Hodgkin Lymphoma

A California woman who pretended to have cancer and received more than $100,000 in charitable donations from hundreds of people has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Amanda Christine Riley pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for soliciting donations from people through various social media sites to help pay for cancer treatments that she never received or needed, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In total, the government identified 349 individuals and entities who made contributions totaling $105,513. Ms. Riley was sentenced to 60 months in prison on May 3.

Ms. Riley is hardly the first person to fake a cancer diagnosis for money. In fact, the phenomenon of faking illness online now occurs so often that researchers have given it a name: “Munchausen by internet.” However, few appear to be penalized with prison time.

In this case, the scam began in 2012, when Ms. Riley falsely claimed to have been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She used Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and a blog to document her imaginary condition and “aggressively” solicit donations to cover her supposed medical expenses, the DOJ said.

Instead, Ms. Riley used the donations to pay living expenses.

According to the DOJ, Ms. Riley went to “great lengths to maintain her deception.” She shaved her head to appear to be undergoing chemotherapy, faked her medical records, forged physicians’ letters and medical certifications, and convinced family members to back up her false claims.

Ms. Riley’s scheme continued for 7 years, until 2019, when her deception was uncovered by an investigation of the Internal Revenue Service and the San Jose Police Department.

Ms. Riley was charged in July 2020 and pleaded guilty in October 2021. 

In addition to serving 5 years in prison, Ms. Riley must pay back the $105,513 and undergo 3 years of supervision after her release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A California woman who pretended to have cancer and received more than $100,000 in charitable donations from hundreds of people has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Amanda Christine Riley pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for soliciting donations from people through various social media sites to help pay for cancer treatments that she never received or needed, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In total, the government identified 349 individuals and entities who made contributions totaling $105,513. Ms. Riley was sentenced to 60 months in prison on May 3.

Ms. Riley is hardly the first person to fake a cancer diagnosis for money. In fact, the phenomenon of faking illness online now occurs so often that researchers have given it a name: “Munchausen by internet.” However, few appear to be penalized with prison time.

In this case, the scam began in 2012, when Ms. Riley falsely claimed to have been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She used Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and a blog to document her imaginary condition and “aggressively” solicit donations to cover her supposed medical expenses, the DOJ said.

Instead, Ms. Riley used the donations to pay living expenses.

According to the DOJ, Ms. Riley went to “great lengths to maintain her deception.” She shaved her head to appear to be undergoing chemotherapy, faked her medical records, forged physicians’ letters and medical certifications, and convinced family members to back up her false claims.

Ms. Riley’s scheme continued for 7 years, until 2019, when her deception was uncovered by an investigation of the Internal Revenue Service and the San Jose Police Department.

Ms. Riley was charged in July 2020 and pleaded guilty in October 2021. 

In addition to serving 5 years in prison, Ms. Riley must pay back the $105,513 and undergo 3 years of supervision after her release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A California woman who pretended to have cancer and received more than $100,000 in charitable donations from hundreds of people has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Amanda Christine Riley pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for soliciting donations from people through various social media sites to help pay for cancer treatments that she never received or needed, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In total, the government identified 349 individuals and entities who made contributions totaling $105,513. Ms. Riley was sentenced to 60 months in prison on May 3.

Ms. Riley is hardly the first person to fake a cancer diagnosis for money. In fact, the phenomenon of faking illness online now occurs so often that researchers have given it a name: “Munchausen by internet.” However, few appear to be penalized with prison time.

In this case, the scam began in 2012, when Ms. Riley falsely claimed to have been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She used Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and a blog to document her imaginary condition and “aggressively” solicit donations to cover her supposed medical expenses, the DOJ said.

Instead, Ms. Riley used the donations to pay living expenses.

According to the DOJ, Ms. Riley went to “great lengths to maintain her deception.” She shaved her head to appear to be undergoing chemotherapy, faked her medical records, forged physicians’ letters and medical certifications, and convinced family members to back up her false claims.

Ms. Riley’s scheme continued for 7 years, until 2019, when her deception was uncovered by an investigation of the Internal Revenue Service and the San Jose Police Department.

Ms. Riley was charged in July 2020 and pleaded guilty in October 2021. 

In addition to serving 5 years in prison, Ms. Riley must pay back the $105,513 and undergo 3 years of supervision after her release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When Jane Cooke Wright, MD, entered the medical profession in 1945, the notion that toxic drugs could target tumors struck many physicians and patients as outlandish. How could one poison be weaponized against another poison – a cancerous tumor – without creating more havoc? Let alone a combination of two or more chemicals?

Yet by the time Dr. Wright retired in 1987, chemotherapy treatments that she’d helped develop were routinely saving lives. In fact, she’d played key roles in the development of oncology, a new medical specialty, and of its most powerful agent to combat disease and death.

Courtesy of the Wright family

Dr. Wright’s story would be extraordinary enough if she’d looked like most of her colleagues, but this surgeon and researcher stood apart. An African American woman at a time when medicine and science – like politics and law – were almost entirely the domain of White men, Dr. Wright had determination in her blood. Her father, once honored by a crowd of dignitaries that included a First Lady, persevered despite his horrific encounters with racism. She shared her father’s commitment to progress and added her own personal twists. She balanced elegance and beauty with scientific savvy, fierce ambition, and a refusal to be defined by anything other than her accomplishments.

“She didn’t focus on race, not at all,” her daughter Alison Jones, PhD, a psychologist in East Lansing, Mich., said in an interview. “Wherever she was, she wanted to be the best, not the best Black person. It was not about how she performed in a category, and she would get upset if someone said she was good as a Black physician.”

On the road to being the best, Dr. Jones said, her mother set a goal of curing cancer. National Cancer Research Month is a fitting opportunity to look back on a scientist dedicated to bringing humanity closer to that elusive achievement.
 

Medical legacy blazed in toil and trauma

A strong case could be made that Dr. Jane C. Wright and her father Louis Tompkins Wright, MD, are the most accomplished father-and-daughter team in all of medicine.

The elder Dr. Wright, son of a formerly enslaved man turned physician and a stepson of the first African American to graduate from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., himself graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1915. He earned a Purple Heart while serving in World War I, then went on to become the first Black surgeon to join the staff at Harlem Hospital.

Dr. Wright, who had witnessed mob violence and the aftermath of a lynching as a young man, became a supporter of the Harlem Renaissance and a prominent advocate for civil rights and integration. He served as chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and was only the second Black member of the American College of Surgeons.

According to the 2009 book “Black Genius: Inspirational Portraits of African American Leaders,” he successfully treated the rare but devastating venereal disease lymphogranuloma venereum with a new antibiotic developed by his former colleague Yellapragada SubbaRow, MD. Dr. Wright even tried the drug himself, “as a lot of doctors in the olden days did,” according to another of his daughters, the late Barbara Wright Pierce, MD, who was quoted in “Black Genius.” She, too, was a physician.

In 1948, Dr. Jane C. Wright joined her father at Harlem Hospital’s Cancer Research Foundation. There the duo explored the cancer-fighting possibilities of a nitrogen mustard–like chemical agent that had been known since World War I to kill white blood cells. Ironically, Dr. Louis Wright himself suffered lifelong health problems because of an attack from the poisonous gas phosgene during his wartime service.

“Remissions were observed in patients with sarcoma, Hodgkin disease, and chronic myelogenous leukemia, mycosis fungoides, and lymphoma,” reported a 2013 obituary in the journal Oncology of the younger Dr. Wright. “They also performed early research into the clinical efficacy and toxicity of folic acid antagonists, documenting responses in 93 patients with various forms of incurable blood cancers and solid tumors.”

This research appears in a study that was authored by three Dr. Wrights – Dr. Louis T. Wright and his daughters Jane and Barbara.

“The elder Dr. Wright died in 1952, just months after 1,000 people – including Eleanor Roosevelt – honored him at a dinner to dedicate a Harlem Hospital library named after him. He was 61.
 

Scientific savvy mixed with modesty and elegance

After her father’s death, Dr. Janet C. Wright became director of the hospital’s cancer foundation. From the 1950s to the 1970s, she “worked out ways to use pieces of a patient’s own tumor, removed by surgery and grown in a nutrient culture medium in the laboratory, as a ‘guinea pig for testing drugs,’ ” according to the 1991 book “Black Scientists.” Previously, researchers had focused on mice as test subjects.

This approach also allowed Dr. Wright to determine if specific drugs such as methotrexate, a folic acid antagonist, would help specific patients. “She was looking for predictive activity for chemotherapeutic efficacy in vitro at a time when no one had good predictive tests,” wrote James F. Holland, MD, the late Mount Sinai School of Medicine oncologist, who was quoted in Dr. Wright’s 2013 Oncology obituary.

“Her strict attention to detail and concern for her patients helped determine effective dosing levels and establish treatment guidelines,” the Oncology obituary reported. “She treated patients that other physicians had given up on, and she was among the first small cadre of researchers to carefully test the effects of drugs against cancer in a clinical trial setting.”

Dr. Wright also focused on developing ways to administer chemotherapy, such using a catheter to reach difficult-to-access organs like the spleen without surgery, according to “Black Scientists.”

Along with her work, Dr. Wright’s appearance set her apart. According to “Black Genius,” a newspaper columnist dubbed her one of the 10 most beautiful Back woman in America, and Ebony Magazine in 1966 honored her as one of the best-dressed women in America. It featured a photograph of her in a stunning ivory and yellow brocade gown, noting that she was “in private life Mrs. David J. Jones.” (She’d married the Harvard University Law School graduate in 1946.)

Dr. Wright had a sense of modesty despite her accomplishments, according to her daughter Alison Jones. She even downplayed her own mental powers in a newspaper interview. “I know I’m a member of two minority groups,” she told The New York Post in 1967, “but I don’t think of myself that way. Sure, a woman has to try twice as hard. But – racial prejudice? I’ve met very little of it. It could be I met it – and wasn’t intelligent enough to recognize it.”

Sharp-eyed readers might have glimpsed her modesty nearly 2 decades later. In a 1984 article for the Journal of the National Medical Association, a society of African American physicians, she wrote about the past, present, and future of chemotherapy without noting her own prominent role in its development.
 

‘Global medical pioneer’ cofounds ASCO – and more

In the 1960s, Dr. Wright joined the influential President’s Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer, and Stroke and was named associate dean at New York Medical College, her alma mater, a first for a black woman at a prominent U.S. medical school. Even more importantly, Dr. Wright was the sole woman among seven physicians who founded the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago in 1964. She served as ASCO’s first Secretary-Treasurer and was honored as its longest surviving founder when she passed away 9 years ago.

“Jane Wright had the vision to see that oncology was an important separate discipline within medicine with far-reaching implications for research and discovery,” Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, oncologist Sandra M. Swain, MD, a former president of the ASCO and author of the 2013 Oncology obituary of Dr. Wright, said in an interview. “It is truly remarkable that, as a woman and an African American woman, she had a seat at the very small table for the formation of such an important group.”

As her friend and fellow oncologist Edith Mitchell, MD, said in a eulogy, “Dr. Wright led delegations of oncologists to China and the Soviet Union, and countries in Africa and Eastern Europe. She led medical teams providing medical and cancer care and education to other nurses and physicians in Ghana in 1957 and Kenya in 1961. From 1973 to 1984, she served as vice-president of the African Research and Medical foundation.”

Dr. Wright also raised two daughters. A 1968 Ebony article devoted to her career and family declared that neither of her teenagers was interested in medical careers. Their perspectives shifted, however – as had Dr. Wright’s. An undergraduate at Smith College, Dr. Wright majored in art, swam on the varsity team, and had a special affinity for German language studies before she switched to premed.

Like their mother, Dr. Wright’s daughters also changed paths, and they ultimately became the fourth generation of their family to enter the medical field. Dr. Alison Jones, the psychologist, currently works in a prison, while Jane Jones, MD, became a clinical psychiatrist. She’s now retired and lives in Guttenberg, N.J.

Both fondly remember their mother as a supportive force who insisted on excellence. “There couldn’t be any excuses for you not getting where you wanted to go,” Dr. Jane Jones recalled in an interview.

Nevertheless, Dr. Wright was still keenly aware of society’s limits. “She told me I had to be a doctor or lawyer,” Dr. Alison Jones said, “because that’s how you need to survive when you’re Black in America.”

Dr. Wright passed away in 2013 at age 93. “Dr. Jane C. Wright truly has made contributions that have changed the practice of medicine,” noted her friend Dr. Mitchell, an oncologist and a retired brigadier general with the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “A true pioneer. A concerned mentor. A renowned researcher. A global teacher. A global medical pioneer. A talented researcher, beloved sister, wife, and mother, and a beautiful, kind, and loving human being.”

When Jane Cooke Wright, MD, entered the medical profession in 1945, the notion that toxic drugs could target tumors struck many physicians and patients as outlandish. How could one poison be weaponized against another poison – a cancerous tumor – without creating more havoc? Let alone a combination of two or more chemicals?

Yet by the time Dr. Wright retired in 1987, chemotherapy treatments that she’d helped develop were routinely saving lives. In fact, she’d played key roles in the development of oncology, a new medical specialty, and of its most powerful agent to combat disease and death.

Courtesy of the Wright family

Dr. Wright’s story would be extraordinary enough if she’d looked like most of her colleagues, but this surgeon and researcher stood apart. An African American woman at a time when medicine and science – like politics and law – were almost entirely the domain of White men, Dr. Wright had determination in her blood. Her father, once honored by a crowd of dignitaries that included a First Lady, persevered despite his horrific encounters with racism. She shared her father’s commitment to progress and added her own personal twists. She balanced elegance and beauty with scientific savvy, fierce ambition, and a refusal to be defined by anything other than her accomplishments.

“She didn’t focus on race, not at all,” her daughter Alison Jones, PhD, a psychologist in East Lansing, Mich., said in an interview. “Wherever she was, she wanted to be the best, not the best Black person. It was not about how she performed in a category, and she would get upset if someone said she was good as a Black physician.”

On the road to being the best, Dr. Jones said, her mother set a goal of curing cancer. National Cancer Research Month is a fitting opportunity to look back on a scientist dedicated to bringing humanity closer to that elusive achievement.
 

Medical legacy blazed in toil and trauma

A strong case could be made that Dr. Jane C. Wright and her father Louis Tompkins Wright, MD, are the most accomplished father-and-daughter team in all of medicine.

The elder Dr. Wright, son of a formerly enslaved man turned physician and a stepson of the first African American to graduate from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., himself graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1915. He earned a Purple Heart while serving in World War I, then went on to become the first Black surgeon to join the staff at Harlem Hospital.

Dr. Wright, who had witnessed mob violence and the aftermath of a lynching as a young man, became a supporter of the Harlem Renaissance and a prominent advocate for civil rights and integration. He served as chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and was only the second Black member of the American College of Surgeons.

According to the 2009 book “Black Genius: Inspirational Portraits of African American Leaders,” he successfully treated the rare but devastating venereal disease lymphogranuloma venereum with a new antibiotic developed by his former colleague Yellapragada SubbaRow, MD. Dr. Wright even tried the drug himself, “as a lot of doctors in the olden days did,” according to another of his daughters, the late Barbara Wright Pierce, MD, who was quoted in “Black Genius.” She, too, was a physician.

In 1948, Dr. Jane C. Wright joined her father at Harlem Hospital’s Cancer Research Foundation. There the duo explored the cancer-fighting possibilities of a nitrogen mustard–like chemical agent that had been known since World War I to kill white blood cells. Ironically, Dr. Louis Wright himself suffered lifelong health problems because of an attack from the poisonous gas phosgene during his wartime service.

“Remissions were observed in patients with sarcoma, Hodgkin disease, and chronic myelogenous leukemia, mycosis fungoides, and lymphoma,” reported a 2013 obituary in the journal Oncology of the younger Dr. Wright. “They also performed early research into the clinical efficacy and toxicity of folic acid antagonists, documenting responses in 93 patients with various forms of incurable blood cancers and solid tumors.”

This research appears in a study that was authored by three Dr. Wrights – Dr. Louis T. Wright and his daughters Jane and Barbara.

“The elder Dr. Wright died in 1952, just months after 1,000 people – including Eleanor Roosevelt – honored him at a dinner to dedicate a Harlem Hospital library named after him. He was 61.
 

Scientific savvy mixed with modesty and elegance

After her father’s death, Dr. Janet C. Wright became director of the hospital’s cancer foundation. From the 1950s to the 1970s, she “worked out ways to use pieces of a patient’s own tumor, removed by surgery and grown in a nutrient culture medium in the laboratory, as a ‘guinea pig for testing drugs,’ ” according to the 1991 book “Black Scientists.” Previously, researchers had focused on mice as test subjects.

