk stratification, prophylaxis, early intervention and therapeutic intervention are among potential strategies for mitigating the risk of CD19-directed CAR T toxicity, Dr. Turtle said. Steroids, tocilizumab, siltuximab, anakinra, anti-GM-CSF, small molecules, plasma exchange, angiopoietin-1, and hypertransfusion are among candidates under consideration for such interventions, he noted.

Other approaches that have been tested in small studies, and which may reduce toxicity and improve the therapeutic index of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL, include split dosing and risk-adapted dosing.

“These approaches do appear to mitigate toxicity, but larger studies are needed to confirm that treatment efficacy is maintained,” Dr. Turtle said.

Toxicity prediction and early intervention to maintain the CAR T-cell dose while avoiding grade 4 or greater toxicities would be helpful and is within reach, he said, noting that the findings by Dr. Hay and his colleagues led to the development of “day-1 cytokine combination algorithms that predict grade 4-5 CRS and could direct preemptive intervention.”

One algorithm based on three cytokines had high sensitivity and specificity, but would require screening of all patients.

Early intervention in patients in whom toxicity is predicted has not been extensively evaluated in clinical studies, he said.

Dr. Hay and his colleagues did, however, develop a “classification tree model of early intervention strategies” using their findings.

A complicating factor in predicting risk and intervening is that each CAR T-cell product is associated with differing levels of toxicity risk. The varying rates of toxicity suggest that promising approaches for addressing CAR T toxicity require validation for each product with respect to cutpoints, efficacy, and maintenance of response, Dr. Turtle said.

“The findings to date are encouraging and show that potentially targetable factors for mitigating the toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy can be identified,” he said. “But clinical studies have yet to convincingly establish the best approach.”

Dr. Turtle has served on advisory boards for Juno/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Humanigen, and Aptevo; has intellectual property rights licensed to Juno; has stock options with Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences; and has received research funding from Juno and Nektar Therapeutics.

[email protected]

HOUSTON – Cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity frequently occur with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, but targetable factors for mitigating the risk and effects of these complications are emerging, according to Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD.

Novartis

These factors include infused CAR T-cell dose, bone marrow disease burden, immune response, and the lymphodepletion regimen used, Dr. Turtle, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings. This list is based on an analysis of several studies that included a total of 195 patients with B-cell malignancies who were treated with defined-composition CD19 CAR T cells.

In a 2016 study included in the analysis, for instance, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues found that CD19 CAR T cells administered to adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after lymphodepletion chemotherapy were “remarkably potent.” Remission was achieved in 27 of 29 patients (J Clin Invest. 2016 Jun 1;126[6]:2123-38).

However, the study also established that high CAR T-cell doses and tumor burden increased the risk of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle said at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).

“Importantly, we identified serum biomarkers that allow testing of early intervention strategies in the patients who have the highest risk of toxicity,” he said.

Dr. Turtle explained that significantly higher peak interleuken-6 (IL-6) and interferon (IFN)-gamma levels were seen after CAR T-cell infusion in patients with high bone marrow tumor burden and in patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU).


ICU care correlated with a higher percentage of bone marrow blasts before lymphodepletion chemotherapy, he added.

Elevations of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin also correlated with bone marrow disease burden and with the occurrence of severe CRS requiring ICU care, he said, noting that ferritin and CRP levels declined after tocilizumab or corticosteroid therapy.

In addition, all patients in the study who developed neurotoxicity had evidence of CRS. Peak levels of IL-6, IFN-gamma, ferritin, and CRP were significantly higher in those who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity. Further, serum IL-6 and IFN-gamma concentrations on day 1 after infusion were significantly higher in those who required ICU care and in those who subsequently developed grade 4 neurotoxicity than in patients who developed grade 3 neurotoxicity.

Multivariate analysis indicated that serum IL-6 concentration of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 and the total number of CD19+ cells in bone marrow before therapy were independent predictors of subsequent development of grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.

Notably, serum IL-6 of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 identified all patients in the study who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues noted.

“The findings suggested that evaluation of serum IL-6 concentration early after CAR T-cell infusion might be useful for identifying patients at high risk of severe neurotoxicity and to evaluate early intervention approaches,” he said.

Neurotoxicity

In a 2017 study from Juliane Gust, MD, PhD, and her colleagues, bone marrow disease burden, lymphodepletion regimen, and CAR T-cell dose were found to be significantly associated with neurotoxicity during multivariate analysis (Cancer Discov. 2017 Dec;7[12]:1404-19).

Patients with severe neurotoxicity in that study demonstrated evidence of endothelial activation, including disseminated intravascular coagulation, capillary leak, and increased blood-brain barrier permeability – with the latter leading to a failure to protect the cerebrospinal fluid from high concentrations of systemic cytokines, including IFN-gamma. These high levels of cytokines may cause vascular pericyte activation and stress, Dr. Turtle explained.

Patients who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity had higher pretreatment levels of endothelial activation biomarkers.

CRS

In another 2017 study, from Kevin A. Hay, MD, and his colleagues, similar factors were found to be associated with CRS (Blood. 2017 Nov 23;130[21]:2295-306).

Multivariable analysis identified high marrow tumor burden, lymphodepletion using cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, higher CAR T-cell dose, thrombocytopenia before lymphodepletion, and manufacturing of CAR T cells without selection of CD8+ central memory T cells as independent predictors of CRS.

