Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

ORLANDO – The choice of first-line therapy in symptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients depends largely on comorbidity burden, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“This is a disease of elderly patients. Frequently they have comorbidities,” he said. Categorizing these patients as having a low or high comorbidity burden can be done with the Cumulative Index Rating Scale score, which involves scoring of all organ systems on a 0-5 scale representing “not affected” to “extremely disabled.”

“We use this to determine first-line therapy,” said Dr. Zelenetz of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Zelenetz is chair of the NCCN Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Guidelines panel.

Treatment options for ‘go-go’ CLL patients

Among the treatment options for the latter is FCR–the combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, which was shown in the phase III CLL10 trial of patients with advanced CLL to be associated with improved complete response rates compared with the popular regimen of bendamustine and rituximab (BR), both overall and in patients under age 65. In older patients, the advantage disappeared, Dr. Zelenetz said.

FCR was also associated with improved outcomes vs. BR in patients with del(11q).

The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival, which favored FCR (median of 55.2 vs. 41.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.643), he said, noting that no difference was seen between the two regimens in terms of overall survival.

In a recent publication, MD Anderson Cancer Center reported its experience with its first 300 CLL patients treated with FCR. With long-term follow-up of at least 9-10 years (median of 12.8 years), patients in this trial have done extremely well.

“But interestingly, when you stratify these patients by whether they have IGHV [immunoglobulin heavy chain variable] mutated or unmutated [disease], the IGHV mutated patients have something that looks a whole lot like a survival plateau, and that survival plateau is not trivial – it’s about 60%,” he said. “So there is a group of patients with CLL who are, in fact, curable with conventional chemoimmunotherapy.

“This is an appropriate treatment for a young, fit, ‘go-go’ patient, and it has a big implication,” he said. That is, patients who are young and fit require IGHV mutation testing, as “you will absolutely choose FCR chemotherapy for the fit, young patients who has IGHV mutated disease.

“In that setting IGHV testing is now mandatory,” he stressed, noting that the benefits in this population extend to overall survival as well as progression-free survival.

Dr. Zelenetz also emphasized the need for increasing the single dose of rituximab from 375 mg/m² during cycle 1 to 500 mg/m² during cycles 2-6 in those receiving FCR, as this is often forgotten.

The data demonstrating the efficacy of FCR were based on this approach, he said.

Fludarabine is to be given at a dose of 25 mg/m², and cyclophosphamide at a dose of 250 mg/m² – both for 2-4 days during cycle 1 and for 1-3 days during cycles 2-6.

Treatment options for ‘slow-go’ CLL patients

In “slow-go” patients, an interesting approach is to use new anti-CD20 antibodies such as ofatumumab and obinutuzumab, which have features that are distinct from rituximab.

Both have been studied in CLL. The CLL11 trial compared chlorambucil, rituximab+chlorambucil, and obinutuzumab+chlorambucil, and the latest analysis showed substantial improvement in progression-free survival with obinutuzumab+chlorambucil vs. the other two regimens (26.7 months vs. 11.1 and 16.3 months, respectively), Dr. Zelenetz said, noting that rituximab+chlorambucil was also superior to chlorambucil alone, but that only the obinutuzumab regimen had an overall survival advantage vs. chlorambucil alone.

An updated analysis to be reported soon will show emerging evidence of a survival advantage of obinutuzumab+chlorambucil vs. rituximab+chlorambucil, he said.

“This suggests that obinutuzumab is a far better antibody,” he added, noting that the reasons for that are under debate, “but the way it’s given, it works better in CLL, and that, I think is unequivocal.”

A similar study looking at chlorambucil with and without ofatumumab in “slow-go” patients also demonstrated an improvement in PFS with ofatumumab, but showed “no difference whatsoever in overall survival.”

“This is actually very similar to the rituximab result, and I actually call this the ‘death of ofatumumab’ study, because clearly obinutuzumab in CLL is, I think, a superior anti-CD20 antibody,” Dr. Zelenetz said.

Studies in which obinutuzumab is substituted for rituximab in the FCR combination are currently underway as are a number of other studies of obinutuzumab, he noted.

Another treatment option in the up-front setting is ibrutinib, which was shown to be effective in the RESONATE 2 trial .

“But notice, a very, very small [complete response rate]. CRs are very difficult to achieve with ibrutinib alone, so this drug is given continuously, lifelong,” Dr. Zelenetz said, noting that it was, however, associated with an overall survival advantage vs. chlorambucil.

“Should this be the standard of care? I think it is in patients who have del(17p) or mutation of TP53. Outside of that setting, I’m still concerned about the cost of long-term tolerability of the agent,” he said.

Future of first-line CLL treatment

Avoidance of long-term therapy and conventional chemotherapy in patients with CLL is a goal, he added, noting that new understanding from studies in patients in the relapsed/refractory CLL setting – such as recent findings from a phase Ib study of venetoclax plus rituximab, which demonstrated potentially durable responses after treatment discontinuation in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative patients – are providing insights into achieving MRD negativity that could be applied in the front line treatment setting.

“We’re still trying to figure out how to best use this. We want to try to use some of this knowledge about achievement of MRD negativity in the up-front setting so we don’t have to give patients long-term therapy, and we would like to avoid conventional chemotherapy,” he said. “So I’m hoping we’re going to be able to replace chronic long-term therapy of CLL with a defined course of treatment with high levels of MRD negativity.”