This approach also allowed Dr. Wright to determine if specific drugs such as methotrexate, a folic acid antagonist, would help specific patients. “She was looking for predictive activity for chemotherapeutic efficacy in vitro at a time when no one had good predictive tests,” wrote James F. Holland, MD, the late Mount Sinai School of Medicine oncologist, who was quoted in Dr. Wright’s 2013 Oncology obituary.

“Her strict attention to detail and concern for her patients helped determine effective dosing levels and establish treatment guidelines,” the Oncology obituary reported. “She treated patients that other physicians had given up on, and she was among the first small cadre of researchers to carefully test the effects of drugs against cancer in a clinical trial setting.”

Dr. Wright also focused on developing ways to administer chemotherapy, such using a catheter to reach difficult-to-access organs like the spleen without surgery, according to “Black Scientists.”

Along with her work, Dr. Wright’s appearance set her apart. According to “Black Genius,” a newspaper columnist dubbed her one of the 10 most beautiful Back woman in America, and Ebony Magazine in 1966 honored her as one of the best-dressed women in America. It featured a photograph of her in a stunning ivory and yellow brocade gown, noting that she was “in private life Mrs. David J. Jones.” (She’d married the Harvard University Law School graduate in 1946.)

Dr. Wright had a sense of modesty despite her accomplishments, according to her daughter Alison Jones. She even downplayed her own mental powers in a newspaper interview. “I know I’m a member of two minority groups,” she told The New York Post in 1967, “but I don’t think of myself that way. Sure, a woman has to try twice as hard. But – racial prejudice? I’ve met very little of it. It could be I met it – and wasn’t intelligent enough to recognize it.”

Sharp-eyed readers might have glimpsed her modesty nearly 2 decades later. In a 1984 article for the Journal of the National Medical Association, a society of African American physicians, she wrote about the past, present, and future of chemotherapy without noting her own prominent role in its development.
 

‘Global medical pioneer’ cofounds ASCO – and more

In the 1960s, Dr. Wright joined the influential President’s Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer, and Stroke and was named associate dean at New York Medical College, her alma mater, a first for a black woman at a prominent U.S. medical school. Even more importantly, Dr. Wright was the sole woman among seven physicians who founded the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago in 1964. She served as ASCO’s first Secretary-Treasurer and was honored as its longest surviving founder when she passed away 9 years ago.

“Jane Wright had the vision to see that oncology was an important separate discipline within medicine with far-reaching implications for research and discovery,” Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, oncologist Sandra M. Swain, MD, a former president of the ASCO and author of the 2013 Oncology obituary of Dr. Wright, said in an interview. “It is truly remarkable that, as a woman and an African American woman, she had a seat at the very small table for the formation of such an important group.”

As her friend and fellow oncologist Edith Mitchell, MD, said in a eulogy, “Dr. Wright led delegations of oncologists to China and the Soviet Union, and countries in Africa and Eastern Europe. She led medical teams providing medical and cancer care and education to other nurses and physicians in Ghana in 1957 and Kenya in 1961. From 1973 to 1984, she served as vice-president of the African Research and Medical foundation.”

Dr. Wright also raised two daughters. A 1968 Ebony article devoted to her career and family declared that neither of her teenagers was interested in medical careers. Their perspectives shifted, however – as had Dr. Wright’s. An undergraduate at Smith College, Dr. Wright majored in art, swam on the varsity team, and had a special affinity for German language studies before she switched to premed.

Like their mother, Dr. Wright’s daughters also changed paths, and they ultimately became the fourth generation of their family to enter the medical field. Dr. Alison Jones, the psychologist, currently works in a prison, while Jane Jones, MD, became a clinical psychiatrist. She’s now retired and lives in Guttenberg, N.J.

Both fondly remember their mother as a supportive force who insisted on excellence. “There couldn’t be any excuses for you not getting where you wanted to go,” Dr. Jane Jones recalled in an interview.

Nevertheless, Dr. Wright was still keenly aware of society’s limits. “She told me I had to be a doctor or lawyer,” Dr. Alison Jones said, “because that’s how you need to survive when you’re Black in America.”

Dr. Wright passed away in 2013 at age 93. “Dr. Jane C. Wright truly has made contributions that have changed the practice of medicine,” noted her friend Dr. Mitchell, an oncologist and a retired brigadier general with the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “A true pioneer. A concerned mentor. A renowned researcher. A global teacher. A global medical pioneer. A talented researcher, beloved sister, wife, and mother, and a beautiful, kind, and loving human being.”

When Jane Cooke Wright, MD, entered the medical profession in 1945, the notion that toxic drugs could target tumors struck many physicians and patients as outlandish. How could one poison be weaponized against another poison – a cancerous tumor – without creating more havoc? Let alone a combination of two or more chemicals?

Yet by the time Dr. Wright retired in 1987, chemotherapy treatments that she’d helped develop were routinely saving lives. In fact, she’d played key roles in the development of oncology, a new medical specialty, and of its most powerful agent to combat disease and death.

Courtesy of the Wright family

Dr. Wright’s story would be extraordinary enough if she’d looked like most of her colleagues, but this surgeon and researcher stood apart. An African American woman at a time when medicine and science – like politics and law – were almost entirely the domain of White men, Dr. Wright had determination in her blood. Her father, once honored by a crowd of dignitaries that included a First Lady, persevered despite his horrific encounters with racism. She shared her father’s commitment to progress and added her own personal twists. She balanced elegance and beauty with scientific savvy, fierce ambition, and a refusal to be defined by anything other than her accomplishments.

“She didn’t focus on race, not at all,” her daughter Alison Jones, PhD, a psychologist in East Lansing, Mich., said in an interview. “Wherever she was, she wanted to be the best, not the best Black person. It was not about how she performed in a category, and she would get upset if someone said she was good as a Black physician.”

On the road to being the best, Dr. Jones said, her mother set a goal of curing cancer. National Cancer Research Month is a fitting opportunity to look back on a scientist dedicated to bringing humanity closer to that elusive achievement.
 

Medical legacy blazed in toil and trauma

A strong case could be made that Dr. Jane C. Wright and her father Louis Tompkins Wright, MD, are the most accomplished father-and-daughter team in all of medicine.

The elder Dr. Wright, son of a formerly enslaved man turned physician and a stepson of the first African American to graduate from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., himself graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1915. He earned a Purple Heart while serving in World War I, then went on to become the first Black surgeon to join the staff at Harlem Hospital.

Dr. Wright, who had witnessed mob violence and the aftermath of a lynching as a young man, became a supporter of the Harlem Renaissance and a prominent advocate for civil rights and integration. He served as chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and was only the second Black member of the American College of Surgeons.

According to the 2009 book “Black Genius: Inspirational Portraits of African American Leaders,” he successfully treated the rare but devastating venereal disease lymphogranuloma venereum with a new antibiotic developed by his former colleague Yellapragada SubbaRow, MD. Dr. Wright even tried the drug himself, “as a lot of doctors in the olden days did,” according to another of his daughters, the late Barbara Wright Pierce, MD, who was quoted in “Black Genius.” She, too, was a physician.

In 1948, Dr. Jane C. Wright joined her father at Harlem Hospital’s Cancer Research Foundation. There the duo explored the cancer-fighting possibilities of a nitrogen mustard–like chemical agent that had been known since World War I to kill white blood cells. Ironically, Dr. Louis Wright himself suffered lifelong health problems because of an attack from the poisonous gas phosgene during his wartime service.

“Remissions were observed in patients with sarcoma, Hodgkin disease, and chronic myelogenous leukemia, mycosis fungoides, and lymphoma,” reported a 2013 obituary in the journal Oncology of the younger Dr. Wright. “They also performed early research into the clinical efficacy and toxicity of folic acid antagonists, documenting responses in 93 patients with various forms of incurable blood cancers and solid tumors.”

This research appears in a study that was authored by three Dr. Wrights – Dr. Louis T. Wright and his daughters Jane and Barbara.

“The elder Dr. Wright died in 1952, just months after 1,000 people – including Eleanor Roosevelt – honored him at a dinner to dedicate a Harlem Hospital library named after him. He was 61.
 

Scientific savvy mixed with modesty and elegance

After her father’s death, Dr. Janet C. Wright became director of the hospital’s cancer foundation. From the 1950s to the 1970s, she “worked out ways to use pieces of a patient’s own tumor, removed by surgery and grown in a nutrient culture medium in the laboratory, as a ‘guinea pig for testing drugs,’ ” according to the 1991 book “Black Scientists.” Previously, researchers had focused on mice as test subjects.

This approach also allowed Dr. Wright to determine if specific drugs such as methotrexate, a folic acid antagonist, would help specific patients. “She was looking for predictive activity for chemotherapeutic efficacy in vitro at a time when no one had good predictive tests,” wrote James F. Holland, MD, the late Mount Sinai School of Medicine oncologist, who was quoted in Dr. Wright’s 2013 Oncology obituary.

“Her strict attention to detail and concern for her patients helped determine effective dosing levels and establish treatment guidelines,” the Oncology obituary reported. “She treated patients that other physicians had given up on, and she was among the first small cadre of researchers to carefully test the effects of drugs against cancer in a clinical trial setting.”

Dr. Wright also focused on developing ways to administer chemotherapy, such using a catheter to reach difficult-to-access organs like the spleen without surgery, according to “Black Scientists.”

Along with her work, Dr. Wright’s appearance set her apart. According to “Black Genius,” a newspaper columnist dubbed her one of the 10 most beautiful Back woman in America, and Ebony Magazine in 1966 honored her as one of the best-dressed women in America. It featured a photograph of her in a stunning ivory and yellow brocade gown, noting that she was “in private life Mrs. David J. Jones.” (She’d married the Harvard University Law School graduate in 1946.)

Dr. Wright had a sense of modesty despite her accomplishments, according to her daughter Alison Jones. She even downplayed her own mental powers in a newspaper interview. “I know I’m a member of two minority groups,” she told The New York Post in 1967, “but I don’t think of myself that way. Sure, a woman has to try twice as hard. But – racial prejudice? I’ve met very little of it. It could be I met it – and wasn’t intelligent enough to recognize it.”

Sharp-eyed readers might have glimpsed her modesty nearly 2 decades later. In a 1984 article for the Journal of the National Medical Association, a society of African American physicians, she wrote about the past, present, and future of chemotherapy without noting her own prominent role in its development.
 

‘Global medical pioneer’ cofounds ASCO – and more

In the 1960s, Dr. Wright joined the influential President’s Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer, and Stroke and was named associate dean at New York Medical College, her alma mater, a first for a black woman at a prominent U.S. medical school. Even more importantly, Dr. Wright was the sole woman among seven physicians who founded the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago in 1964. She served as ASCO’s first Secretary-Treasurer and was honored as its longest surviving founder when she passed away 9 years ago.

“Jane Wright had the vision to see that oncology was an important separate discipline within medicine with far-reaching implications for research and discovery,” Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, oncologist Sandra M. Swain, MD, a former president of the ASCO and author of the 2013 Oncology obituary of Dr. Wright, said in an interview. “It is truly remarkable that, as a woman and an African American woman, she had a seat at the very small table for the formation of such an important group.”

As her friend and fellow oncologist Edith Mitchell, MD, said in a eulogy, “Dr. Wright led delegations of oncologists to China and the Soviet Union, and countries in Africa and Eastern Europe. She led medical teams providing medical and cancer care and education to other nurses and physicians in Ghana in 1957 and Kenya in 1961. From 1973 to 1984, she served as vice-president of the African Research and Medical foundation.”

Dr. Wright also raised two daughters. A 1968 Ebony article devoted to her career and family declared that neither of her teenagers was interested in medical careers. Their perspectives shifted, however – as had Dr. Wright’s. An undergraduate at Smith College, Dr. Wright majored in art, swam on the varsity team, and had a special affinity for German language studies before she switched to premed.

Like their mother, Dr. Wright’s daughters also changed paths, and they ultimately became the fourth generation of their family to enter the medical field. Dr. Alison Jones, the psychologist, currently works in a prison, while Jane Jones, MD, became a clinical psychiatrist. She’s now retired and lives in Guttenberg, N.J.

Both fondly remember their mother as a supportive force who insisted on excellence. “There couldn’t be any excuses for you not getting where you wanted to go,” Dr. Jane Jones recalled in an interview.

Nevertheless, Dr. Wright was still keenly aware of society’s limits. “She told me I had to be a doctor or lawyer,” Dr. Alison Jones said, “because that’s how you need to survive when you’re Black in America.”

Dr. Wright passed away in 2013 at age 93. “Dr. Jane C. Wright truly has made contributions that have changed the practice of medicine,” noted her friend Dr. Mitchell, an oncologist and a retired brigadier general with the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “A true pioneer. A concerned mentor. A renowned researcher. A global teacher. A global medical pioneer. A talented researcher, beloved sister, wife, and mother, and a beautiful, kind, and loving human being.”

We have a half-forgotten Indian immigrant to thank – a hospital night porter turned biochemist –for revolutionizing treatment of leukemia, the once deadly childhood scourge that is still the most common pediatric cancer.

Dr. Yellapragada SubbaRow has been called the “father of chemotherapy” for developing methotrexate, a powerful, inexpensive therapy for leukemia and other diseases, and he is celebrated for additional scientific achievements. Yet Dr. SubbaRow’s life was marked more by struggle than glory.

1995 Indian stamp; photo in public domain

Born poor in southeastern India, he nearly succumbed to a tropical disease that killed two older brothers, and he didn’t focus on schoolwork until his father died. Later, prejudice dogged his years as an immigrant to the United States, and a blood clot took his life at the age of 53.

Scientifically, however, Dr. SubbaRow (pronounced sue-buh-rao) triumphed, despite mammoth challenges and a lack of recognition that persists to this day. National Cancer Research Month is a fitting time to look back on his extraordinary life and work and pay tribute to his accomplishments.
 

‘Yella,’ folic acid, and a paradigm shift

No one appreciates Dr. SubbaRow more than a cadre of Indian-born physicians who have kept his legacy alive in journal articles, presentations, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning book. Among them is author and oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee, MD, who chronicled Dr. SubbaRow’s achievements in his New York Times No. 1 bestseller, “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer.”

As Dr. Mukherjee wrote, Dr. SubbaRow was a “pioneer in many ways, a physician turned cellular physiologist, a chemist who had accidentally wandered into biology.” (Per Indian tradition, SubbaRow is the doctor’s first name, and Yellapragada is his surname, but medical literature uses SubbaRow as his cognomen, with some variations in spelling. Dr. Mukherjee wrote that his friends called him “Yella.”)

Dr. SubbaRow came to the United States in 1923, after enduring a difficult childhood and young adulthood. He’d survived bouts of religious fervor, childhood rebellion (including a bid to run away from home and become a banana trader), and a failed arranged marriage. His wife bore him a child who died in infancy. He left it all behind.

In Boston, medical officials rejected his degree. Broke, he worked for a time as a night porter at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, changing sheets and cleaning urinals. To a poor but proud high-caste Indian Brahmin, the culture shock of carrying out these tasks must have been especially jarring.

Dr. SubbaRow went on to earn a diploma from Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, and became a junior faculty member. As a foreigner, Dr. Mukherjee wrote, Dr. SubbaRow was a “reclusive, nocturnal, heavily accented vegetarian,” so different from his colleagues that advancement seemed impossible. Despite his pioneering biochemistry work, Harvard later declined to offer Dr. SubbaRow a tenured faculty position.

By the early 1940s, he took a job at an upstate New York pharmaceutical company called Lederle Labs (later purchased by Pfizer). At Lederle, Dr. SubbaRow strove to synthesize the vitamin known as folic acid. He ended up creating a kind of antivitamin, a lookalike that acted like folic acid but only succeeded in gumming up the works in receptors. But what good would it do to stop the body from absorbing folic acid? Plenty, it turned out.
 

Discoveries pile up, but credit and fame prove elusive

Dr. SubbaRow was no stranger to producing landmark biological work. He’d previously codiscovered phosphocreatine and ATP, which are crucial to muscular contractions. However, “in 1935, he had to disown the extent of his role in the discovery of the color test related to phosphorus, instead giving the credit to his co-author, who was being considered for promotion to a full professorship at Harvard,” wrote author Gerald Posner in his 2020 book, “Pharma: Greed, Lies and the Poisoning of America.”

Houston-area oncologist Kirtan Nautiyal, MD, who paid tribute to Dr. SubbaRow in a 2018 article, contended that “with his Indian instinct for self-effacement, he had irreparably sabotaged his own career.”