Severe CRS was characterized by hemodynamic instability, capillary leak, and consumptive coagulopathy. As in the study by Dr. Gust and her colleagues, biomarkers of endothelial activation, including angiopoietin-2 and von Willebrand factor, were increased during severe CRS and before lymphodepletion in patients who subsequently developed CRS.
 

Potential modifications

The findings to date suggest that risk stratification, prophylaxis, early intervention and therapeutic intervention are among potential strategies for mitigating the risk of CD19-directed CAR T toxicity, Dr. Turtle said. Steroids, tocilizumab, siltuximab, anakinra, anti-GM-CSF, small molecules, plasma exchange, angiopoietin-1, and hypertransfusion are among candidates under consideration for such interventions, he noted.

Other approaches that have been tested in small studies, and which may reduce toxicity and improve the therapeutic index of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL, include split dosing and risk-adapted dosing.

“These approaches do appear to mitigate toxicity, but larger studies are needed to confirm that treatment efficacy is maintained,” Dr. Turtle said.

Toxicity prediction and early intervention to maintain the CAR T-cell dose while avoiding grade 4 or greater toxicities would be helpful and is within reach, he said, noting that the findings by Dr. Hay and his colleagues led to the development of “day-1 cytokine combination algorithms that predict grade 4-5 CRS and could direct preemptive intervention.”

One algorithm based on three cytokines had high sensitivity and specificity, but would require screening of all patients.

Early intervention in patients in whom toxicity is predicted has not been extensively evaluated in clinical studies, he said.

Dr. Hay and his colleagues did, however, develop a “classification tree model of early intervention strategies” using their findings.

A complicating factor in predicting risk and intervening is that each CAR T-cell product is associated with differing levels of toxicity risk. The varying rates of toxicity suggest that promising approaches for addressing CAR T toxicity require validation for each product with respect to cutpoints, efficacy, and maintenance of response, Dr. Turtle said.

“The findings to date are encouraging and show that potentially targetable factors for mitigating the toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy can be identified,” he said. “But clinical studies have yet to convincingly establish the best approach.”

Dr. Turtle has served on advisory boards for Juno/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Humanigen, and Aptevo; has intellectual property rights licensed to Juno; has stock options with Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences; and has received research funding from Juno and Nektar Therapeutics.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

Advances in genomics and technology perpetually change and improve therapies in oncology. Enhanced comprehension of cellular signaling, division, and replication has created a platform to selectively restrict neoplastic growth while preserving the integrity of benign cells.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved in 2018, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.

Click on the PDF above to download the full article and charts in an easy-to-print format. 

Apalutamide (Erleada)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 240 mg orally, once daily.

Adverse Events (AEs): Hyperkalemia and increased risks of seizures, falls, and fractures.

Phase 3 SPARTAN trial (NCT01946204): 40.5-month metastasis-free survival rate, compared with 16.2 months in the placebo group.

ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939): 21% of the patients who received gilteritinib exhibited complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.

NETTER-1 trial (NCT01578239): 65% of adults who received lutetium Lu 177 showed improved progression-free survival at 20 months, compared with just 10.8% in the control group.

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mentzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Advances in genomics and technology perpetually change and improve therapies in oncology. Enhanced comprehension of cellular signaling, division, and replication has created a platform to selectively restrict neoplastic growth while preserving the integrity of benign cells.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved in 2018, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.

Click on the PDF above to download the full article and charts in an easy-to-print format. 

Apalutamide (Erleada)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 240 mg orally, once daily.

Adverse Events (AEs): Hyperkalemia and increased risks of seizures, falls, and fractures.

Phase 3 SPARTAN trial (NCT01946204): 40.5-month metastasis-free survival rate, compared with 16.2 months in the placebo group.

ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939): 21% of the patients who received gilteritinib exhibited complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.

NETTER-1 trial (NCT01578239): 65% of adults who received lutetium Lu 177 showed improved progression-free survival at 20 months, compared with just 10.8% in the control group.

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mentzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Advances in genomics and technology perpetually change and improve therapies in oncology. Enhanced comprehension of cellular signaling, division, and replication has created a platform to selectively restrict neoplastic growth while preserving the integrity of benign cells.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved in 2018, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.

Click on the PDF above to download the full article and charts in an easy-to-print format. 

Apalutamide (Erleada)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 240 mg orally, once daily.

Adverse Events (AEs): Hyperkalemia and increased risks of seizures, falls, and fractures.

Phase 3 SPARTAN trial (NCT01946204): 40.5-month metastasis-free survival rate, compared with 16.2 months in the placebo group.

ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939): 21% of the patients who received gilteritinib exhibited complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.

NETTER-1 trial (NCT01578239): 65% of adults who received lutetium Lu 177 showed improved progression-free survival at 20 months, compared with just 10.8% in the control group.

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mentzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The sharing of a top-ranked cancer hospital brand across affiliate hospitals doesn’t necessarily guarantee the same quality of care, a new study suggests.

In a paper published in JAMA Network Open, researchers presented the outcomes of a cross-sectional study of 29,228 patients aged over 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery at either 59 top-ranked hospitals or 343 affiliated hospitals.

The researchers saw a significant 40% higher 90-day mortality rate among patients who underwent complex cancer surgery at one of the affiliate hospitals, compared with those who were treated at the top-ranked hospitals (P less than .001), even after adjusting for factors such as age, comorbidity score, procedure type, and admission type.