Dr. SubbaRow and his team also developed “the first effective treatment of filariasis, which causes elephantiasis of the lower limbs and genitals in millions of people, mainly in tropical countries,” Dr. Nautiyal wrote. “Later in the decade, his antibiotic program generated polymyxin, the first effective treatment against the class of bacteria called Gram negatives, and aureomycin, the first “broad-spectrum’ antibiotic.” (Aureomycin is also the first tetracycline antibiotic.)

Dr. SubbaRow’s discovery of a folic acid antagonist would again go largely unheralded. But first came the realization that folic acid made childhood leukemia worse, not better, and the prospect that this process could potentially be reversed.
 

Rise of methotrexate and fall of leukemia

In Boston, Sidney Farber, MD, a Boston pathologist, was desperate to help Robert Sandler, a 2-year-old leukemia patient. Dr. Farber contacted his ex-colleague Dr. SubbaRow to request a supply of aminopterin, an early version of methotrexate that Dr. SubbaRow and his team had developed. Dr. Farber injected Robert with the substance and within 3 days, the toddler’s white blood count started falling – fast. He stopped bleeding, resumed eating, and once again seemed almost identical to his twin brother, as Dr. Mukherjee wrote in his book.

Leukemia had never gone into remission before. Unfortunately, the treatment only worked temporarily. Robert, like other children treated with the drug, relapsed and died within months. But Dr. Farber “saw a door open” – a chemical, a kind of chemotherapy, that could turn back cancer. In the case of folic acid antagonists, they do so by stopping cancer cells from replicating.

Methotrexate, a related agent synthesized by Dr. SubbaRow, would become a mainstay of leukemia treatment and begin to produce long-term remission from acute lymphoblastic leukemia in 1970, when combination chemotherapy was developed.

Other cancers fell to methotrexate treatment. “Previous assumptions that cancer was nearly always fatal were revised, and the field of medical oncology (treatment of cancer with chemotherapy), which had not previously existed, was formally established in 1971,” according to the National Cancer Institute’s history of methotrexate. This account does not mention Dr. SubbaRow.
 

Death takes the doctor, but his legacy remains

In biographies, as well as his own words, Dr. SubbaRow comes across as a prickly, hard-driving workaholic who had little interest in intimate human connections. “It is not good to ask in every letter when I will be back,” he wrote to his wife back in India, before cutting off ties completely in the early 1930s. “I will come as early as possible. ... I do not want to write anything more.”

It seems, as his biographer S.P.K. Gupta noted, that “he was quite determined that the time allotted to him on Earth should be completely devoted to finding cures for ailments that plagued mankind.”

Still, Dr. SubbaRow’s research team was devoted to him, and he had plenty of reasons to be bitter, such as the prejudice and isolation he encountered in the United States and earlier, in British-run India. According to Mr. Posner’s book, even as a young medical student, Dr. SubbaRow heeded the call of Indian independence activist Mohandas Gandhi. He “refused the British surgical gown given him at school and instead donned a traditional and simple cotton Khadi. That act of defiance cost SubbaRow the college degree that was necessary for him to get into the State Medical College.”

During the last year of his life, Dr. SubbaRow faced yet another humiliation: In his landmark 1948 study about aminopterin as a treatment for leukemia, his colleague Dr. Farber failed to credit him, an “astonishing omission” as Yaddanapudi Ravindranath, MBBS, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Wayne State University, Detroit, put it. “From everything I know, Dr. Farber spent the rest of his career apologizing and trying to make amends for it,” Dr. Ravindranath said in an interview.
 

A career cut short, and a lasting legacy

In 1948, at the age of 53, Dr. SubbaRow suddenly died. “Many think Dr. SubbaRow would have won [the] Nobel Prize had he lived a few years longer,” said Dr. Ravindranath.

Like Dr. SubbaRow, Dr. Ravindranath was born in Andhra Pradesh state, near the city of Chennai formerly known as Madras. “Being a compatriot, in a way I continue his legacy, and I am obviously proud of him,” said Dr. Ravindranath, who has conducted his own landmark research regarding methotrexate and leukemia.

Nearly 75 years after Dr. SubbaRow’s death, Indian-born physicians like Dr. Ravindranath continue to honor him in print, trying to ensure that he’s not forgotten. Methotrexate remains a crucial treatment for leukemia, along with a long list of other ailments, including psoriasis.

Recognition for “Yella” may have come late and infrequently, but a Lederle Laboratories research library named after him offered Dr. SubbaRow a kind of immortality. A plaque there memorialized him in stone as a scientist, teacher, philosopher, and humanitarian, featuring the quote: “Science simply prolongs life. Religion deepens it.”

By all accounts, Dr. SubbaRow was a man of science and faith who had faith in science.

We have a half-forgotten Indian immigrant to thank – a hospital night porter turned biochemist –for revolutionizing treatment of leukemia, the once deadly childhood scourge that is still the most common pediatric cancer.

Dr. Yellapragada SubbaRow has been called the “father of chemotherapy” for developing methotrexate, a powerful, inexpensive therapy for leukemia and other diseases, and he is celebrated for additional scientific achievements. Yet Dr. SubbaRow’s life was marked more by struggle than glory.

1995 Indian stamp; photo in public domain

Born poor in southeastern India, he nearly succumbed to a tropical disease that killed two older brothers, and he didn’t focus on schoolwork until his father died. Later, prejudice dogged his years as an immigrant to the United States, and a blood clot took his life at the age of 53.

Scientifically, however, Dr. SubbaRow (pronounced sue-buh-rao) triumphed, despite mammoth challenges and a lack of recognition that persists to this day. National Cancer Research Month is a fitting time to look back on his extraordinary life and work and pay tribute to his accomplishments.
 

‘Yella,’ folic acid, and a paradigm shift

No one appreciates Dr. SubbaRow more than a cadre of Indian-born physicians who have kept his legacy alive in journal articles, presentations, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning book. Among them is author and oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee, MD, who chronicled Dr. SubbaRow’s achievements in his New York Times No. 1 bestseller, “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer.”

As Dr. Mukherjee wrote, Dr. SubbaRow was a “pioneer in many ways, a physician turned cellular physiologist, a chemist who had accidentally wandered into biology.” (Per Indian tradition, SubbaRow is the doctor’s first name, and Yellapragada is his surname, but medical literature uses SubbaRow as his cognomen, with some variations in spelling. Dr. Mukherjee wrote that his friends called him “Yella.”)

Dr. SubbaRow came to the United States in 1923, after enduring a difficult childhood and young adulthood. He’d survived bouts of religious fervor, childhood rebellion (including a bid to run away from home and become a banana trader), and a failed arranged marriage. His wife bore him a child who died in infancy. He left it all behind.

In Boston, medical officials rejected his degree. Broke, he worked for a time as a night porter at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, changing sheets and cleaning urinals. To a poor but proud high-caste Indian Brahmin, the culture shock of carrying out these tasks must have been especially jarring.

Dr. SubbaRow went on to earn a diploma from Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, and became a junior faculty member. As a foreigner, Dr. Mukherjee wrote, Dr. SubbaRow was a “reclusive, nocturnal, heavily accented vegetarian,” so different from his colleagues that advancement seemed impossible. Despite his pioneering biochemistry work, Harvard later declined to offer Dr. SubbaRow a tenured faculty position.

By the early 1940s, he took a job at an upstate New York pharmaceutical company called Lederle Labs (later purchased by Pfizer). At Lederle, Dr. SubbaRow strove to synthesize the vitamin known as folic acid. He ended up creating a kind of antivitamin, a lookalike that acted like folic acid but only succeeded in gumming up the works in receptors. But what good would it do to stop the body from absorbing folic acid? Plenty, it turned out.
 

Discoveries pile up, but credit and fame prove elusive

Dr. SubbaRow was no stranger to producing landmark biological work. He’d previously codiscovered phosphocreatine and ATP, which are crucial to muscular contractions. However, “in 1935, he had to disown the extent of his role in the discovery of the color test related to phosphorus, instead giving the credit to his co-author, who was being considered for promotion to a full professorship at Harvard,” wrote author Gerald Posner in his 2020 book, “Pharma: Greed, Lies and the Poisoning of America.”

Houston-area oncologist Kirtan Nautiyal, MD, who paid tribute to Dr. SubbaRow in a 2018 article, contended that “with his Indian instinct for self-effacement, he had irreparably sabotaged his own career.”

Dr. SubbaRow and his team also developed “the first effective treatment of filariasis, which causes elephantiasis of the lower limbs and genitals in millions of people, mainly in tropical countries,” Dr. Nautiyal wrote. “Later in the decade, his antibiotic program generated polymyxin, the first effective treatment against the class of bacteria called Gram negatives, and aureomycin, the first “broad-spectrum’ antibiotic.” (Aureomycin is also the first tetracycline antibiotic.)

Dr. SubbaRow’s discovery of a folic acid antagonist would again go largely unheralded. But first came the realization that folic acid made childhood leukemia worse, not better, and the prospect that this process could potentially be reversed.
 

Rise of methotrexate and fall of leukemia

In Boston, Sidney Farber, MD, a Boston pathologist, was desperate to help Robert Sandler, a 2-year-old leukemia patient. Dr. Farber contacted his ex-colleague Dr. SubbaRow to request a supply of aminopterin, an early version of methotrexate that Dr. SubbaRow and his team had developed. Dr. Farber injected Robert with the substance and within 3 days, the toddler’s white blood count started falling – fast. He stopped bleeding, resumed eating, and once again seemed almost identical to his twin brother, as Dr. Mukherjee wrote in his book.

Leukemia had never gone into remission before. Unfortunately, the treatment only worked temporarily. Robert, like other children treated with the drug, relapsed and died within months. But Dr. Farber “saw a door open” – a chemical, a kind of chemotherapy, that could turn back cancer. In the case of folic acid antagonists, they do so by stopping cancer cells from replicating.

Methotrexate, a related agent synthesized by Dr. SubbaRow, would become a mainstay of leukemia treatment and begin to produce long-term remission from acute lymphoblastic leukemia in 1970, when combination chemotherapy was developed.

Other cancers fell to methotrexate treatment. “Previous assumptions that cancer was nearly always fatal were revised, and the field of medical oncology (treatment of cancer with chemotherapy), which had not previously existed, was formally established in 1971,” according to the National Cancer Institute’s history of methotrexate. This account does not mention Dr. SubbaRow.
 

Death takes the doctor, but his legacy remains

In biographies, as well as his own words, Dr. SubbaRow comes across as a prickly, hard-driving workaholic who had little interest in intimate human connections. “It is not good to ask in every letter when I will be back,” he wrote to his wife back in India, before cutting off ties completely in the early 1930s. “I will come as early as possible. ... I do not want to write anything more.”

It seems, as his biographer S.P.K. Gupta noted, that “he was quite determined that the time allotted to him on Earth should be completely devoted to finding cures for ailments that plagued mankind.”

Still, Dr. SubbaRow’s research team was devoted to him, and he had plenty of reasons to be bitter, such as the prejudice and isolation he encountered in the United States and earlier, in British-run India. According to Mr. Posner’s book, even as a young medical student, Dr. SubbaRow heeded the call of Indian independence activist Mohandas Gandhi. He “refused the British surgical gown given him at school and instead donned a traditional and simple cotton Khadi. That act of defiance cost SubbaRow the college degree that was necessary for him to get into the State Medical College.”

During the last year of his life, Dr. SubbaRow faced yet another humiliation: In his landmark 1948 study about aminopterin as a treatment for leukemia, his colleague Dr. Farber failed to credit him, an “astonishing omission” as Yaddanapudi Ravindranath, MBBS, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Wayne State University, Detroit, put it. “From everything I know, Dr. Farber spent the rest of his career apologizing and trying to make amends for it,” Dr. Ravindranath said in an interview.
 

A career cut short, and a lasting legacy

In 1948, at the age of 53, Dr. SubbaRow suddenly died. “Many think Dr. SubbaRow would have won [the] Nobel Prize had he lived a few years longer,” said Dr. Ravindranath.

Like Dr. SubbaRow, Dr. Ravindranath was born in Andhra Pradesh state, near the city of Chennai formerly known as Madras. “Being a compatriot, in a way I continue his legacy, and I am obviously proud of him,” said Dr. Ravindranath, who has conducted his own landmark research regarding methotrexate and leukemia.

Nearly 75 years after Dr. SubbaRow’s death, Indian-born physicians like Dr. Ravindranath continue to honor him in print, trying to ensure that he’s not forgotten. Methotrexate remains a crucial treatment for leukemia, along with a long list of other ailments, including psoriasis.

Recognition for “Yella” may have come late and infrequently, but a Lederle Laboratories research library named after him offered Dr. SubbaRow a kind of immortality. A plaque there memorialized him in stone as a scientist, teacher, philosopher, and humanitarian, featuring the quote: “Science simply prolongs life. Religion deepens it.”

By all accounts, Dr. SubbaRow was a man of science and faith who had faith in science.

We have a half-forgotten Indian immigrant to thank – a hospital night porter turned biochemist –for revolutionizing treatment of leukemia, the once deadly childhood scourge that is still the most common pediatric cancer.

Dr. Yellapragada SubbaRow has been called the “father of chemotherapy” for developing methotrexate, a powerful, inexpensive therapy for leukemia and other diseases, and he is celebrated for additional scientific achievements. Yet Dr. SubbaRow’s life was marked more by struggle than glory.

1995 Indian stamp; photo in public domain

Born poor in southeastern India, he nearly succumbed to a tropical disease that killed two older brothers, and he didn’t focus on schoolwork until his father died. Later, prejudice dogged his years as an immigrant to the United States, and a blood clot took his life at the age of 53.

Scientifically, however, Dr. SubbaRow (pronounced sue-buh-rao) triumphed, despite mammoth challenges and a lack of recognition that persists to this day. National Cancer Research Month is a fitting time to look back on his extraordinary life and work and pay tribute to his accomplishments.
 

‘Yella,’ folic acid, and a paradigm shift

No one appreciates Dr. SubbaRow more than a cadre of Indian-born physicians who have kept his legacy alive in journal articles, presentations, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning book. Among them is author and oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee, MD, who chronicled Dr. SubbaRow’s achievements in his New York Times No. 1 bestseller, “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer.”

As Dr. Mukherjee wrote, Dr. SubbaRow was a “pioneer in many ways, a physician turned cellular physiologist, a chemist who had accidentally wandered into biology.” (Per Indian tradition, SubbaRow is the doctor’s first name, and Yellapragada is his surname, but medical literature uses SubbaRow as his cognomen, with some variations in spelling. Dr. Mukherjee wrote that his friends called him “Yella.”)

Dr. SubbaRow came to the United States in 1923, after enduring a difficult childhood and young adulthood. He’d survived bouts of religious fervor, childhood rebellion (including a bid to run away from home and become a banana trader), and a failed arranged marriage. His wife bore him a child who died in infancy. He left it all behind.

In Boston, medical officials rejected his degree. Broke, he worked for a time as a night porter at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, changing sheets and cleaning urinals. To a poor but proud high-caste Indian Brahmin, the culture shock of carrying out these tasks must have been especially jarring.

Dr. SubbaRow went on to earn a diploma from Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, and became a junior faculty member. As a foreigner, Dr. Mukherjee wrote, Dr. SubbaRow was a “reclusive, nocturnal, heavily accented vegetarian,” so different from his colleagues that advancement seemed impossible. Despite his pioneering biochemistry work, Harvard later declined to offer Dr. SubbaRow a tenured faculty position.

By the early 1940s, he took a job at an upstate New York pharmaceutical company called Lederle Labs (later purchased by Pfizer). At Lederle, Dr. SubbaRow strove to synthesize the vitamin known as folic acid. He ended up creating a kind of antivitamin, a lookalike that acted like folic acid but only succeeded in gumming up the works in receptors. But what good would it do to stop the body from absorbing folic acid? Plenty, it turned out.
 

Discoveries pile up, but credit and fame prove elusive

Dr. SubbaRow was no stranger to producing landmark biological work. He’d previously codiscovered phosphocreatine and ATP, which are crucial to muscular contractions. However, “in 1935, he had to disown the extent of his role in the discovery of the color test related to phosphorus, instead giving the credit to his co-author, who was being considered for promotion to a full professorship at Harvard,” wrote author Gerald Posner in his 2020 book, “Pharma: Greed, Lies and the Poisoning of America.”

Houston-area oncologist Kirtan Nautiyal, MD, who paid tribute to Dr. SubbaRow in a 2018 article, contended that “with his Indian instinct for self-effacement, he had irreparably sabotaged his own career.”