“This is not entirely surprising, as affiliated hospitals are generally smaller, less likely to be teaching hospitals, and perform complex surgical procedures with less frequency (lower volume) when compared with top-ranked hospitals,” wrote Jessica R. Hoag, PhD, from the department of surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her coauthors. However, including hospital characteristics in the models attenuated but did not eliminate the differences in mortality rates between top-ranked and affiliate hospitals.

The difference in 90-day mortality was particularly evident for gastrectomy, where there was a 100% higher 90-day mortality rate in affiliate hospitals, compared with top-ranked hospitals (P less than .001). The mortality rate for pancreaticoduodenectomy was 59% higher in affiliate hospitals, compared with top-ranked hospitals (P = .009); for colectomy it was 32% higher (P = .001), and for lobectomy it was 34% higher (P = .03).

The only procedure where the mortality rate was not statistically significantly different between top-ranked and affiliate hospitals was esophagectomy (odds ratio, 1.48; P = .06).

When the authors looked at standardized mortality ratios for the top-ranked and affiliate hospitals, they found that 41 of the 49 top-ranked hospitals had lower mortality ratios than their collective affiliates. In 37 cases, the difference in standardized mortality ratios between the top-ranked hospital and its affiliates was statistically significant.

Overall, 39 of the 49 top-ranked hospitals had better standardized mortality ratios than the national average, compared with 17 of the affiliated networks.

The authors wrote that their findings were important because previous studies showed affiliation status played a significant role in which hospital patients choose for their treatment.

“As a result, there is cause for concern that a proportion of the U.S. public could misinterpret brand sharing as indicating equivalent care,” they wrote, suggesting that one way to reduce mortality might therefore be to direct patients with the most risky and complex surgical requirements to top-ranked hospitals rather than affiliates, although acknowledged this might be challenging to implement.

One author reported receiving funding from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, one reported advisory board and steering committee positions with the private medical sector, and one reported receiving nonfinancial support from private industry outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Hoag JR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1912.
 

The sharing of a top-ranked cancer hospital brand across affiliate hospitals doesn’t necessarily guarantee the same quality of care, a new study suggests.

In a paper published in JAMA Network Open, researchers presented the outcomes of a cross-sectional study of 29,228 patients aged over 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery at either 59 top-ranked hospitals or 343 affiliated hospitals.

The researchers saw a significant 40% higher 90-day mortality rate among patients who underwent complex cancer surgery at one of the affiliate hospitals, compared with those who were treated at the top-ranked hospitals (P less than .001), even after adjusting for factors such as age, comorbidity score, procedure type, and admission type.

“This is not entirely surprising, as affiliated hospitals are generally smaller, less likely to be teaching hospitals, and perform complex surgical procedures with less frequency (lower volume) when compared with top-ranked hospitals,” wrote Jessica R. Hoag, PhD, from the department of surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her coauthors. However, including hospital characteristics in the models attenuated but did not eliminate the differences in mortality rates between top-ranked and affiliate hospitals.

The difference in 90-day mortality was particularly evident for gastrectomy, where there was a 100% higher 90-day mortality rate in affiliate hospitals, compared with top-ranked hospitals (P less than .001). The mortality rate for pancreaticoduodenectomy was 59% higher in affiliate hospitals, compared with top-ranked hospitals (P = .009); for colectomy it was 32% higher (P = .001), and for lobectomy it was 34% higher (P = .03).

The only procedure where the mortality rate was not statistically significantly different between top-ranked and affiliate hospitals was esophagectomy (odds ratio, 1.48; P = .06).

When the authors looked at standardized mortality ratios for the top-ranked and affiliate hospitals, they found that 41 of the 49 top-ranked hospitals had lower mortality ratios than their collective affiliates. In 37 cases, the difference in standardized mortality ratios between the top-ranked hospital and its affiliates was statistically significant.

Overall, 39 of the 49 top-ranked hospitals had better standardized mortality ratios than the national average, compared with 17 of the affiliated networks.

The authors wrote that their findings were important because previous studies showed affiliation status played a significant role in which hospital patients choose for their treatment.

“As a result, there is cause for concern that a proportion of the U.S. public could misinterpret brand sharing as indicating equivalent care,” they wrote, suggesting that one way to reduce mortality might therefore be to direct patients with the most risky and complex surgical requirements to top-ranked hospitals rather than affiliates, although acknowledged this might be challenging to implement.

One author reported receiving funding from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, one reported advisory board and steering committee positions with the private medical sector, and one reported receiving nonfinancial support from private industry outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Hoag JR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1912.
 

The sharing of a top-ranked cancer hospital brand across affiliate hospitals doesn’t necessarily guarantee the same quality of care, a new study suggests.

In a paper published in JAMA Network Open, researchers presented the outcomes of a cross-sectional study of 29,228 patients aged over 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery at either 59 top-ranked hospitals or 343 affiliated hospitals.

The researchers saw a significant 40% higher 90-day mortality rate among patients who underwent complex cancer surgery at one of the affiliate hospitals, compared with those who were treated at the top-ranked hospitals (P less than .001), even after adjusting for factors such as age, comorbidity score, procedure type, and admission type.

“This is not entirely surprising, as affiliated hospitals are generally smaller, less likely to be teaching hospitals, and perform complex surgical procedures with less frequency (lower volume) when compared with top-ranked hospitals,” wrote Jessica R. Hoag, PhD, from the department of surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her coauthors. However, including hospital characteristics in the models attenuated but did not eliminate the differences in mortality rates between top-ranked and affiliate hospitals.

The difference in 90-day mortality was particularly evident for gastrectomy, where there was a 100% higher 90-day mortality rate in affiliate hospitals, compared with top-ranked hospitals (P less than .001). The mortality rate for pancreaticoduodenectomy was 59% higher in affiliate hospitals, compared with top-ranked hospitals (P = .009); for colectomy it was 32% higher (P = .001), and for lobectomy it was 34% higher (P = .03).

The only procedure where the mortality rate was not statistically significantly different between top-ranked and affiliate hospitals was esophagectomy (odds ratio, 1.48; P = .06).

When the authors looked at standardized mortality ratios for the top-ranked and affiliate hospitals, they found that 41 of the 49 top-ranked hospitals had lower mortality ratios than their collective affiliates. In 37 cases, the difference in standardized mortality ratios between the top-ranked hospital and its affiliates was statistically significant.

Overall, 39 of the 49 top-ranked hospitals had better standardized mortality ratios than the national average, compared with 17 of the affiliated networks.

The authors wrote that their findings were important because previous studies showed affiliation status played a significant role in which hospital patients choose for their treatment.

“As a result, there is cause for concern that a proportion of the U.S. public could misinterpret brand sharing as indicating equivalent care,” they wrote, suggesting that one way to reduce mortality might therefore be to direct patients with the most risky and complex surgical requirements to top-ranked hospitals rather than affiliates, although acknowledged this might be challenging to implement.

One author reported receiving funding from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, one reported advisory board and steering committee positions with the private medical sector, and one reported receiving nonfinancial support from private industry outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Hoag JR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1912.
 

The FP had never seen a condition like this before, so he used some online resources to come up with a differential diagnosis that included sarcoidosis, leprosy, drug eruption, and mycosis fungoides. Aside from an occasional drug eruption, the other conditions were ones that he had seen in textbooks only.

Based on that differential diagnosis, the FP decided to do a punch biopsy of the largest nodule, which was near the patient’s mouth. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Punch biopsy.”)

The pathology report came back as folliculotropic mycosis fungoides. The FP researched the diagnosis and determined that this was a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that involved hair follicles and tended to occur on the head and neck. This explained the patient’s hair loss in his beard and right eyebrow. While the prognosis for mycosis fungoides is quite good, the same cannot be said for the folliculotropic variant.

The FP referred the patient to Dermatology for further evaluation and treatment. In consultation with Hematology, the patient was treated with a potent topical steroid, chemotherapy, and narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy. His condition improved, but ongoing treatment and surveillance were needed.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Chacon G, Nayar A. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill;2019:1124-1131.

To learn more about the newest 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/

You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

The FP had never seen a condition like this before, so he used some online resources to come up with a differential diagnosis that included sarcoidosis, leprosy, drug eruption, and mycosis fungoides. Aside from an occasional drug eruption, the other conditions were ones that he had seen in textbooks only.

Based on that differential diagnosis, the FP decided to do a punch biopsy of the largest nodule, which was near the patient’s mouth. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Punch biopsy.”)

The pathology report came back as folliculotropic mycosis fungoides. The FP researched the diagnosis and determined that this was a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that involved hair follicles and tended to occur on the head and neck. This explained the patient’s hair loss in his beard and right eyebrow. While the prognosis for mycosis fungoides is quite good, the same cannot be said for the folliculotropic variant.

The FP referred the patient to Dermatology for further evaluation and treatment. In consultation with Hematology, the patient was treated with a potent topical steroid, chemotherapy, and narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy. His condition improved, but ongoing treatment and surveillance were needed.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Chacon G, Nayar A. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill;2019:1124-1131.

To learn more about the newest 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/

You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

The FP had never seen a condition like this before, so he used some online resources to come up with a differential diagnosis that included sarcoidosis, leprosy, drug eruption, and mycosis fungoides. Aside from an occasional drug eruption, the other conditions were ones that he had seen in textbooks only.

Based on that differential diagnosis, the FP decided to do a punch biopsy of the largest nodule, which was near the patient’s mouth. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Punch biopsy.”)

The pathology report came back as folliculotropic mycosis fungoides. The FP researched the diagnosis and determined that this was a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that involved hair follicles and tended to occur on the head and neck. This explained the patient’s hair loss in his beard and right eyebrow. While the prognosis for mycosis fungoides is quite good, the same cannot be said for the folliculotropic variant.

The FP referred the patient to Dermatology for further evaluation and treatment. In consultation with Hematology, the patient was treated with a potent topical steroid, chemotherapy, and narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy. His condition improved, but ongoing treatment and surveillance were needed.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Chacon G, Nayar A. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill;2019:1124-1131.

To learn more about the newest 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/

You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

ATLANTA – A novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell construct centered on HER2 as the target antigen was safe and showed early promise in the treatment of advanced sarcomas of bone and soft tissues in a phase I trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

One patient, a 16-year-old girl with advanced osteosarcoma metastatic to her lungs, had a complete response to the therapy that is ongoing out to nearly 3 years, reported Shoba A. Navai, MD, from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

A second patient, an 8-year-old boy with rhabdomyosarcoma metastatic to bone marrow, had a complete response lasting 12 months. Upon relapse he was re-enrolled, received additional CAR T-cell infusions, and had a second complete response that has been ongoing for 17 months.