Dr. SubbaRow and his team also developed “the first effective treatment of filariasis, which causes elephantiasis of the lower limbs and genitals in millions of people, mainly in tropical countries,” Dr. Nautiyal wrote. “Later in the decade, his antibiotic program generated polymyxin, the first effective treatment against the class of bacteria called Gram negatives, and aureomycin, the first “broad-spectrum’ antibiotic.” (Aureomycin is also the first tetracycline antibiotic.)

Dr. SubbaRow’s discovery of a folic acid antagonist would again go largely unheralded. But first came the realization that folic acid made childhood leukemia worse, not better, and the prospect that this process could potentially be reversed.
 

Rise of methotrexate and fall of leukemia

In Boston, Sidney Farber, MD, a Boston pathologist, was desperate to help Robert Sandler, a 2-year-old leukemia patient. Dr. Farber contacted his ex-colleague Dr. SubbaRow to request a supply of aminopterin, an early version of methotrexate that Dr. SubbaRow and his team had developed. Dr. Farber injected Robert with the substance and within 3 days, the toddler’s white blood count started falling – fast. He stopped bleeding, resumed eating, and once again seemed almost identical to his twin brother, as Dr. Mukherjee wrote in his book.

Leukemia had never gone into remission before. Unfortunately, the treatment only worked temporarily. Robert, like other children treated with the drug, relapsed and died within months. But Dr. Farber “saw a door open” – a chemical, a kind of chemotherapy, that could turn back cancer. In the case of folic acid antagonists, they do so by stopping cancer cells from replicating.

Methotrexate, a related agent synthesized by Dr. SubbaRow, would become a mainstay of leukemia treatment and begin to produce long-term remission from acute lymphoblastic leukemia in 1970, when combination chemotherapy was developed.

Other cancers fell to methotrexate treatment. “Previous assumptions that cancer was nearly always fatal were revised, and the field of medical oncology (treatment of cancer with chemotherapy), which had not previously existed, was formally established in 1971,” according to the National Cancer Institute’s history of methotrexate. This account does not mention Dr. SubbaRow.
 

Death takes the doctor, but his legacy remains

In biographies, as well as his own words, Dr. SubbaRow comes across as a prickly, hard-driving workaholic who had little interest in intimate human connections. “It is not good to ask in every letter when I will be back,” he wrote to his wife back in India, before cutting off ties completely in the early 1930s. “I will come as early as possible. ... I do not want to write anything more.”

It seems, as his biographer S.P.K. Gupta noted, that “he was quite determined that the time allotted to him on Earth should be completely devoted to finding cures for ailments that plagued mankind.”

Still, Dr. SubbaRow’s research team was devoted to him, and he had plenty of reasons to be bitter, such as the prejudice and isolation he encountered in the United States and earlier, in British-run India. According to Mr. Posner’s book, even as a young medical student, Dr. SubbaRow heeded the call of Indian independence activist Mohandas Gandhi. He “refused the British surgical gown given him at school and instead donned a traditional and simple cotton Khadi. That act of defiance cost SubbaRow the college degree that was necessary for him to get into the State Medical College.”

During the last year of his life, Dr. SubbaRow faced yet another humiliation: In his landmark 1948 study about aminopterin as a treatment for leukemia, his colleague Dr. Farber failed to credit him, an “astonishing omission” as Yaddanapudi Ravindranath, MBBS, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Wayne State University, Detroit, put it. “From everything I know, Dr. Farber spent the rest of his career apologizing and trying to make amends for it,” Dr. Ravindranath said in an interview.
 

A career cut short, and a lasting legacy

In 1948, at the age of 53, Dr. SubbaRow suddenly died. “Many think Dr. SubbaRow would have won [the] Nobel Prize had he lived a few years longer,” said Dr. Ravindranath.

Like Dr. SubbaRow, Dr. Ravindranath was born in Andhra Pradesh state, near the city of Chennai formerly known as Madras. “Being a compatriot, in a way I continue his legacy, and I am obviously proud of him,” said Dr. Ravindranath, who has conducted his own landmark research regarding methotrexate and leukemia.

Nearly 75 years after Dr. SubbaRow’s death, Indian-born physicians like Dr. Ravindranath continue to honor him in print, trying to ensure that he’s not forgotten. Methotrexate remains a crucial treatment for leukemia, along with a long list of other ailments, including psoriasis.

Recognition for “Yella” may have come late and infrequently, but a Lederle Laboratories research library named after him offered Dr. SubbaRow a kind of immortality. A plaque there memorialized him in stone as a scientist, teacher, philosopher, and humanitarian, featuring the quote: “Science simply prolongs life. Religion deepens it.”

By all accounts, Dr. SubbaRow was a man of science and faith who had faith in science.

The persistent shortage of dacarbazine has led to an “acute and unprecedented crisis” in the treatment of patients with advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma, experts say.

Dacarbazine, an essential part of the four-drug standard of care for managing Hodgkin lymphoma, has been in short supply since last summer, prompting experts to search for a viable substitute.

In a recent review, oncologists scoured decades of data to find the best alternatives for a range of scenarios. For fit adults younger than 60, the group recommends the seven-drug regimen BEACOPP – bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone.

“Among all available regimens,” BEACOPP has “the most robust evidence” as a substitute for the four-drug standard ABVD, which includes doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine, Pallawi Torka, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in JCO Oncology Practice.

Last October, the Food and Drug Administration posted a notice about the dacarbazine shortage. According to the notice, the shortage occurred because of “manufacturing delays” and a “demand increase” affecting three companies supplying the U.S. market – Fresenius Kabi USA, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, and Teva. In an update issued May 4, the FDA said that 100-mg and 200-mg vials of the drug are now available from Fresenius. An update from April 8 said that 200-mg vials were available from Hikma.

Dacarbazine is hardly the only oncology drug to fall into short supply. Recent data show that shortages of oncology drugs have become more common in the United States in recent years, particularly generic drugs and those targeting hematologic malignancies.

In a recent national survey of oncology pharmacists, researchers found that almost two-thirds of institutions reported at least one drug shortage in the past month, representing a 34% increase between 2018 and 2019.

“This shortage of [dacarbazine] is not the first shortage of oncolytic drugs, and it certainly will not be the last,” Nicole Soriano, PharmD, hematology/oncology clinical pharmacist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, and colleagues wrote in a commentary accompanying the review.

According to Dr. Soriano and coauthors, “some studies have found that shortages are significant across many oncology disciplines and may lead to delays, changes in therapy, interference with clinical research, increased risk of medication errors, adverse outcomes, and increased costs.”
 

Finding a substitute

In the current analysis, Dr. Torka and her team conducted an exhaustive literature review in which they examined studies going back decades.

The authors highlight more than 10 alternative regimens for treating advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma. They also provide a detailed treatment algorithm to help oncologists choose the best option for their individual patients as well as strategies for reintegrating ABVD into patient care should the supply of dacarbazine return to normal.

The first considerations: Can patients tolerate intensive chemotherapy, and are patients younger than 60?

For fit adults younger than 60, Dr. Torka and colleagues conclude that the BEACOPP regimen is the “preferred” option. In trials comparing ABVD to BEACOPP, both regimens demonstrated similar overall survival. And while BEACOPP may provide slightly “better disease control,” this approach may also come with greater toxicities in the short and long term, compared with ABVD, depending on the dosing strategy.

The authors also propose an alternative treatment strategy in case the supply of dacarbazine returns to normal mid-treatment. In this scenario, patients could receive an escalated BEACOPP regimen for two cycles and then undergo an interim positron-emission tomography scan. If the scan is negative and dacarbazine is available, the patient’s regimen could be deescalated to ABVD for four cycles without affecting disease control.

For pediatric patients, the authors recommend the ABVE-PC regimen, which includes six drugs – doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide. Data show that the 5-year overall survival among pediatric patients receiving ABVE-PC is 95%.

Stanford V-C – cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vinblastine, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone – is another “acceptable approach” for pediatric patients, the authors noted.

For older patients with advanced disease or those unfit for intensive chemotherapy, the authors suggest evaluating them for fitness for anthracyclines to determine whether doxorubicin, in particular, is an option.

The researchers suggest one of the following three strategies for those who are doxorubicin-eligible: PVAG (prednisone, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and gemcitabine), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), or EVA (etoposide, vinblastine, and doxorubicin).

For those unfit for anthracyclines, the options include COPP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) or ChlVPP (chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone).

For frail patients who are ineligible for chemotherapy, the team recommends brentuximab alone or in combination with nivolumab.

Given the limited availability of dacarbazine, the authors say that the “current supply should be triaged to prioritize patients whose therapy cannot be changed and those without alternative acceptable options.”

To stretch available dacarbazine supplies as much as possible, the researchers and editorialists advocate for rounding doses within 5%-10% of the prescribed dose.

For example, Dr. Torka and colleagues explained, rounding a dose from 750 mg down to 700 mg would save one vial of dacarbazine.

Vial sharing and using drugs beyond their use dates by compounding with closed-system transfer devices are other strategies to preserve the existing supply of dacarbazine.

The goal of this review “is to give as many patients as possible the most optimal and efficacious therapy even with the strain on supply,” the editorialists wrote.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Torka is an adviser for Genentech, ADC Therapeutics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Soriano has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The persistent shortage of dacarbazine has led to an “acute and unprecedented crisis” in the treatment of patients with advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma, experts say.

Dacarbazine, an essential part of the four-drug standard of care for managing Hodgkin lymphoma, has been in short supply since last summer, prompting experts to search for a viable substitute.

In a recent review, oncologists scoured decades of data to find the best alternatives for a range of scenarios. For fit adults younger than 60, the group recommends the seven-drug regimen BEACOPP – bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone.

“Among all available regimens,” BEACOPP has “the most robust evidence” as a substitute for the four-drug standard ABVD, which includes doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine, Pallawi Torka, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in JCO Oncology Practice.

Last October, the Food and Drug Administration posted a notice about the dacarbazine shortage. According to the notice, the shortage occurred because of “manufacturing delays” and a “demand increase” affecting three companies supplying the U.S. market – Fresenius Kabi USA, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, and Teva. In an update issued May 4, the FDA said that 100-mg and 200-mg vials of the drug are now available from Fresenius. An update from April 8 said that 200-mg vials were available from Hikma.

Dacarbazine is hardly the only oncology drug to fall into short supply. Recent data show that shortages of oncology drugs have become more common in the United States in recent years, particularly generic drugs and those targeting hematologic malignancies.

In a recent national survey of oncology pharmacists, researchers found that almost two-thirds of institutions reported at least one drug shortage in the past month, representing a 34% increase between 2018 and 2019.

“This shortage of [dacarbazine] is not the first shortage of oncolytic drugs, and it certainly will not be the last,” Nicole Soriano, PharmD, hematology/oncology clinical pharmacist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, and colleagues wrote in a commentary accompanying the review.

According to Dr. Soriano and coauthors, “some studies have found that shortages are significant across many oncology disciplines and may lead to delays, changes in therapy, interference with clinical research, increased risk of medication errors, adverse outcomes, and increased costs.”
 

Finding a substitute

In the current analysis, Dr. Torka and her team conducted an exhaustive literature review in which they examined studies going back decades.

The authors highlight more than 10 alternative regimens for treating advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma. They also provide a detailed treatment algorithm to help oncologists choose the best option for their individual patients as well as strategies for reintegrating ABVD into patient care should the supply of dacarbazine return to normal.

The first considerations: Can patients tolerate intensive chemotherapy, and are patients younger than 60?

For fit adults younger than 60, Dr. Torka and colleagues conclude that the BEACOPP regimen is the “preferred” option. In trials comparing ABVD to BEACOPP, both regimens demonstrated similar overall survival. And while BEACOPP may provide slightly “better disease control,” this approach may also come with greater toxicities in the short and long term, compared with ABVD, depending on the dosing strategy.

The authors also propose an alternative treatment strategy in case the supply of dacarbazine returns to normal mid-treatment. In this scenario, patients could receive an escalated BEACOPP regimen for two cycles and then undergo an interim positron-emission tomography scan. If the scan is negative and dacarbazine is available, the patient’s regimen could be deescalated to ABVD for four cycles without affecting disease control.

For pediatric patients, the authors recommend the ABVE-PC regimen, which includes six drugs – doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide. Data show that the 5-year overall survival among pediatric patients receiving ABVE-PC is 95%.

Stanford V-C – cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vinblastine, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone – is another “acceptable approach” for pediatric patients, the authors noted.

For older patients with advanced disease or those unfit for intensive chemotherapy, the authors suggest evaluating them for fitness for anthracyclines to determine whether doxorubicin, in particular, is an option.

The researchers suggest one of the following three strategies for those who are doxorubicin-eligible: PVAG (prednisone, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and gemcitabine), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), or EVA (etoposide, vinblastine, and doxorubicin).

For those unfit for anthracyclines, the options include COPP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) or ChlVPP (chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone).

For frail patients who are ineligible for chemotherapy, the team recommends brentuximab alone or in combination with nivolumab.

Given the limited availability of dacarbazine, the authors say that the “current supply should be triaged to prioritize patients whose therapy cannot be changed and those without alternative acceptable options.”

To stretch available dacarbazine supplies as much as possible, the researchers and editorialists advocate for rounding doses within 5%-10% of the prescribed dose.

For example, Dr. Torka and colleagues explained, rounding a dose from 750 mg down to 700 mg would save one vial of dacarbazine.

Vial sharing and using drugs beyond their use dates by compounding with closed-system transfer devices are other strategies to preserve the existing supply of dacarbazine.

The goal of this review “is to give as many patients as possible the most optimal and efficacious therapy even with the strain on supply,” the editorialists wrote.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Torka is an adviser for Genentech, ADC Therapeutics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Soriano has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The persistent shortage of dacarbazine has led to an “acute and unprecedented crisis” in the treatment of patients with advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma, experts say.

Dacarbazine, an essential part of the four-drug standard of care for managing Hodgkin lymphoma, has been in short supply since last summer, prompting experts to search for a viable substitute.

In a recent review, oncologists scoured decades of data to find the best alternatives for a range of scenarios. For fit adults younger than 60, the group recommends the seven-drug regimen BEACOPP – bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone.

“Among all available regimens,” BEACOPP has “the most robust evidence” as a substitute for the four-drug standard ABVD, which includes doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine, Pallawi Torka, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in JCO Oncology Practice.

Last October, the Food and Drug Administration posted a notice about the dacarbazine shortage. According to the notice, the shortage occurred because of “manufacturing delays” and a “demand increase” affecting three companies supplying the U.S. market – Fresenius Kabi USA, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, and Teva. In an update issued May 4, the FDA said that 100-mg and 200-mg vials of the drug are now available from Fresenius. An update from April 8 said that 200-mg vials were available from Hikma.

Dacarbazine is hardly the only oncology drug to fall into short supply. Recent data show that shortages of oncology drugs have become more common in the United States in recent years, particularly generic drugs and those targeting hematologic malignancies.

In a recent national survey of oncology pharmacists, researchers found that almost two-thirds of institutions reported at least one drug shortage in the past month, representing a 34% increase between 2018 and 2019.

“This shortage of [dacarbazine] is not the first shortage of oncolytic drugs, and it certainly will not be the last,” Nicole Soriano, PharmD, hematology/oncology clinical pharmacist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, and colleagues wrote in a commentary accompanying the review.

According to Dr. Soriano and coauthors, “some studies have found that shortages are significant across many oncology disciplines and may lead to delays, changes in therapy, interference with clinical research, increased risk of medication errors, adverse outcomes, and increased costs.”
 

Finding a substitute

In the current analysis, Dr. Torka and her team conducted an exhaustive literature review in which they examined studies going back decades.

The authors highlight more than 10 alternative regimens for treating advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma. They also provide a detailed treatment algorithm to help oncologists choose the best option for their individual patients as well as strategies for reintegrating ABVD into patient care should the supply of dacarbazine return to normal.

The first considerations: Can patients tolerate intensive chemotherapy, and are patients younger than 60?

For fit adults younger than 60, Dr. Torka and colleagues conclude that the BEACOPP regimen is the “preferred” option. In trials comparing ABVD to BEACOPP, both regimens demonstrated similar overall survival. And while BEACOPP may provide slightly “better disease control,” this approach may also come with greater toxicities in the short and long term, compared with ABVD, depending on the dosing strategy.

The authors also propose an alternative treatment strategy in case the supply of dacarbazine returns to normal mid-treatment. In this scenario, patients could receive an escalated BEACOPP regimen for two cycles and then undergo an interim positron-emission tomography scan. If the scan is negative and dacarbazine is available, the patient’s regimen could be deescalated to ABVD for four cycles without affecting disease control.

For pediatric patients, the authors recommend the ABVE-PC regimen, which includes six drugs – doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide. Data show that the 5-year overall survival among pediatric patients receiving ABVE-PC is 95%.

Stanford V-C – cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vinblastine, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone – is another “acceptable approach” for pediatric patients, the authors noted.

For older patients with advanced disease or those unfit for intensive chemotherapy, the authors suggest evaluating them for fitness for anthracyclines to determine whether doxorubicin, in particular, is an option.

The researchers suggest one of the following three strategies for those who are doxorubicin-eligible: PVAG (prednisone, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and gemcitabine), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), or EVA (etoposide, vinblastine, and doxorubicin).

For those unfit for anthracyclines, the options include COPP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) or ChlVPP (chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone).

For frail patients who are ineligible for chemotherapy, the team recommends brentuximab alone or in combination with nivolumab.

Given the limited availability of dacarbazine, the authors say that the “current supply should be triaged to prioritize patients whose therapy cannot be changed and those without alternative acceptable options.”

To stretch available dacarbazine supplies as much as possible, the researchers and editorialists advocate for rounding doses within 5%-10% of the prescribed dose.

For example, Dr. Torka and colleagues explained, rounding a dose from 750 mg down to 700 mg would save one vial of dacarbazine.

Vial sharing and using drugs beyond their use dates by compounding with closed-system transfer devices are other strategies to preserve the existing supply of dacarbazine.

The goal of this review “is to give as many patients as possible the most optimal and efficacious therapy even with the strain on supply,” the editorialists wrote.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Torka is an adviser for Genentech, ADC Therapeutics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Soriano has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians treating Hodgkin lymphoma should not delay potentially curative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) over fears of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)–related graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), said a speaker at the annual meeting European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

In fact, prior treatment with PD-1–directed therapies nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) appears to improve outcomes in allo-HCT patients, said Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. 

“The use of allogeneic HCT is decreasing for Hodgkin even though it is a curative option, and we see patients referred after they have had multiple lines of therapy,” Dr. Perales said in an interview. “The lymphoma MDs have a perception that outcomes are poor, and therefore don’t refer.”

courtesy MSKCC, New York

To illustrate his point, Dr. Perales shared data from the EBMT database. In 2014, the registry accrued approximately 450 allo-HCT cases; by 2021 this had fallen to fewer than 200 procedures.

Ironically, this declining enthusiasm for transplantation coincides with a steady improvement in transplant outcomes following PD-1 blockade, Dr. Perales noted. For example, an analysis, published in Nature, yielded an 82% overall survival (OS) at 3 years in patients who underwent allo-HCT after CPI treatment (n =209).

“Results of allo-HCT in patients with Hodgkin show a remarkable cure rate,” said Dr. Perales. “Part of that is probably driven by lower relapse due to enhanced graft-versus-lymphoma effect due to long CPI half-life.” (The half-lives of pembrolizumab and nivolumab are 22 and 25 days, respectively.)

At the EBMT meeting, Dr. Perales presented a new retrospective analysis that tested the hypothesis that CPIs might actually improve outcomes for allo-HCT patients. An international team of clinicians from EBMT and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) compared allo-HCT outcomes with (n = 347) and without (n = 1,382) prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor. 

They found that prior CPI therapy was, indeed, associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio, 0.53; P = .00023) and longer progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.75; P = .0171).

However, prior PD-1 drugs provided no survival advantage, Dr. Perales said. “The easiest explanation for a study showing a difference in PFS/relapse, not OS, is that we have good treatments that can treat patients who relapse and so their overall survival ends up being the same.”

The researchers also confirmed previous reports that patients who received PD-1 inhibitors prior to transplant had a higher incidence of GVHD. Prevalence of acute grades 2-4 GVHD was significantly higher (P = .027); however, acute grades 3-4 GVHD and chronic GVHD were not significantly different between the two groups.

Dr. Perales speculated that the use of posttransplant cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis would mitigate the risk of GVHD associated with PD-1 inhibitors, “we have not yet proven that formally ... [we] are still analyzing our data.”

Commenting on the results of the new analysis, Dr. Perales expressed concern that patients are being recruited to early-phase clinical trials after failing on a checkpoint inhibitor, instead of being offered allo-HCT – a potentially curative treatment – because treaters are misinformed about the safety of transplant after these drugs.

The NIH clinical-trials database backs up Dr. Perales’ worries. In the United States, for example, there are currently 19 trials recruiting for relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma patients prior to transplant. Of these, 15 studies permit enrollment of patients who have failed on CPIs, and 8 are phase 1 or 2 studies.

“The good news is that new drugs, including CPIs, have dramatically changed outcomes in this disease and that fewer patients now need an allo-HCT,” said Dr. Perales. And if a transplant is needed, “it is safe to perform allo-HCT in patients treated with prior CPI.” 

However, time is of the essence. “Patients with Hodgkin lymphoma should be referred to allo-HCT if they are not responding or tolerating CPI, rather than go on a series of phase 1 trials,” Dr. Perales said. “Median age is 32, and we should be going for a cure, nothing less.” 

Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serving on the data and safety monitoring boards of Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serving on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.

Physicians treating Hodgkin lymphoma should not delay potentially curative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) over fears of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)–related graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), said a speaker at the annual meeting European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

In fact, prior treatment with PD-1–directed therapies nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) appears to improve outcomes in allo-HCT patients, said Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. 

“The use of allogeneic HCT is decreasing for Hodgkin even though it is a curative option, and we see patients referred after they have had multiple lines of therapy,” Dr. Perales said in an interview. “The lymphoma MDs have a perception that outcomes are poor, and therefore don’t refer.”

courtesy MSKCC, New York

To illustrate his point, Dr. Perales shared data from the EBMT database. In 2014, the registry accrued approximately 450 allo-HCT cases; by 2021 this had fallen to fewer than 200 procedures.

Ironically, this declining enthusiasm for transplantation coincides with a steady improvement in transplant outcomes following PD-1 blockade, Dr. Perales noted. For example, an analysis, published in Nature, yielded an 82% overall survival (OS) at 3 years in patients who underwent allo-HCT after CPI treatment (n =209).

“Results of allo-HCT in patients with Hodgkin show a remarkable cure rate,” said Dr. Perales. “Part of that is probably driven by lower relapse due to enhanced graft-versus-lymphoma effect due to long CPI half-life.” (The half-lives of pembrolizumab and nivolumab are 22 and 25 days, respectively.)

At the EBMT meeting, Dr. Perales presented a new retrospective analysis that tested the hypothesis that CPIs might actually improve outcomes for allo-HCT patients. An international team of clinicians from EBMT and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) compared allo-HCT outcomes with (n = 347) and without (n = 1,382) prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor. 

They found that prior CPI therapy was, indeed, associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio, 0.53; P = .00023) and longer progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.75; P = .0171).

However, prior PD-1 drugs provided no survival advantage, Dr. Perales said. “The easiest explanation for a study showing a difference in PFS/relapse, not OS, is that we have good treatments that can treat patients who relapse and so their overall survival ends up being the same.”

The researchers also confirmed previous reports that patients who received PD-1 inhibitors prior to transplant had a higher incidence of GVHD. Prevalence of acute grades 2-4 GVHD was significantly higher (P = .027); however, acute grades 3-4 GVHD and chronic GVHD were not significantly different between the two groups.

Dr. Perales speculated that the use of posttransplant cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis would mitigate the risk of GVHD associated with PD-1 inhibitors, “we have not yet proven that formally ... [we] are still analyzing our data.”

Commenting on the results of the new analysis, Dr. Perales expressed concern that patients are being recruited to early-phase clinical trials after failing on a checkpoint inhibitor, instead of being offered allo-HCT – a potentially curative treatment – because treaters are misinformed about the safety of transplant after these drugs.

The NIH clinical-trials database backs up Dr. Perales’ worries. In the United States, for example, there are currently 19 trials recruiting for relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma patients prior to transplant. Of these, 15 studies permit enrollment of patients who have failed on CPIs, and 8 are phase 1 or 2 studies.

“The good news is that new drugs, including CPIs, have dramatically changed outcomes in this disease and that fewer patients now need an allo-HCT,” said Dr. Perales. And if a transplant is needed, “it is safe to perform allo-HCT in patients treated with prior CPI.” 

However, time is of the essence. “Patients with Hodgkin lymphoma should be referred to allo-HCT if they are not responding or tolerating CPI, rather than go on a series of phase 1 trials,” Dr. Perales said. “Median age is 32, and we should be going for a cure, nothing less.” 

Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serving on the data and safety monitoring boards of Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serving on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.

Physicians treating Hodgkin lymphoma should not delay potentially curative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) over fears of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)–related graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), said a speaker at the annual meeting European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

In fact, prior treatment with PD-1–directed therapies nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) appears to improve outcomes in allo-HCT patients, said Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. 

“The use of allogeneic HCT is decreasing for Hodgkin even though it is a curative option, and we see patients referred after they have had multiple lines of therapy,” Dr. Perales said in an interview. “The lymphoma MDs have a perception that outcomes are poor, and therefore don’t refer.”

courtesy MSKCC, New York

To illustrate his point, Dr. Perales shared data from the EBMT database. In 2014, the registry accrued approximately 450 allo-HCT cases; by 2021 this had fallen to fewer than 200 procedures.

Ironically, this declining enthusiasm for transplantation coincides with a steady improvement in transplant outcomes following PD-1 blockade, Dr. Perales noted. For example, an analysis, published in Nature, yielded an 82% overall survival (OS) at 3 years in patients who underwent allo-HCT after CPI treatment (n =209).

“Results of allo-HCT in patients with Hodgkin show a remarkable cure rate,” said Dr. Perales. “Part of that is probably driven by lower relapse due to enhanced graft-versus-lymphoma effect due to long CPI half-life.” (The half-lives of pembrolizumab and nivolumab are 22 and 25 days, respectively.)

At the EBMT meeting, Dr. Perales presented a new retrospective analysis that tested the hypothesis that CPIs might actually improve outcomes for allo-HCT patients. An international team of clinicians from EBMT and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) compared allo-HCT outcomes with (n = 347) and without (n = 1,382) prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor. 

They found that prior CPI therapy was, indeed, associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio, 0.53; P = .00023) and longer progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.75; P = .0171).

However, prior PD-1 drugs provided no survival advantage, Dr. Perales said. “The easiest explanation for a study showing a difference in PFS/relapse, not OS, is that we have good treatments that can treat patients who relapse and so their overall survival ends up being the same.”

The researchers also confirmed previous reports that patients who received PD-1 inhibitors prior to transplant had a higher incidence of GVHD. Prevalence of acute grades 2-4 GVHD was significantly higher (P = .027); however, acute grades 3-4 GVHD and chronic GVHD were not significantly different between the two groups.

Dr. Perales speculated that the use of posttransplant cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis would mitigate the risk of GVHD associated with PD-1 inhibitors, “we have not yet proven that formally ... [we] are still analyzing our data.”

Commenting on the results of the new analysis, Dr. Perales expressed concern that patients are being recruited to early-phase clinical trials after failing on a checkpoint inhibitor, instead of being offered allo-HCT – a potentially curative treatment – because treaters are misinformed about the safety of transplant after these drugs.

The NIH clinical-trials database backs up Dr. Perales’ worries. In the United States, for example, there are currently 19 trials recruiting for relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma patients prior to transplant. Of these, 15 studies permit enrollment of patients who have failed on CPIs, and 8 are phase 1 or 2 studies.

“The good news is that new drugs, including CPIs, have dramatically changed outcomes in this disease and that fewer patients now need an allo-HCT,” said Dr. Perales. And if a transplant is needed, “it is safe to perform allo-HCT in patients treated with prior CPI.” 

However, time is of the essence. “Patients with Hodgkin lymphoma should be referred to allo-HCT if they are not responding or tolerating CPI, rather than go on a series of phase 1 trials,” Dr. Perales said. “Median age is 32, and we should be going for a cure, nothing less.” 

Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serving on the data and safety monitoring boards of Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serving on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.

At 32 years old, the world was at Larry Unger’s feet. He was vice president at one of Wall Street’s most successful investment management firms, selling mutual funds to more than 1,000 brokers across New York. His clients relied on him for good advice, great jokes, and superlative Yankees tickets. His recent memories included fraternity days at Cornell University and a Harvard law degree. His childhood on the Lower East Side was behind him. He had his own apartment and a beautiful girlfriend.

Then his back started hurting, and he was drenched in sweat at night. His physician suggested it was a basketball injury. Weeks of tests followed, and he changed doctors. Mr. Unger met with an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who wouldn’t let him go home after the appointment. The next day brought exploratory surgery and an answer to all the questions.

courtesy of Larry Unger

Mr. Unger was diagnosed with stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma.

Thirty years later, Mr. Unger credited his survival to the late Subhash Gulati, MD, PhD, then MSKCC’s director of stem cell transplantation. He still recalls Dr. Gulati’s words to him: “Radical situations call for radical solutions.” In 1992, that “radical solution” was an autologous bone-marrow transplant.

“Mr. Unger was a patient pioneer,” said Kenneth Offit, MD, another MSKCC oncologist who also cared for him at that time.

To mark the 30th anniversary of Larry’s pioneering transplant, this news organization compared treatments for Hodgkin disease then and now – a revolutionary change that some hematologist/oncologists consider among the great successes in their field.
 

Transplantation for Hodgkin: The early 90s

Hodgkin lymphoma is fairly rare, accounting for just 0.5% of all cancers and 15% of lymphomas. It tends to target young, male adults like Mr. Unger. Today 88% of patients with Hodgkin survive at least 5 years.

When Dr. Gulati offered Mr. Unger his “radical solution” 3 decades ago, the idea of autologous bone marrow transplantation in Hodgkin lymphoma was not new. The first attempt appeared in the literature in the 1950s, but it was still unclear how patients could survive the procedure. It involved destroying the patient’s own immune system prior to the transplant, a huge risk in itself. Worse, the patient was pummeled with chemotherapy and/or radiation to clear out the cancerous bone marrow – a process called “conditioning.”

However, throughout the 1980s, MSKCC had been running clinical trials to perfect the conditioning mix, so by 1992 Dr. Gulati was well-placed to help Mr. Unger.

It is unclear what conditioning Mr. Unger received because his records were not made available. However, around the time that Mr. Unger underwent his transplant, Dr. Gulati and colleagues published the conditioning regimens in use at MSKCC. Patients with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin disease received a conditioning mix of total nodal irradiation (TNI), etoposide (Vepesid) and cyclophosphamide. Patients who had already been through radiotherapy were given carmustine instead of TNI.

In that early publication, Dr. Gulati and the MSKCC team reported 0 “toxic deaths” with the TNI mix, and at the 2-year point 75% of the patients were still alive (n = 28). Patients who had already received radiation treatment did less well, with 55% survival at 2 years, at a cost of 14% toxic deaths (n = 22).
 

Mr. Unger’s experience, 30 years ago

According to Mr. Unger, the initial treatment for his stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma was MOPP (mechlorethamine hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, procarbazine hydrochloride, and prednisone) plus ABVD (doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine).

“They wanted to give me two chemo programs at once because they said I was very sick,” Mr. Unger recalled. “I wound up staying in the hospital quite a bit because every time I got these [treatments] I’d get a fever. This went on for month after month after month. Finally, they said: ‘The tumors are starting to shrink. ... I want you to meet Dr. Gulati.’ ”

Mr. Unger said that Dr. Gulati told him: “There is another procedure called the bone marrow transplant which we’ve been doing. This would be like hitting it with a nuclear weapon. We would really wipe it out and make sure that you never come back.”

The alternative was high-dose radiotherapy. However, Dr. Gulati shared MSKCC’s hard-won knowledge that an autologous transplant was less successful after radiation. Dr. Gulati also told Mr. Unger that surgery was needed before the transplant: a laparotomy to restage his tumors.

After discussing the situation with his father, Mr. Unger decided to undergo the transplant.

The night before treatment started, he was laughing and joking with a friend in his room at MSKCC. The next day, the laughing stopped. The conditioning, he said, “was harrowing beyond belief ... 100 times worse than the chemo.”

Chemotherapy came first, followed 2 days later by radiation, presumably TNI. Mr. Unger experienced constant vomiting, intraocular bleeding and high fevers; the soft tissue of his throat “fell apart,” he said.

“I couldn’t move. It was like being dead,” he said. “Finally, maybe after a month or so, I could finally have a little water.” Mr. Unger said his immune system took 6-8 weeks to recover. He concluded, with heroic understatement, “it was rough.”