“HER2 CAR T cells can induce objective clinical responses in some patients with sarcoma, and engagement of endogenous immunity may aid in generation of tumor responses. We are currently working to validate these findings in other patients who were treated,” she said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

HER2 is a member of the human epidermal growth factor receptor family that is primarily expressed on the surface of tumor cells but is largely absent from nonmalignant tissues. HER2 can be expressed in a variety of sarcomas, including osteosarcoma, and HER2 expression in osteosarcoma correlates with worse overall survival.

Unlike HER2-positive breast cancers, however, HER2 expression levels in osteosarcoma are too low to be effectively targeted by anti-HER2 agents such as trastuzumab (Hereceptin).

But as Dr. Navai and colleagues have found, HER2 appears to be a valid target for CAR T-cell therapy in otherwise antigenically “cold” tumors – that is, tumors with few targetable antigens.
 

Old target, new weapon

They have developed a CAR T-cell construct using a HER2-directed antibody coupled with CD28 as the costimulatory molecule. As with other CAR T therapies, the patient’s T cells or selected T cell subsets are collected, transfected to express the antigen, and are then expanded and returned to the patient following lymphodepletion with either fludarabine alone or with cyclophosphamide.

Each patient received up to three infusions of autologous CAR T cells at a dose of 1 x 108 cells/m², and eligible patients received up to five additional infusions without additional lymphodepletion.

Dr. Navai presented data on 10 patients treated to date, including the two mentioned before; the boy with rhabdomyosarcoma was counted as two separate patients for the purpose of the efficacy analysis.

All patients had metastatic disease, including five with osteosarcoma, three with rhabdomyosarcoma, one with Ewing sarcoma, and one with synovial sarcoma.

The lymphodepletion regimens did their job, inducing neutropenia (defined as an absolute neutrophil count less than 500 per milliliter ) for up to 14 days.

Eight patients developed grade 1 or 2 cytokine release syndrome within 24 hours of CAR T-cell infusion, and all cases completely resolved with supportive care within 5 days of onset.

In nine patients, T cells were successfully expanded, with a median peak expansion on day 7.

In all 10 patients, CAR T cells were detected by quantitative polymerase chain reaction 6 weeks after infusion.

In addition to the two patients with complete remissions already described, three patients had stable disease. The remaining patients had disease progression. At the most recent analysis, five patients were still alive, and five had died.

The infusions were safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities reported. No patient required a transfusion, and there were no opportunistic, infections, no neurotoxicities, and no lasting pulmonary or cardiac toxicities, Dr. Navai reported.
 

Some fare better than others

Nilofer S. Azad, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study had “very small numbers, but is still very exciting.”

She noted that the patients who benefited most from the therapy either had minimal residual disease or bone marrow disease without visceral disease; she asked Dr. Navai how this could be addressed going forward.

“The patients who seemed to have had responses both in this trial, as well as in our previous trial without lymphodepletion, tended to have less disease or more accessible disease. So we hypothesized that disease that’s in the bone marrow because it’s more accessible, or in the lungs, where also CAR T cells go after they are first infused, may be more amenable to treatment,” Dr. Navai said.

In contrast, larger tumors and more invasive disease may emit immune inhibitory signals that dampen the efficacy of CAR T cells, she added.

Development of the CAR T-cell construct is supported by the Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas, Stand Up to Cancer, the St. Baldrick’s Foundation, Cookies for Kids’ Cancer, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Navai and Dr. Azad reported having no disclosures relevant to the work.

SOURCE: Navai SA et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-147.

ATLANTA – A novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell construct centered on HER2 as the target antigen was safe and showed early promise in the treatment of advanced sarcomas of bone and soft tissues in a phase I trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

One patient, a 16-year-old girl with advanced osteosarcoma metastatic to her lungs, had a complete response to the therapy that is ongoing out to nearly 3 years, reported Shoba A. Navai, MD, from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

A second patient, an 8-year-old boy with rhabdomyosarcoma metastatic to bone marrow, had a complete response lasting 12 months. Upon relapse he was re-enrolled, received additional CAR T-cell infusions, and had a second complete response that has been ongoing for 17 months.

“HER2 CAR T cells can induce objective clinical responses in some patients with sarcoma, and engagement of endogenous immunity may aid in generation of tumor responses. We are currently working to validate these findings in other patients who were treated,” she said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

HER2 is a member of the human epidermal growth factor receptor family that is primarily expressed on the surface of tumor cells but is largely absent from nonmalignant tissues. HER2 can be expressed in a variety of sarcomas, including osteosarcoma, and HER2 expression in osteosarcoma correlates with worse overall survival.

Unlike HER2-positive breast cancers, however, HER2 expression levels in osteosarcoma are too low to be effectively targeted by anti-HER2 agents such as trastuzumab (Hereceptin).

But as Dr. Navai and colleagues have found, HER2 appears to be a valid target for CAR T-cell therapy in otherwise antigenically “cold” tumors – that is, tumors with few targetable antigens.
 

Old target, new weapon

They have developed a CAR T-cell construct using a HER2-directed antibody coupled with CD28 as the costimulatory molecule. As with other CAR T therapies, the patient’s T cells or selected T cell subsets are collected, transfected to express the antigen, and are then expanded and returned to the patient following lymphodepletion with either fludarabine alone or with cyclophosphamide.