The battle against Hodgkin was over, but fallout from the chemotherapy lingered. Although Mr. Unger was able to return to his family and the job he loved, in the following years he was never entirely well. He contracted shingles soon after his transplant, then diabetes within 15 years. A heart attack followed in 2008 then, in 2015, an autoimmune disease that still affects his mobility.

However, Mr. Unger remains grateful: “The fact that we did these cutting-edge techniques with me got me to the point where – although I had some problems afterward, and I have problems now – it gave me well over 30 years of a really great life.”

“There are a lot of good doctors out there,” he added. “Some of them go to extraordinary lengths to help people. I try to do the same with the extra 30 years I’ve been given, try to be nice to people and make people feel good. I don’t really see any other reason to be on earth.”
 

Treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma: 2022

For a comparison of Mr. Unger’s experience with the current approach to Hodgkin lymphoma, this news organization spoke to Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, current chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC. Although Dr. Perales could not comment specifically on Mr. Unger’s case without his records, Dr. Perales was able to review the revolutions in treatment for all patients over the past 30 years.

Courtesy MSKCC

Certainly, physicians no longer need to inflict a laparotomy on patients just to stage the disease, Dr. Perales said. “This sounds barbaric today. Nowadays we have PET scans.”

Another key change, Dr. Perales said, is in the up-front management of the disease.

For example, MOPP “is going back to the prehistory of chemotherapy,” Dr. Perales said. He was not surprised to learn that Mr. Unger later developed complications such as diabetes and heart disease.

“We’ve completely revolutionized the treatment,” Dr. Perales said. “We [now] use combinations that are much less toxic than MOPP, [and] we’re curing more patients up front.” Treatment is tailored by stage and the likelihood of response to therapy. Aggressive approaches are reserved for patients more likely to fail treatment.

Pretransplant conditioning has also changed for the better, with less toxicity and fewer long-term complications. Total body irradiation has “fallen by the wayside,” said Dr. Perales. Instead, patients get BEAM, a combination of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine (Cytosar-U, Ara-C), and melphalan (Alkeran), 1 week before the transplant.

Perhaps the most profound change, which began in the 1990s shortly after Larry’s transplant, was that peripheral-blood stem cells gradually replaced bone marrow for both autologous and allogeneic transplant. In 2022, nearly all autologous transplants use peripheral-blood stem cells.

Instead of onerous bone-marrow aspiration in the operating room, the stem cells are collected from the patient’s blood. First, the patient’s bone marrow is hyperstimulated with high doses of filgrastim (G-CSF, Neupogen, Granix) for several days. Stem cells spill into the patient’s blood. Once blood is collected from the patient, the stem cells are separated and stored ready for the transplant. (In theory, stem cell products are “cancer free”; in practice there may be some contaminating cells, said Dr. Perales.)

Nowadays “transplanting” the stem cells back into the body bears no relation to what happened in 1992. The stem-cell infusion is typically an outpatient procedure, and one-third of patients may never be admitted to the hospital at all.

In contrast to Mr. Unger’s excruciating 8-week hospital stay, immune recovery currently takes 12-14 days, often entirely in the patient’s own home, with the option of extra filgrastim to speed things up.

Despite these profound changes, said Dr. Perales, the real quantum leap has occurred post transplant.

In 2015, a multinational team led by MSKCC’s Dr. Craig Moskowitz published a trial in the Lancet showing that brentuximab vedotin halved the risk of relapse after autologous transplantation in high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .0013; n = 329). The CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate was so successful that the placebo patients were encouraged to cross over into the treatment group; many of them were salvaged.

As a result, Dr. Perales said, brentuximab vedotin has now become the standard in high-risk Hodgkin patients following a transplant.

The checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) have also been “transformational” in Hodgkin lymphoma, Dr. Perales said. He explained that Hodgkin lymphoma is “exquisitely sensitive” to these therapies because the disease expresses high levels of the binding proteins for these drugs. This allows the immunotherapies to hit both the immune system and the disease.

Most cancers have response rates for checkpoint inhibitors below 40%, according to a recent analysis by Anas Younes, former chief of lymphoma at MSKCC, and his colleague Eri Matsuki, then a visiting fellow. By contrast, in Hodgkin lymphoma response to these drugs is 66%-87%.

Dr. Perales said: “It tells you how effective these drugs are, that we could move from somebody getting MOPP, which is like throwing a nuclear bomb at somebody, to a combination of two drugs that can easily be given out-patient and that have very little, if any, side effects.”
 

The future: No chemo, no transplants?

“One of the holy grails in Hodgkin would be if we could treat patients with the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and brentuximab and what is being termed the ‘chemotherapy-free’ approach to Hodgkin disease,” said Dr. Perales.

What else remains to be done in the world of transplants for Hodgkin lymphoma?

Dr. Perales didn’t hesitate: “To eliminate the need for them. If we can have better targeted therapy up front that cures more patients, then we never even have to consider transplant. Basically, to put me out of work. I’m sure I’ll find other things to do.”

The current treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma “is really what we all consider one of the successes in oncology,” said Dr. Perales. “It’s a beautiful story.”

Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serves on data and safety monitoring boards for Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serves on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.

At 32 years old, the world was at Larry Unger’s feet. He was vice president at one of Wall Street’s most successful investment management firms, selling mutual funds to more than 1,000 brokers across New York. His clients relied on him for good advice, great jokes, and superlative Yankees tickets. His recent memories included fraternity days at Cornell University and a Harvard law degree. His childhood on the Lower East Side was behind him. He had his own apartment and a beautiful girlfriend.

Then his back started hurting, and he was drenched in sweat at night. His physician suggested it was a basketball injury. Weeks of tests followed, and he changed doctors. Mr. Unger met with an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who wouldn’t let him go home after the appointment. The next day brought exploratory surgery and an answer to all the questions.

courtesy of Larry Unger

Mr. Unger was diagnosed with stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma.

Thirty years later, Mr. Unger credited his survival to the late Subhash Gulati, MD, PhD, then MSKCC’s director of stem cell transplantation. He still recalls Dr. Gulati’s words to him: “Radical situations call for radical solutions.” In 1992, that “radical solution” was an autologous bone-marrow transplant.

“Mr. Unger was a patient pioneer,” said Kenneth Offit, MD, another MSKCC oncologist who also cared for him at that time.

To mark the 30th anniversary of Larry’s pioneering transplant, this news organization compared treatments for Hodgkin disease then and now – a revolutionary change that some hematologist/oncologists consider among the great successes in their field.
 

Transplantation for Hodgkin: The early 90s

Hodgkin lymphoma is fairly rare, accounting for just 0.5% of all cancers and 15% of lymphomas. It tends to target young, male adults like Mr. Unger. Today 88% of patients with Hodgkin survive at least 5 years.

When Dr. Gulati offered Mr. Unger his “radical solution” 3 decades ago, the idea of autologous bone marrow transplantation in Hodgkin lymphoma was not new. The first attempt appeared in the literature in the 1950s, but it was still unclear how patients could survive the procedure. It involved destroying the patient’s own immune system prior to the transplant, a huge risk in itself. Worse, the patient was pummeled with chemotherapy and/or radiation to clear out the cancerous bone marrow – a process called “conditioning.”

However, throughout the 1980s, MSKCC had been running clinical trials to perfect the conditioning mix, so by 1992 Dr. Gulati was well-placed to help Mr. Unger.

It is unclear what conditioning Mr. Unger received because his records were not made available. However, around the time that Mr. Unger underwent his transplant, Dr. Gulati and colleagues published the conditioning regimens in use at MSKCC. Patients with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin disease received a conditioning mix of total nodal irradiation (TNI), etoposide (Vepesid) and cyclophosphamide. Patients who had already been through radiotherapy were given carmustine instead of TNI.

In that early publication, Dr. Gulati and the MSKCC team reported 0 “toxic deaths” with the TNI mix, and at the 2-year point 75% of the patients were still alive (n = 28). Patients who had already received radiation treatment did less well, with 55% survival at 2 years, at a cost of 14% toxic deaths (n = 22).
 

Mr. Unger’s experience, 30 years ago

According to Mr. Unger, the initial treatment for his stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma was MOPP (mechlorethamine hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, procarbazine hydrochloride, and prednisone) plus ABVD (doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine).

“They wanted to give me two chemo programs at once because they said I was very sick,” Mr. Unger recalled. “I wound up staying in the hospital quite a bit because every time I got these [treatments] I’d get a fever. This went on for month after month after month. Finally, they said: ‘The tumors are starting to shrink. ... I want you to meet Dr. Gulati.’ ”

Mr. Unger said that Dr. Gulati told him: “There is another procedure called the bone marrow transplant which we’ve been doing. This would be like hitting it with a nuclear weapon. We would really wipe it out and make sure that you never come back.”

The alternative was high-dose radiotherapy. However, Dr. Gulati shared MSKCC’s hard-won knowledge that an autologous transplant was less successful after radiation. Dr. Gulati also told Mr. Unger that surgery was needed before the transplant: a laparotomy to restage his tumors.

After discussing the situation with his father, Mr. Unger decided to undergo the transplant.

The night before treatment started, he was laughing and joking with a friend in his room at MSKCC. The next day, the laughing stopped. The conditioning, he said, “was harrowing beyond belief ... 100 times worse than the chemo.”

Chemotherapy came first, followed 2 days later by radiation, presumably TNI. Mr. Unger experienced constant vomiting, intraocular bleeding and high fevers; the soft tissue of his throat “fell apart,” he said.

“I couldn’t move. It was like being dead,” he said. “Finally, maybe after a month or so, I could finally have a little water.” Mr. Unger said his immune system took 6-8 weeks to recover. He concluded, with heroic understatement, “it was rough.”

The battle against Hodgkin was over, but fallout from the chemotherapy lingered. Although Mr. Unger was able to return to his family and the job he loved, in the following years he was never entirely well. He contracted shingles soon after his transplant, then diabetes within 15 years. A heart attack followed in 2008 then, in 2015, an autoimmune disease that still affects his mobility.

However, Mr. Unger remains grateful: “The fact that we did these cutting-edge techniques with me got me to the point where – although I had some problems afterward, and I have problems now – it gave me well over 30 years of a really great life.”

“There are a lot of good doctors out there,” he added. “Some of them go to extraordinary lengths to help people. I try to do the same with the extra 30 years I’ve been given, try to be nice to people and make people feel good. I don’t really see any other reason to be on earth.”
 

Treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma: 2022

For a comparison of Mr. Unger’s experience with the current approach to Hodgkin lymphoma, this news organization spoke to Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, current chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC. Although Dr. Perales could not comment specifically on Mr. Unger’s case without his records, Dr. Perales was able to review the revolutions in treatment for all patients over the past 30 years.

Courtesy MSKCC

Certainly, physicians no longer need to inflict a laparotomy on patients just to stage the disease, Dr. Perales said. “This sounds barbaric today. Nowadays we have PET scans.”

Another key change, Dr. Perales said, is in the up-front management of the disease.

For example, MOPP “is going back to the prehistory of chemotherapy,” Dr. Perales said. He was not surprised to learn that Mr. Unger later developed complications such as diabetes and heart disease.

“We’ve completely revolutionized the treatment,” Dr. Perales said. “We [now] use combinations that are much less toxic than MOPP, [and] we’re curing more patients up front.” Treatment is tailored by stage and the likelihood of response to therapy. Aggressive approaches are reserved for patients more likely to fail treatment.

Pretransplant conditioning has also changed for the better, with less toxicity and fewer long-term complications. Total body irradiation has “fallen by the wayside,” said Dr. Perales. Instead, patients get BEAM, a combination of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine (Cytosar-U, Ara-C), and melphalan (Alkeran), 1 week before the transplant.

Perhaps the most profound change, which began in the 1990s shortly after Larry’s transplant, was that peripheral-blood stem cells gradually replaced bone marrow for both autologous and allogeneic transplant. In 2022, nearly all autologous transplants use peripheral-blood stem cells.

Instead of onerous bone-marrow aspiration in the operating room, the stem cells are collected from the patient’s blood. First, the patient’s bone marrow is hyperstimulated with high doses of filgrastim (G-CSF, Neupogen, Granix) for several days. Stem cells spill into the patient’s blood. Once blood is collected from the patient, the stem cells are separated and stored ready for the transplant. (In theory, stem cell products are “cancer free”; in practice there may be some contaminating cells, said Dr. Perales.)

Nowadays “transplanting” the stem cells back into the body bears no relation to what happened in 1992. The stem-cell infusion is typically an outpatient procedure, and one-third of patients may never be admitted to the hospital at all.

In contrast to Mr. Unger’s excruciating 8-week hospital stay, immune recovery currently takes 12-14 days, often entirely in the patient’s own home, with the option of extra filgrastim to speed things up.

Despite these profound changes, said Dr. Perales, the real quantum leap has occurred post transplant.

In 2015, a multinational team led by MSKCC’s Dr. Craig Moskowitz published a trial in the Lancet showing that brentuximab vedotin halved the risk of relapse after autologous transplantation in high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .0013; n = 329). The CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate was so successful that the placebo patients were encouraged to cross over into the treatment group; many of them were salvaged.

As a result, Dr. Perales said, brentuximab vedotin has now become the standard in high-risk Hodgkin patients following a transplant.

The checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) have also been “transformational” in Hodgkin lymphoma, Dr. Perales said. He explained that Hodgkin lymphoma is “exquisitely sensitive” to these therapies because the disease expresses high levels of the binding proteins for these drugs. This allows the immunotherapies to hit both the immune system and the disease.

Most cancers have response rates for checkpoint inhibitors below 40%, according to a recent analysis by Anas Younes, former chief of lymphoma at MSKCC, and his colleague Eri Matsuki, then a visiting fellow. By contrast, in Hodgkin lymphoma response to these drugs is 66%-87%.

Dr. Perales said: “It tells you how effective these drugs are, that we could move from somebody getting MOPP, which is like throwing a nuclear bomb at somebody, to a combination of two drugs that can easily be given out-patient and that have very little, if any, side effects.”
 

The future: No chemo, no transplants?

“One of the holy grails in Hodgkin would be if we could treat patients with the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and brentuximab and what is being termed the ‘chemotherapy-free’ approach to Hodgkin disease,” said Dr. Perales.

What else remains to be done in the world of transplants for Hodgkin lymphoma?

Dr. Perales didn’t hesitate: “To eliminate the need for them. If we can have better targeted therapy up front that cures more patients, then we never even have to consider transplant. Basically, to put me out of work. I’m sure I’ll find other things to do.”

The current treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma “is really what we all consider one of the successes in oncology,” said Dr. Perales. “It’s a beautiful story.”

Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serves on data and safety monitoring boards for Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serves on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.

At 32 years old, the world was at Larry Unger’s feet. He was vice president at one of Wall Street’s most successful investment management firms, selling mutual funds to more than 1,000 brokers across New York. His clients relied on him for good advice, great jokes, and superlative Yankees tickets. His recent memories included fraternity days at Cornell University and a Harvard law degree. His childhood on the Lower East Side was behind him. He had his own apartment and a beautiful girlfriend.

Then his back started hurting, and he was drenched in sweat at night. His physician suggested it was a basketball injury. Weeks of tests followed, and he changed doctors. Mr. Unger met with an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who wouldn’t let him go home after the appointment. The next day brought exploratory surgery and an answer to all the questions.

courtesy of Larry Unger

Mr. Unger was diagnosed with stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma.

Thirty years later, Mr. Unger credited his survival to the late Subhash Gulati, MD, PhD, then MSKCC’s director of stem cell transplantation. He still recalls Dr. Gulati’s words to him: “Radical situations call for radical solutions.” In 1992, that “radical solution” was an autologous bone-marrow transplant.

“Mr. Unger was a patient pioneer,” said Kenneth Offit, MD, another MSKCC oncologist who also cared for him at that time.

To mark the 30th anniversary of Larry’s pioneering transplant, this news organization compared treatments for Hodgkin disease then and now – a revolutionary change that some hematologist/oncologists consider among the great successes in their field.
 

Transplantation for Hodgkin: The early 90s

Hodgkin lymphoma is fairly rare, accounting for just 0.5% of all cancers and 15% of lymphomas. It tends to target young, male adults like Mr. Unger. Today 88% of patients with Hodgkin survive at least 5 years.

When Dr. Gulati offered Mr. Unger his “radical solution” 3 decades ago, the idea of autologous bone marrow transplantation in Hodgkin lymphoma was not new. The first attempt appeared in the literature in the 1950s, but it was still unclear how patients could survive the procedure. It involved destroying the patient’s own immune system prior to the transplant, a huge risk in itself. Worse, the patient was pummeled with chemotherapy and/or radiation to clear out the cancerous bone marrow – a process called “conditioning.”