Each patient received up to three infusions of autologous CAR T cells at a dose of 1 x 108 cells/m², and eligible patients received up to five additional infusions without additional lymphodepletion.

Dr. Navai presented data on 10 patients treated to date, including the two mentioned before; the boy with rhabdomyosarcoma was counted as two separate patients for the purpose of the efficacy analysis.

All patients had metastatic disease, including five with osteosarcoma, three with rhabdomyosarcoma, one with Ewing sarcoma, and one with synovial sarcoma.

The lymphodepletion regimens did their job, inducing neutropenia (defined as an absolute neutrophil count less than 500 per milliliter ) for up to 14 days.

Eight patients developed grade 1 or 2 cytokine release syndrome within 24 hours of CAR T-cell infusion, and all cases completely resolved with supportive care within 5 days of onset.

In nine patients, T cells were successfully expanded, with a median peak expansion on day 7.

In all 10 patients, CAR T cells were detected by quantitative polymerase chain reaction 6 weeks after infusion.

In addition to the two patients with complete remissions already described, three patients had stable disease. The remaining patients had disease progression. At the most recent analysis, five patients were still alive, and five had died.

The infusions were safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities reported. No patient required a transfusion, and there were no opportunistic, infections, no neurotoxicities, and no lasting pulmonary or cardiac toxicities, Dr. Navai reported.
 

Some fare better than others

Nilofer S. Azad, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study had “very small numbers, but is still very exciting.”

She noted that the patients who benefited most from the therapy either had minimal residual disease or bone marrow disease without visceral disease; she asked Dr. Navai how this could be addressed going forward.

“The patients who seemed to have had responses both in this trial, as well as in our previous trial without lymphodepletion, tended to have less disease or more accessible disease. So we hypothesized that disease that’s in the bone marrow because it’s more accessible, or in the lungs, where also CAR T cells go after they are first infused, may be more amenable to treatment,” Dr. Navai said.

In contrast, larger tumors and more invasive disease may emit immune inhibitory signals that dampen the efficacy of CAR T cells, she added.

Development of the CAR T-cell construct is supported by the Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas, Stand Up to Cancer, the St. Baldrick’s Foundation, Cookies for Kids’ Cancer, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Navai and Dr. Azad reported having no disclosures relevant to the work.

SOURCE: Navai SA et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-147.

ATLANTA – A novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell construct centered on HER2 as the target antigen was safe and showed early promise in the treatment of advanced sarcomas of bone and soft tissues in a phase I trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

One patient, a 16-year-old girl with advanced osteosarcoma metastatic to her lungs, had a complete response to the therapy that is ongoing out to nearly 3 years, reported Shoba A. Navai, MD, from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

A second patient, an 8-year-old boy with rhabdomyosarcoma metastatic to bone marrow, had a complete response lasting 12 months. Upon relapse he was re-enrolled, received additional CAR T-cell infusions, and had a second complete response that has been ongoing for 17 months.

“HER2 CAR T cells can induce objective clinical responses in some patients with sarcoma, and engagement of endogenous immunity may aid in generation of tumor responses. We are currently working to validate these findings in other patients who were treated,” she said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

HER2 is a member of the human epidermal growth factor receptor family that is primarily expressed on the surface of tumor cells but is largely absent from nonmalignant tissues. HER2 can be expressed in a variety of sarcomas, including osteosarcoma, and HER2 expression in osteosarcoma correlates with worse overall survival.

Unlike HER2-positive breast cancers, however, HER2 expression levels in osteosarcoma are too low to be effectively targeted by anti-HER2 agents such as trastuzumab (Hereceptin).

But as Dr. Navai and colleagues have found, HER2 appears to be a valid target for CAR T-cell therapy in otherwise antigenically “cold” tumors – that is, tumors with few targetable antigens.
 

Old target, new weapon

They have developed a CAR T-cell construct using a HER2-directed antibody coupled with CD28 as the costimulatory molecule. As with other CAR T therapies, the patient’s T cells or selected T cell subsets are collected, transfected to express the antigen, and are then expanded and returned to the patient following lymphodepletion with either fludarabine alone or with cyclophosphamide.

Each patient received up to three infusions of autologous CAR T cells at a dose of 1 x 108 cells/m², and eligible patients received up to five additional infusions without additional lymphodepletion.

Dr. Navai presented data on 10 patients treated to date, including the two mentioned before; the boy with rhabdomyosarcoma was counted as two separate patients for the purpose of the efficacy analysis.

All patients had metastatic disease, including five with osteosarcoma, three with rhabdomyosarcoma, one with Ewing sarcoma, and one with synovial sarcoma.

The lymphodepletion regimens did their job, inducing neutropenia (defined as an absolute neutrophil count less than 500 per milliliter ) for up to 14 days.

Eight patients developed grade 1 or 2 cytokine release syndrome within 24 hours of CAR T-cell infusion, and all cases completely resolved with supportive care within 5 days of onset.

In nine patients, T cells were successfully expanded, with a median peak expansion on day 7.

In all 10 patients, CAR T cells were detected by quantitative polymerase chain reaction 6 weeks after infusion.

In addition to the two patients with complete remissions already described, three patients had stable disease. The remaining patients had disease progression. At the most recent analysis, five patients were still alive, and five had died.

The infusions were safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities reported. No patient required a transfusion, and there were no opportunistic, infections, no neurotoxicities, and no lasting pulmonary or cardiac toxicities, Dr. Navai reported.
 

Some fare better than others

Nilofer S. Azad, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study had “very small numbers, but is still very exciting.”

She noted that the patients who benefited most from the therapy either had minimal residual disease or bone marrow disease without visceral disease; she asked Dr. Navai how this could be addressed going forward.

“The patients who seemed to have had responses both in this trial, as well as in our previous trial without lymphodepletion, tended to have less disease or more accessible disease. So we hypothesized that disease that’s in the bone marrow because it’s more accessible, or in the lungs, where also CAR T cells go after they are first infused, may be more amenable to treatment,” Dr. Navai said.

In contrast, larger tumors and more invasive disease may emit immune inhibitory signals that dampen the efficacy of CAR T cells, she added.

Development of the CAR T-cell construct is supported by the Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas, Stand Up to Cancer, the St. Baldrick’s Foundation, Cookies for Kids’ Cancer, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Navai and Dr. Azad reported having no disclosures relevant to the work.

SOURCE: Navai SA et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-147.

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

GLASGOW – Whole genome sequencing (WGS) appears capable of replacing cytogenetic testing and next generation sequencing (NGS) for the detection of clinically relevant molecular abnormalities in hematological malignancies, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

A comparison of WGS with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) showed that WGS caught all the same significant structural variants, plus some abnormalities that FISH had not detected, reported lead author Shirley Henderson, PhD, lead for cancer molecular diagnostics at Genomics England in Oxford.

Although further validation is needed, these findings, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, support an ongoing effort to validate the clinical reliability of WGS, which is currently reserved for research purposes.

“It’s vitally important that the clinical community engage with this and understand both the power and the limitations of this technique and how this work is going to be interpreted for the benefit of patients,” said Adele Fielding, PhD, session chair from University College London’s Cancer Institute.

The investigators compared WGS with FISH for detection of clinically significant structural variants (SVs) and copy number variants (CNVs) in tumor samples from 34 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The 252 standard of care FISH tests – conducted at three separate clinical diagnostic centers in the United Kingdom – included 138 SVs and 114 CNVs. WGS relied on a combination of bioinformatics and visual inspection of Circos plots. WGS confirmed all of the SVs detected by FISH with high confidence; WGS detected four additional SVs, also with high confidence, including an ETV6-RUNX1 fusion not detected by FISH because of probe limitations.

Results for CNVs were similar, with WGS detecting 78 out of 85 positive CNVs. Six of the missed positives were associated with low quality samples or low level mutations in the FISH test, suggesting that at least some positives may have been detected with better samples. Only one negative CNV from FISH was missed by WGS.

Overall, WGS had a false positive rate of less than 5% and a positive percentage agreement with FISH that exceeded 90%.

“Further work is required to fully validate all aspects of the WGS analysis pipeline,” Dr. Henderson said. “But these results indicate that WGS has the potential to reliably detect SVs and CNVs in these conditions while offering the advantage of detecting all SVs and CNVs present without the need for additional interrogation of the sample by multiple tests or probes.”

Dr. Henderson noted that there is really no “perfect method” for identifying structural and copy number variants at the present time.

Small variants are relatively easy to detect with techniques such as karyotyping and gene banding, but these tests have shortcomings, namely, that they require live cells and have “fairly high failure rates for various reasons,” Dr. Henderson said.

“FISH is an incredibly useful test and it has higher resolution than gene banding, but the problem with FISH is that you only find what you’re looking at,” Dr. Henderson said. “It’s not genome wide; it’s very targeted.”

Similarly, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), including next generation sequencing (NGS), can detect molecular abnormalities, but only those that are targeted, which may necessitate multiple tests, she said.

“If you start looking for all of the structural variants [with existing techniques], then you’re going to be doing an awful lot of tests,” Dr. Henderson said.

Another potential benefit of WGS is that it is “future resistant,” Dr. Henderson said. “As new biomarkers are discovered, you don’t have to redesign a new targeted test. It will also detect emerging biomarkers, such as mutational signatures and burden.”

The study was sponsored by NHS England. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Henderson S et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-002.

GLASGOW – Whole genome sequencing (WGS) appears capable of replacing cytogenetic testing and next generation sequencing (NGS) for the detection of clinically relevant molecular abnormalities in hematological malignancies, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

A comparison of WGS with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) showed that WGS caught all the same significant structural variants, plus some abnormalities that FISH had not detected, reported lead author Shirley Henderson, PhD, lead for cancer molecular diagnostics at Genomics England in Oxford.

Although further validation is needed, these findings, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, support an ongoing effort to validate the clinical reliability of WGS, which is currently reserved for research purposes.

“It’s vitally important that the clinical community engage with this and understand both the power and the limitations of this technique and how this work is going to be interpreted for the benefit of patients,” said Adele Fielding, PhD, session chair from University College London’s Cancer Institute.

The investigators compared WGS with FISH for detection of clinically significant structural variants (SVs) and copy number variants (CNVs) in tumor samples from 34 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The 252 standard of care FISH tests – conducted at three separate clinical diagnostic centers in the United Kingdom – included 138 SVs and 114 CNVs. WGS relied on a combination of bioinformatics and visual inspection of Circos plots. WGS confirmed all of the SVs detected by FISH with high confidence; WGS detected four additional SVs, also with high confidence, including an ETV6-RUNX1 fusion not detected by FISH because of probe limitations.