However, throughout the 1980s, MSKCC had been running clinical trials to perfect the conditioning mix, so by 1992 Dr. Gulati was well-placed to help Mr. Unger.

It is unclear what conditioning Mr. Unger received because his records were not made available. However, around the time that Mr. Unger underwent his transplant, Dr. Gulati and colleagues published the conditioning regimens in use at MSKCC. Patients with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin disease received a conditioning mix of total nodal irradiation (TNI), etoposide (Vepesid) and cyclophosphamide. Patients who had already been through radiotherapy were given carmustine instead of TNI.

In that early publication, Dr. Gulati and the MSKCC team reported 0 “toxic deaths” with the TNI mix, and at the 2-year point 75% of the patients were still alive (n = 28). Patients who had already received radiation treatment did less well, with 55% survival at 2 years, at a cost of 14% toxic deaths (n = 22).
 

Mr. Unger’s experience, 30 years ago

According to Mr. Unger, the initial treatment for his stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma was MOPP (mechlorethamine hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, procarbazine hydrochloride, and prednisone) plus ABVD (doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine).

“They wanted to give me two chemo programs at once because they said I was very sick,” Mr. Unger recalled. “I wound up staying in the hospital quite a bit because every time I got these [treatments] I’d get a fever. This went on for month after month after month. Finally, they said: ‘The tumors are starting to shrink. ... I want you to meet Dr. Gulati.’ ”

Mr. Unger said that Dr. Gulati told him: “There is another procedure called the bone marrow transplant which we’ve been doing. This would be like hitting it with a nuclear weapon. We would really wipe it out and make sure that you never come back.”

The alternative was high-dose radiotherapy. However, Dr. Gulati shared MSKCC’s hard-won knowledge that an autologous transplant was less successful after radiation. Dr. Gulati also told Mr. Unger that surgery was needed before the transplant: a laparotomy to restage his tumors.

After discussing the situation with his father, Mr. Unger decided to undergo the transplant.

The night before treatment started, he was laughing and joking with a friend in his room at MSKCC. The next day, the laughing stopped. The conditioning, he said, “was harrowing beyond belief ... 100 times worse than the chemo.”

Chemotherapy came first, followed 2 days later by radiation, presumably TNI. Mr. Unger experienced constant vomiting, intraocular bleeding and high fevers; the soft tissue of his throat “fell apart,” he said.

“I couldn’t move. It was like being dead,” he said. “Finally, maybe after a month or so, I could finally have a little water.” Mr. Unger said his immune system took 6-8 weeks to recover. He concluded, with heroic understatement, “it was rough.”

The battle against Hodgkin was over, but fallout from the chemotherapy lingered. Although Mr. Unger was able to return to his family and the job he loved, in the following years he was never entirely well. He contracted shingles soon after his transplant, then diabetes within 15 years. A heart attack followed in 2008 then, in 2015, an autoimmune disease that still affects his mobility.

However, Mr. Unger remains grateful: “The fact that we did these cutting-edge techniques with me got me to the point where – although I had some problems afterward, and I have problems now – it gave me well over 30 years of a really great life.”

“There are a lot of good doctors out there,” he added. “Some of them go to extraordinary lengths to help people. I try to do the same with the extra 30 years I’ve been given, try to be nice to people and make people feel good. I don’t really see any other reason to be on earth.”
 

Treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma: 2022

For a comparison of Mr. Unger’s experience with the current approach to Hodgkin lymphoma, this news organization spoke to Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, current chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC. Although Dr. Perales could not comment specifically on Mr. Unger’s case without his records, Dr. Perales was able to review the revolutions in treatment for all patients over the past 30 years.

Courtesy MSKCC

Certainly, physicians no longer need to inflict a laparotomy on patients just to stage the disease, Dr. Perales said. “This sounds barbaric today. Nowadays we have PET scans.”

Another key change, Dr. Perales said, is in the up-front management of the disease.

For example, MOPP “is going back to the prehistory of chemotherapy,” Dr. Perales said. He was not surprised to learn that Mr. Unger later developed complications such as diabetes and heart disease.

“We’ve completely revolutionized the treatment,” Dr. Perales said. “We [now] use combinations that are much less toxic than MOPP, [and] we’re curing more patients up front.” Treatment is tailored by stage and the likelihood of response to therapy. Aggressive approaches are reserved for patients more likely to fail treatment.

Pretransplant conditioning has also changed for the better, with less toxicity and fewer long-term complications. Total body irradiation has “fallen by the wayside,” said Dr. Perales. Instead, patients get BEAM, a combination of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine (Cytosar-U, Ara-C), and melphalan (Alkeran), 1 week before the transplant.

Perhaps the most profound change, which began in the 1990s shortly after Larry’s transplant, was that peripheral-blood stem cells gradually replaced bone marrow for both autologous and allogeneic transplant. In 2022, nearly all autologous transplants use peripheral-blood stem cells.

Instead of onerous bone-marrow aspiration in the operating room, the stem cells are collected from the patient’s blood. First, the patient’s bone marrow is hyperstimulated with high doses of filgrastim (G-CSF, Neupogen, Granix) for several days. Stem cells spill into the patient’s blood. Once blood is collected from the patient, the stem cells are separated and stored ready for the transplant. (In theory, stem cell products are “cancer free”; in practice there may be some contaminating cells, said Dr. Perales.)

Nowadays “transplanting” the stem cells back into the body bears no relation to what happened in 1992. The stem-cell infusion is typically an outpatient procedure, and one-third of patients may never be admitted to the hospital at all.

In contrast to Mr. Unger’s excruciating 8-week hospital stay, immune recovery currently takes 12-14 days, often entirely in the patient’s own home, with the option of extra filgrastim to speed things up.

Despite these profound changes, said Dr. Perales, the real quantum leap has occurred post transplant.

In 2015, a multinational team led by MSKCC’s Dr. Craig Moskowitz published a trial in the Lancet showing that brentuximab vedotin halved the risk of relapse after autologous transplantation in high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .0013; n = 329). The CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate was so successful that the placebo patients were encouraged to cross over into the treatment group; many of them were salvaged.

As a result, Dr. Perales said, brentuximab vedotin has now become the standard in high-risk Hodgkin patients following a transplant.

The checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) have also been “transformational” in Hodgkin lymphoma, Dr. Perales said. He explained that Hodgkin lymphoma is “exquisitely sensitive” to these therapies because the disease expresses high levels of the binding proteins for these drugs. This allows the immunotherapies to hit both the immune system and the disease.

Most cancers have response rates for checkpoint inhibitors below 40%, according to a recent analysis by Anas Younes, former chief of lymphoma at MSKCC, and his colleague Eri Matsuki, then a visiting fellow. By contrast, in Hodgkin lymphoma response to these drugs is 66%-87%.

Dr. Perales said: “It tells you how effective these drugs are, that we could move from somebody getting MOPP, which is like throwing a nuclear bomb at somebody, to a combination of two drugs that can easily be given out-patient and that have very little, if any, side effects.”
 

The future: No chemo, no transplants?

“One of the holy grails in Hodgkin would be if we could treat patients with the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and brentuximab and what is being termed the ‘chemotherapy-free’ approach to Hodgkin disease,” said Dr. Perales.

What else remains to be done in the world of transplants for Hodgkin lymphoma?

Dr. Perales didn’t hesitate: “To eliminate the need for them. If we can have better targeted therapy up front that cures more patients, then we never even have to consider transplant. Basically, to put me out of work. I’m sure I’ll find other things to do.”

The current treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma “is really what we all consider one of the successes in oncology,” said Dr. Perales. “It’s a beautiful story.”

Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serves on data and safety monitoring boards for Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serves on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Patients who have a rare subtype of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) with isolated Hodgkin/Reed–Sternberg-like cells (CLL-HRS) may benefit from Hodgkin-directed therapy, based on data from 46 individuals.

Those patients who progress to classic Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) from CLL/SLL are generally diagnosed based on straightforward pathology and treated with HRS cells in the same way as patients with de novo CHL, wrote lead author Dr. Rebecca L. King, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

However, in a small subset of patients, HRS cells occur in a background of CLL/SLL, in a condition known as CLL-HRS, and these patients do not progress to overt CHL, the researchers wrote.

Given the rarity of CLL-HRS, data on patient management are limited, they noted.

In a retrospective study published in Blood Cancer Journal, researchers reviewed outcome data from 15 adults with CLL-HRS and 31 adults with CLL/SLL who had overtly transformed to CLL-HL. The median age of the participants at the time of CLL-HL or CLL-HRS transformation diagnosis was 72 years; 71% and 87% of the CLL-HL and CLL-HRS patients, respectively, were male.

The median times from CLL to CLL-HL transformation and from CLL to CLL-HRS transformation were 6.6 years and 4.9 years, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant. The phenotypic features of Reed-Sternberg cells and Epstein-Barr virus status were similar in both patient groups. Two patients had biopsies in which both CLL-HRS and CLL-HL were present in the same tissue at initial diagnosis; they were included in the CLL-HL group for clinical analysis and in both groups for pathology analysis.

The median overall survival of CLL-HRS patients was 17.5 months, compared with 33.5 months for CLL-HL patients (P = .24), a nonsignificant difference. However, patients with CLL-HRS who received Hodgkin-directed therapy had a significantly longer median overall survival, compared with those who received CLL-directed therapy (57 months vs. 8.4 months, P = .02).

CLL-directed therapy included rituximab with or without corticosteroids, chemoimmunotherapy, or acalabrutinib; HL-directed therapy included doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine–based treatment; radiotherapy; or BCVPP (carmustine, cyclophosphamide, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone).

Histopathology findings showed that CLL-HL patients had a background of mixed inflammation that was distinct from findings in CLL/SLL. CLL-HRS patients had a minimal inflammatory background, compared with CLL-HL cases, but researchers identified rosetting of T cells around the HRS cells in 56% of these patients.

“Our findings suggest that, clinically and pathologically, these patients show a spectrum of findings, and these two entities likely exist on a biologic continuum. Furthermore, our findings suggest that CLL-HRS patients managed with Hodgkin-directed therapy, rather than CLL-directed therapy, may have superior outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the use of data from a single center. Therefore, the results should be validated in other cohorts, the researchers noted. In addition, the study participants were diagnosed over three decades, and management of the condition has significantly improved.

However, the results were strengthened by a review of data by three pathologists who were blinded to the clinical outcomes, they said.

“These findings have important implications for a scenario in which clinical guidelines are lacking and suggest that hematologists treating patients with CLL-HRS should consider HL-directed therapy,” the researchers concluded.

In an interview, Jennifer A. Woyach, MD, a hematologist at Ohio State University, Columbus, commented on the study findings: “Hodgkin transformation and CLL with Hodgkin-like cells likely represent a biologic continuum, and care should be taken to obtain adequate biopsies, so that the diagnosis of Hodgkin transformation can be made when appropriate.”

“Interestingly, the authors noted a trend toward improved survival when CLL with Hodgkin-like cells was treated with standard Hodgkin regimens,” said Dr. Woyach. “With the small patient numbers, this certainly cannot be a general recommendation, but should be considered by treating physicians on a case-by-case basis.”

“While we know that patients with Hodgkin transformation can in many cases be successfully treated with standard Hodgkin regimen, the natural history and optimal treatment for CLL with Hodgkin-like cells have been unknown. This analysis helps understand the biologic difference between these two clinicopathologic entities to understand how to better treat patients,” she noted. Going forward, “it would be extremely helpful to see these data validated by other centers to be sure that these results are reproducible,” Dr. Woyach added.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and by the Henry J. Predolin Foundation. Lead author Dr. King disclosed research support to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene. Dr. Woyach had no financial disclosures relevant to this study, but she has received laboratory research funding from Schrodinger and has consulted for AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Beigene, Loxo, and Newave.
 

This article was updated 3/11/22.

Patients who have a rare subtype of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) with isolated Hodgkin/Reed–Sternberg-like cells (CLL-HRS) may benefit from Hodgkin-directed therapy, based on data from 46 individuals.

Those patients who progress to classic Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) from CLL/SLL are generally diagnosed based on straightforward pathology and treated with HRS cells in the same way as patients with de novo CHL, wrote lead author Dr. Rebecca L. King, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

However, in a small subset of patients, HRS cells occur in a background of CLL/SLL, in a condition known as CLL-HRS, and these patients do not progress to overt CHL, the researchers wrote.

Given the rarity of CLL-HRS, data on patient management are limited, they noted.

In a retrospective study published in Blood Cancer Journal, researchers reviewed outcome data from 15 adults with CLL-HRS and 31 adults with CLL/SLL who had overtly transformed to CLL-HL. The median age of the participants at the time of CLL-HL or CLL-HRS transformation diagnosis was 72 years; 71% and 87% of the CLL-HL and CLL-HRS patients, respectively, were male.

The median times from CLL to CLL-HL transformation and from CLL to CLL-HRS transformation were 6.6 years and 4.9 years, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant. The phenotypic features of Reed-Sternberg cells and Epstein-Barr virus status were similar in both patient groups. Two patients had biopsies in which both CLL-HRS and CLL-HL were present in the same tissue at initial diagnosis; they were included in the CLL-HL group for clinical analysis and in both groups for pathology analysis.

The median overall survival of CLL-HRS patients was 17.5 months, compared with 33.5 months for CLL-HL patients (P = .24), a nonsignificant difference. However, patients with CLL-HRS who received Hodgkin-directed therapy had a significantly longer median overall survival, compared with those who received CLL-directed therapy (57 months vs. 8.4 months, P = .02).

CLL-directed therapy included rituximab with or without corticosteroids, chemoimmunotherapy, or acalabrutinib; HL-directed therapy included doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine–based treatment; radiotherapy; or BCVPP (carmustine, cyclophosphamide, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone).

Histopathology findings showed that CLL-HL patients had a background of mixed inflammation that was distinct from findings in CLL/SLL. CLL-HRS patients had a minimal inflammatory background, compared with CLL-HL cases, but researchers identified rosetting of T cells around the HRS cells in 56% of these patients.

“Our findings suggest that, clinically and pathologically, these patients show a spectrum of findings, and these two entities likely exist on a biologic continuum. Furthermore, our findings suggest that CLL-HRS patients managed with Hodgkin-directed therapy, rather than CLL-directed therapy, may have superior outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the use of data from a single center. Therefore, the results should be validated in other cohorts, the researchers noted. In addition, the study participants were diagnosed over three decades, and management of the condition has significantly improved.

However, the results were strengthened by a review of data by three pathologists who were blinded to the clinical outcomes, they said.

“These findings have important implications for a scenario in which clinical guidelines are lacking and suggest that hematologists treating patients with CLL-HRS should consider HL-directed therapy,” the researchers concluded.

In an interview, Jennifer A. Woyach, MD, a hematologist at Ohio State University, Columbus, commented on the study findings: “Hodgkin transformation and CLL with Hodgkin-like cells likely represent a biologic continuum, and care should be taken to obtain adequate biopsies, so that the diagnosis of Hodgkin transformation can be made when appropriate.”

“Interestingly, the authors noted a trend toward improved survival when CLL with Hodgkin-like cells was treated with standard Hodgkin regimens,” said Dr. Woyach. “With the small patient numbers, this certainly cannot be a general recommendation, but should be considered by treating physicians on a case-by-case basis.”

“While we know that patients with Hodgkin transformation can in many cases be successfully treated with standard Hodgkin regimen, the natural history and optimal treatment for CLL with Hodgkin-like cells have been unknown. This analysis helps understand the biologic difference between these two clinicopathologic entities to understand how to better treat patients,” she noted. Going forward, “it would be extremely helpful to see these data validated by other centers to be sure that these results are reproducible,” Dr. Woyach added.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and by the Henry J. Predolin Foundation. Lead author Dr. King disclosed research support to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene. Dr. Woyach had no financial disclosures relevant to this study, but she has received laboratory research funding from Schrodinger and has consulted for AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Beigene, Loxo, and Newave.
 

This article was updated 3/11/22.

Patients who have a rare subtype of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) with isolated Hodgkin/Reed–Sternberg-like cells (CLL-HRS) may benefit from Hodgkin-directed therapy, based on data from 46 individuals.

Those patients who progress to classic Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) from CLL/SLL are generally diagnosed based on straightforward pathology and treated with HRS cells in the same way as patients with de novo CHL, wrote lead author Dr. Rebecca L. King, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

However, in a small subset of patients, HRS cells occur in a background of CLL/SLL, in a condition known as CLL-HRS, and these patients do not progress to overt CHL, the researchers wrote.

Given the rarity of CLL-HRS, data on patient management are limited, they noted.