Results for CNVs were similar, with WGS detecting 78 out of 85 positive CNVs. Six of the missed positives were associated with low quality samples or low level mutations in the FISH test, suggesting that at least some positives may have been detected with better samples. Only one negative CNV from FISH was missed by WGS.

Overall, WGS had a false positive rate of less than 5% and a positive percentage agreement with FISH that exceeded 90%.

“Further work is required to fully validate all aspects of the WGS analysis pipeline,” Dr. Henderson said. “But these results indicate that WGS has the potential to reliably detect SVs and CNVs in these conditions while offering the advantage of detecting all SVs and CNVs present without the need for additional interrogation of the sample by multiple tests or probes.”

Dr. Henderson noted that there is really no “perfect method” for identifying structural and copy number variants at the present time.

Small variants are relatively easy to detect with techniques such as karyotyping and gene banding, but these tests have shortcomings, namely, that they require live cells and have “fairly high failure rates for various reasons,” Dr. Henderson said.

“FISH is an incredibly useful test and it has higher resolution than gene banding, but the problem with FISH is that you only find what you’re looking at,” Dr. Henderson said. “It’s not genome wide; it’s very targeted.”

Similarly, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), including next generation sequencing (NGS), can detect molecular abnormalities, but only those that are targeted, which may necessitate multiple tests, she said.

“If you start looking for all of the structural variants [with existing techniques], then you’re going to be doing an awful lot of tests,” Dr. Henderson said.

Another potential benefit of WGS is that it is “future resistant,” Dr. Henderson said. “As new biomarkers are discovered, you don’t have to redesign a new targeted test. It will also detect emerging biomarkers, such as mutational signatures and burden.”

The study was sponsored by NHS England. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Henderson S et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-002.

GLASGOW – Whole genome sequencing (WGS) appears capable of replacing cytogenetic testing and next generation sequencing (NGS) for the detection of clinically relevant molecular abnormalities in hematological malignancies, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

A comparison of WGS with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) showed that WGS caught all the same significant structural variants, plus some abnormalities that FISH had not detected, reported lead author Shirley Henderson, PhD, lead for cancer molecular diagnostics at Genomics England in Oxford.

Although further validation is needed, these findings, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, support an ongoing effort to validate the clinical reliability of WGS, which is currently reserved for research purposes.

“It’s vitally important that the clinical community engage with this and understand both the power and the limitations of this technique and how this work is going to be interpreted for the benefit of patients,” said Adele Fielding, PhD, session chair from University College London’s Cancer Institute.

The investigators compared WGS with FISH for detection of clinically significant structural variants (SVs) and copy number variants (CNVs) in tumor samples from 34 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The 252 standard of care FISH tests – conducted at three separate clinical diagnostic centers in the United Kingdom – included 138 SVs and 114 CNVs. WGS relied on a combination of bioinformatics and visual inspection of Circos plots. WGS confirmed all of the SVs detected by FISH with high confidence; WGS detected four additional SVs, also with high confidence, including an ETV6-RUNX1 fusion not detected by FISH because of probe limitations.

Results for CNVs were similar, with WGS detecting 78 out of 85 positive CNVs. Six of the missed positives were associated with low quality samples or low level mutations in the FISH test, suggesting that at least some positives may have been detected with better samples. Only one negative CNV from FISH was missed by WGS.

Overall, WGS had a false positive rate of less than 5% and a positive percentage agreement with FISH that exceeded 90%.

“Further work is required to fully validate all aspects of the WGS analysis pipeline,” Dr. Henderson said. “But these results indicate that WGS has the potential to reliably detect SVs and CNVs in these conditions while offering the advantage of detecting all SVs and CNVs present without the need for additional interrogation of the sample by multiple tests or probes.”

Dr. Henderson noted that there is really no “perfect method” for identifying structural and copy number variants at the present time.

Small variants are relatively easy to detect with techniques such as karyotyping and gene banding, but these tests have shortcomings, namely, that they require live cells and have “fairly high failure rates for various reasons,” Dr. Henderson said.

“FISH is an incredibly useful test and it has higher resolution than gene banding, but the problem with FISH is that you only find what you’re looking at,” Dr. Henderson said. “It’s not genome wide; it’s very targeted.”

Similarly, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), including next generation sequencing (NGS), can detect molecular abnormalities, but only those that are targeted, which may necessitate multiple tests, she said.

“If you start looking for all of the structural variants [with existing techniques], then you’re going to be doing an awful lot of tests,” Dr. Henderson said.

Another potential benefit of WGS is that it is “future resistant,” Dr. Henderson said. “As new biomarkers are discovered, you don’t have to redesign a new targeted test. It will also detect emerging biomarkers, such as mutational signatures and burden.”

The study was sponsored by NHS England. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Henderson S et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-002.

Click here to read the supplement.

What can be done to provide a cost-effective treatment option for von Willebrand Disease?

Topics include:

• Review of Key Clinical Studies and Surgical Procedures
• Pharmacokinetics Comparison
• Pharmacoeconomic Comparisons

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

What can be done to provide a cost-effective treatment option for von Willebrand Disease?

Topics include:

• Review of Key Clinical Studies and Surgical Procedures
• Pharmacokinetics Comparison
• Pharmacoeconomic Comparisons

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

What can be done to provide a cost-effective treatment option for von Willebrand Disease?

Topics include:

• Review of Key Clinical Studies and Surgical Procedures
• Pharmacokinetics Comparison
• Pharmacoeconomic Comparisons

Click here to read the supplement.