In a retrospective study published in Blood Cancer Journal, researchers reviewed outcome data from 15 adults with CLL-HRS and 31 adults with CLL/SLL who had overtly transformed to CLL-HL. The median age of the participants at the time of CLL-HL or CLL-HRS transformation diagnosis was 72 years; 71% and 87% of the CLL-HL and CLL-HRS patients, respectively, were male.

The median times from CLL to CLL-HL transformation and from CLL to CLL-HRS transformation were 6.6 years and 4.9 years, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant. The phenotypic features of Reed-Sternberg cells and Epstein-Barr virus status were similar in both patient groups. Two patients had biopsies in which both CLL-HRS and CLL-HL were present in the same tissue at initial diagnosis; they were included in the CLL-HL group for clinical analysis and in both groups for pathology analysis.

The median overall survival of CLL-HRS patients was 17.5 months, compared with 33.5 months for CLL-HL patients (P = .24), a nonsignificant difference. However, patients with CLL-HRS who received Hodgkin-directed therapy had a significantly longer median overall survival, compared with those who received CLL-directed therapy (57 months vs. 8.4 months, P = .02).

CLL-directed therapy included rituximab with or without corticosteroids, chemoimmunotherapy, or acalabrutinib; HL-directed therapy included doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine–based treatment; radiotherapy; or BCVPP (carmustine, cyclophosphamide, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone).

Histopathology findings showed that CLL-HL patients had a background of mixed inflammation that was distinct from findings in CLL/SLL. CLL-HRS patients had a minimal inflammatory background, compared with CLL-HL cases, but researchers identified rosetting of T cells around the HRS cells in 56% of these patients.

“Our findings suggest that, clinically and pathologically, these patients show a spectrum of findings, and these two entities likely exist on a biologic continuum. Furthermore, our findings suggest that CLL-HRS patients managed with Hodgkin-directed therapy, rather than CLL-directed therapy, may have superior outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the use of data from a single center. Therefore, the results should be validated in other cohorts, the researchers noted. In addition, the study participants were diagnosed over three decades, and management of the condition has significantly improved.

However, the results were strengthened by a review of data by three pathologists who were blinded to the clinical outcomes, they said.

“These findings have important implications for a scenario in which clinical guidelines are lacking and suggest that hematologists treating patients with CLL-HRS should consider HL-directed therapy,” the researchers concluded.

In an interview, Jennifer A. Woyach, MD, a hematologist at Ohio State University, Columbus, commented on the study findings: “Hodgkin transformation and CLL with Hodgkin-like cells likely represent a biologic continuum, and care should be taken to obtain adequate biopsies, so that the diagnosis of Hodgkin transformation can be made when appropriate.”

“Interestingly, the authors noted a trend toward improved survival when CLL with Hodgkin-like cells was treated with standard Hodgkin regimens,” said Dr. Woyach. “With the small patient numbers, this certainly cannot be a general recommendation, but should be considered by treating physicians on a case-by-case basis.”

“While we know that patients with Hodgkin transformation can in many cases be successfully treated with standard Hodgkin regimen, the natural history and optimal treatment for CLL with Hodgkin-like cells have been unknown. This analysis helps understand the biologic difference between these two clinicopathologic entities to understand how to better treat patients,” she noted. Going forward, “it would be extremely helpful to see these data validated by other centers to be sure that these results are reproducible,” Dr. Woyach added.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and by the Henry J. Predolin Foundation. Lead author Dr. King disclosed research support to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene. Dr. Woyach had no financial disclosures relevant to this study, but she has received laboratory research funding from Schrodinger and has consulted for AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Beigene, Loxo, and Newave.
 

This article was updated 3/11/22.

When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.

“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.

Courtesy DKMS.org

In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.

“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.

Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).

In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”

From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.

Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
 

World’s largest registry

“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,

In 2022, DKMS is the largest global bone marrow donor recruitment organization, with more than 10.6 million potential donors registered. Worldwide, more than 91,000 patients have received bone marrow or stem cell grafts donated by registered volunteers.

Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.

Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
 

Global partners

DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.

“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.

The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
 

Pandemic affects donations

But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.

Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.

“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.

However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.

“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
 

Workforce and clinical problems

Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.

“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.

Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.

“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.

In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.

“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.

To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.

The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
 

‘Every patient saved’

The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.

DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.

In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.

The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.

“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”

“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.

Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.

When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.

“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.

Courtesy DKMS.org

In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.

“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.

Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).

In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”

From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.

Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
 

World’s largest registry

“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,

In 2022, DKMS is the largest global bone marrow donor recruitment organization, with more than 10.6 million potential donors registered. Worldwide, more than 91,000 patients have received bone marrow or stem cell grafts donated by registered volunteers.

Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.

Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
 

Global partners

DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.

“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.

The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
 

Pandemic affects donations

But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.

Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.

“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.

However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.

“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
 

Workforce and clinical problems

Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.

“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.

Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.

“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.

In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.

“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.

To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.

The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
 

‘Every patient saved’

The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.

DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.

In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.

The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.

“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”

“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.

Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.

When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.

“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.

Courtesy DKMS.org

In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.

“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.

Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).

In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”

From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.

Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
 

World’s largest registry

“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,

In 2022, DKMS is the largest global bone marrow donor recruitment organization, with more than 10.6 million potential donors registered. Worldwide, more than 91,000 patients have received bone marrow or stem cell grafts donated by registered volunteers.

Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.

Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
 

Global partners

DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.

“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.

The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
 

Pandemic affects donations

But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.

Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.

“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.

However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.

“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
 

Workforce and clinical problems

Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.

“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.

Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.

“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.

In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.

“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.

To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.

The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
 

‘Every patient saved’

The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.

DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.

In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.

The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.

“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”

“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.

Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.

A frontline treatment regimen including brentuximab vedotin (Bv) was well tolerated, was highly effective, and significantly reduced radiation exposure in pediatric patients with high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma, according to the results of an open-label, phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

Of 77 patients enrolled in the investigator-initiated, single-arm, multicenter trial, 27 (35%) achieved complete remission (CR) without radiation at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy, reported Monika L. Metzger, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn. and colleagues. The report was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The addition of Bv also resulted in superior event-free survival (97.4%) and overall survival (98.7%) at median follow-up of 3.4 years, compared with previously published pediatric trials, such as the HOD99 trial (EFS and OS of 80.8% and 96.5%, respectively), the authors noted.

Bv chemotherapy

Bv, a targeted anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, received expanded Food and Drug Administration approval in March 2018 for frontline use in combination with chemotherapy in adults with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The current study is the first to include Bv as part of a chemotherapy regimen in the frontline setting for pediatric classical HL, the authors noted, adding that their primary aim was to reduce prescribed radiation thereby limiting late toxicities associated with radiation in this population.

Patients enrolled were children and adolescents aged 18 years and under with stage IIB, IIIB, or IV classical HL. Bv was used in place of vincristine in the standard OEPA/COPDac (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and dacarbazine) frontline regimen for pediatric HL.

The Bv-based chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and mostly limited to low-grade nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and the most common adverse events were hematologic events occurring mainly during the first two cycles of chemotherapy.

“Notably, we observed a very low incidence of neuropathy (4%) by both clinician and patient report, and no participants required Bv dose reduction or discontinuation,” they wrote, explaining that neuropathy is more common with vincristine.

Radiation exposure

Residual node radiotherapy (RNRT) was delivered at a prescribed dose of 25.5 Gy in 17 fractions of 1.5 Gy, 2-4 weeks after completion of chemotherapy only to nodal sites that did not achieve a CR at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy.

“Patients treated with RNRT had significantly lower integral radiation dose compared with patients treated on HOD99 with [involved-field radiation therapy] (78.1 J vs. 249.6 J),” the authors wrote. “Doses to specific organs were also compared ... [t]he mean heart dose was reduced to 5.29 Gy from 16.9 Gy, and the mean thyroid dose was reduced to 4.46 Gy from 25.9 Gy.”

Women also had significantly less breast radiation exposure (mean of 3.21 Gy vs. 6.85 Gy in HOD99).

One irradiated patient experienced disease progression at the end of therapy, but remained disease free more than 6 years following salvage therapy, and one unexpected death occurred, the authors said.

“We have already reduced the use of radiation for low-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients. In this study we’ve shown that it is also possible to either omit or reduce the extent of radiation for high-risk patients, using highly focal methods such as proton beam radiation or intensity modulated radiation,” co–senior author Matthew Krasin, MD, of St. Jude’s department of radiation oncology, stated in a press release.
 

Next steps

Co–senior author Melissa Hudson, MD, the St. Jude cancer survivorship division director, added that “[b]eing able to offer Hodgkin lymphoma patients a targeted therapy in the frontline setting is an exciting development.

“The favorable safety and toxicity profile of Bv in combination with chemotherapy for high-risk pediatric patients supports its prospective evaluation in a randomized trial,” the authors concluded, noting that “[l]onger follow-up is required to establish if this approach reduces risk of late-occurring toxicities such as second malignant neoplasms in this cohort of minimally irradiated patients.”

The study was sponsored by Seattle Genetics. The research at St. Jude was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC (American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities), St. Jude’s fundraising and awareness organization. Dr. Metzger reported research funding from Seattle Genetics. Dr. Krasin reported a consulting or advisory role for Debiopharm Group. Dr. Hudson reported a consulting or advisory role for Oncology Research Information Exchange Network, Princess Máxima Center.

[email protected]

A frontline treatment regimen including brentuximab vedotin (Bv) was well tolerated, was highly effective, and significantly reduced radiation exposure in pediatric patients with high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma, according to the results of an open-label, phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

Of 77 patients enrolled in the investigator-initiated, single-arm, multicenter trial, 27 (35%) achieved complete remission (CR) without radiation at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy, reported Monika L. Metzger, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn. and colleagues. The report was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The addition of Bv also resulted in superior event-free survival (97.4%) and overall survival (98.7%) at median follow-up of 3.4 years, compared with previously published pediatric trials, such as the HOD99 trial (EFS and OS of 80.8% and 96.5%, respectively), the authors noted.

Bv chemotherapy

Bv, a targeted anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, received expanded Food and Drug Administration approval in March 2018 for frontline use in combination with chemotherapy in adults with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The current study is the first to include Bv as part of a chemotherapy regimen in the frontline setting for pediatric classical HL, the authors noted, adding that their primary aim was to reduce prescribed radiation thereby limiting late toxicities associated with radiation in this population.

Patients enrolled were children and adolescents aged 18 years and under with stage IIB, IIIB, or IV classical HL. Bv was used in place of vincristine in the standard OEPA/COPDac (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and dacarbazine) frontline regimen for pediatric HL.

The Bv-based chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and mostly limited to low-grade nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and the most common adverse events were hematologic events occurring mainly during the first two cycles of chemotherapy.

“Notably, we observed a very low incidence of neuropathy (4%) by both clinician and patient report, and no participants required Bv dose reduction or discontinuation,” they wrote, explaining that neuropathy is more common with vincristine.

Radiation exposure

Residual node radiotherapy (RNRT) was delivered at a prescribed dose of 25.5 Gy in 17 fractions of 1.5 Gy, 2-4 weeks after completion of chemotherapy only to nodal sites that did not achieve a CR at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy.

“Patients treated with RNRT had significantly lower integral radiation dose compared with patients treated on HOD99 with [involved-field radiation therapy] (78.1 J vs. 249.6 J),” the authors wrote. “Doses to specific organs were also compared ... [t]he mean heart dose was reduced to 5.29 Gy from 16.9 Gy, and the mean thyroid dose was reduced to 4.46 Gy from 25.9 Gy.”

Women also had significantly less breast radiation exposure (mean of 3.21 Gy vs. 6.85 Gy in HOD99).

One irradiated patient experienced disease progression at the end of therapy, but remained disease free more than 6 years following salvage therapy, and one unexpected death occurred, the authors said.

“We have already reduced the use of radiation for low-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients. In this study we’ve shown that it is also possible to either omit or reduce the extent of radiation for high-risk patients, using highly focal methods such as proton beam radiation or intensity modulated radiation,” co–senior author Matthew Krasin, MD, of St. Jude’s department of radiation oncology, stated in a press release.
 

Next steps

Co–senior author Melissa Hudson, MD, the St. Jude cancer survivorship division director, added that “[b]eing able to offer Hodgkin lymphoma patients a targeted therapy in the frontline setting is an exciting development.

“The favorable safety and toxicity profile of Bv in combination with chemotherapy for high-risk pediatric patients supports its prospective evaluation in a randomized trial,” the authors concluded, noting that “[l]onger follow-up is required to establish if this approach reduces risk of late-occurring toxicities such as second malignant neoplasms in this cohort of minimally irradiated patients.”

The study was sponsored by Seattle Genetics. The research at St. Jude was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC (American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities), St. Jude’s fundraising and awareness organization. Dr. Metzger reported research funding from Seattle Genetics. Dr. Krasin reported a consulting or advisory role for Debiopharm Group. Dr. Hudson reported a consulting or advisory role for Oncology Research Information Exchange Network, Princess Máxima Center.

[email protected]

A frontline treatment regimen including brentuximab vedotin (Bv) was well tolerated, was highly effective, and significantly reduced radiation exposure in pediatric patients with high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma, according to the results of an open-label, phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

Of 77 patients enrolled in the investigator-initiated, single-arm, multicenter trial, 27 (35%) achieved complete remission (CR) without radiation at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy, reported Monika L. Metzger, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn. and colleagues. The report was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The addition of Bv also resulted in superior event-free survival (97.4%) and overall survival (98.7%) at median follow-up of 3.4 years, compared with previously published pediatric trials, such as the HOD99 trial (EFS and OS of 80.8% and 96.5%, respectively), the authors noted.

Bv chemotherapy

Bv, a targeted anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, received expanded Food and Drug Administration approval in March 2018 for frontline use in combination with chemotherapy in adults with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The current study is the first to include Bv as part of a chemotherapy regimen in the frontline setting for pediatric classical HL, the authors noted, adding that their primary aim was to reduce prescribed radiation thereby limiting late toxicities associated with radiation in this population.

Patients enrolled were children and adolescents aged 18 years and under with stage IIB, IIIB, or IV classical HL. Bv was used in place of vincristine in the standard OEPA/COPDac (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and dacarbazine) frontline regimen for pediatric HL.

The Bv-based chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and mostly limited to low-grade nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and the most common adverse events were hematologic events occurring mainly during the first two cycles of chemotherapy.

“Notably, we observed a very low incidence of neuropathy (4%) by both clinician and patient report, and no participants required Bv dose reduction or discontinuation,” they wrote, explaining that neuropathy is more common with vincristine.

Radiation exposure

Residual node radiotherapy (RNRT) was delivered at a prescribed dose of 25.5 Gy in 17 fractions of 1.5 Gy, 2-4 weeks after completion of chemotherapy only to nodal sites that did not achieve a CR at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy.

“Patients treated with RNRT had significantly lower integral radiation dose compared with patients treated on HOD99 with [involved-field radiation therapy] (78.1 J vs. 249.6 J),” the authors wrote. “Doses to specific organs were also compared ... [t]he mean heart dose was reduced to 5.29 Gy from 16.9 Gy, and the mean thyroid dose was reduced to 4.46 Gy from 25.9 Gy.”

Women also had significantly less breast radiation exposure (mean of 3.21 Gy vs. 6.85 Gy in HOD99).

One irradiated patient experienced disease progression at the end of therapy, but remained disease free more than 6 years following salvage therapy, and one unexpected death occurred, the authors said.

“We have already reduced the use of radiation for low-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients. In this study we’ve shown that it is also possible to either omit or reduce the extent of radiation for high-risk patients, using highly focal methods such as proton beam radiation or intensity modulated radiation,” co–senior author Matthew Krasin, MD, of St. Jude’s department of radiation oncology, stated in a press release.
 

Next steps

Co–senior author Melissa Hudson, MD, the St. Jude cancer survivorship division director, added that “[b]eing able to offer Hodgkin lymphoma patients a targeted therapy in the frontline setting is an exciting development.

“The favorable safety and toxicity profile of Bv in combination with chemotherapy for high-risk pediatric patients supports its prospective evaluation in a randomized trial,” the authors concluded, noting that “[l]onger follow-up is required to establish if this approach reduces risk of late-occurring toxicities such as second malignant neoplasms in this cohort of minimally irradiated patients.”

The study was sponsored by Seattle Genetics. The research at St. Jude was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC (American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities), St. Jude’s fundraising and awareness organization. Dr. Metzger reported research funding from Seattle Genetics. Dr. Krasin reported a consulting or advisory role for Debiopharm Group. Dr. Hudson reported a consulting or advisory role for Oncology Research Information Exchange Network, Princess Máxima Center.

[email protected]