Dr. Zelenetz reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and/or grant/research support from Acerta Pharma, Amgen Inc., BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, MEI Pharma, NanoString Technologies, Pharmacyclics, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Roche Laboratories, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – The choice of first-line therapy in symptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients depends largely on comorbidity burden, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“This is a disease of elderly patients. Frequently they have comorbidities,” he said. Categorizing these patients as having a low or high comorbidity burden can be done with the Cumulative Index Rating Scale score, which involves scoring of all organ systems on a 0-5 scale representing “not affected” to “extremely disabled.”

“We use this to determine first-line therapy,” said Dr. Zelenetz of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Zelenetz is chair of the NCCN Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Guidelines panel.

Treatment options for ‘go-go’ CLL patients

Among the treatment options for the latter is FCR–the combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, which was shown in the phase III CLL10 trial of patients with advanced CLL to be associated with improved complete response rates compared with the popular regimen of bendamustine and rituximab (BR), both overall and in patients under age 65. In older patients, the advantage disappeared, Dr. Zelenetz said.

FCR was also associated with improved outcomes vs. BR in patients with del(11q).

The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival, which favored FCR (median of 55.2 vs. 41.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.643), he said, noting that no difference was seen between the two regimens in terms of overall survival.

In a recent publication, MD Anderson Cancer Center reported its experience with its first 300 CLL patients treated with FCR. With long-term follow-up of at least 9-10 years (median of 12.8 years), patients in this trial have done extremely well.

“But interestingly, when you stratify these patients by whether they have IGHV [immunoglobulin heavy chain variable] mutated or unmutated [disease], the IGHV mutated patients have something that looks a whole lot like a survival plateau, and that survival plateau is not trivial – it’s about 60%,” he said. “So there is a group of patients with CLL who are, in fact, curable with conventional chemoimmunotherapy.

“This is an appropriate treatment for a young, fit, ‘go-go’ patient, and it has a big implication,” he said. That is, patients who are young and fit require IGHV mutation testing, as “you will absolutely choose FCR chemotherapy for the fit, young patients who has IGHV mutated disease.

“In that setting IGHV testing is now mandatory,” he stressed, noting that the benefits in this population extend to overall survival as well as progression-free survival.

Dr. Zelenetz also emphasized the need for increasing the single dose of rituximab from 375 mg/m² during cycle 1 to 500 mg/m² during cycles 2-6 in those receiving FCR, as this is often forgotten.

The data demonstrating the efficacy of FCR were based on this approach, he said.

Fludarabine is to be given at a dose of 25 mg/m², and cyclophosphamide at a dose of 250 mg/m² – both for 2-4 days during cycle 1 and for 1-3 days during cycles 2-6.

Treatment options for ‘slow-go’ CLL patients

In “slow-go” patients, an interesting approach is to use new anti-CD20 antibodies such as ofatumumab and obinutuzumab, which have features that are distinct from rituximab.

Both have been studied in CLL. The CLL11 trial compared chlorambucil, rituximab+chlorambucil, and obinutuzumab+chlorambucil, and the latest analysis showed substantial improvement in progression-free survival with obinutuzumab+chlorambucil vs. the other two regimens (26.7 months vs. 11.1 and 16.3 months, respectively), Dr. Zelenetz said, noting that rituximab+chlorambucil was also superior to chlorambucil alone, but that only the obinutuzumab regimen had an overall survival advantage vs. chlorambucil alone.

An updated analysis to be reported soon will show emerging evidence of a survival advantage of obinutuzumab+chlorambucil vs. rituximab+chlorambucil, he said.

“This suggests that obinutuzumab is a far better antibody,” he added, noting that the reasons for that are under debate, “but the way it’s given, it works better in CLL, and that, I think is unequivocal.”

A similar study looking at chlorambucil with and without ofatumumab in “slow-go” patients also demonstrated an improvement in PFS with ofatumumab, but showed “no difference whatsoever in overall survival.”

“This is actually very similar to the rituximab result, and I actually call this the ‘death of ofatumumab’ study, because clearly obinutuzumab in CLL is, I think, a superior anti-CD20 antibody,” Dr. Zelenetz said.

Studies in which obinutuzumab is substituted for rituximab in the FCR combination are currently underway as are a number of other studies of obinutuzumab, he noted.

Another treatment option in the up-front setting is ibrutinib, which was shown to be effective in the RESONATE 2 trial .

“But notice, a very, very small [complete response rate]. CRs are very difficult to achieve with ibrutinib alone, so this drug is given continuously, lifelong,” Dr. Zelenetz said, noting that it was, however, associated with an overall survival advantage vs. chlorambucil.

“Should this be the standard of care? I think it is in patients who have del(17p) or mutation of TP53. Outside of that setting, I’m still concerned about the cost of long-term tolerability of the agent,” he said.

Future of first-line CLL treatment

Avoidance of long-term therapy and conventional chemotherapy in patients with CLL is a goal, he added, noting that new understanding from studies in patients in the relapsed/refractory CLL setting – such as recent findings from a phase Ib study of venetoclax plus rituximab, which demonstrated potentially durable responses after treatment discontinuation in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative patients – are providing insights into achieving MRD negativity that could be applied in the front line treatment setting.

“We’re still trying to figure out how to best use this. We want to try to use some of this knowledge about achievement of MRD negativity in the up-front setting so we don’t have to give patients long-term therapy, and we would like to avoid conventional chemotherapy,” he said. “So I’m hoping we’re going to be able to replace chronic long-term therapy of CLL with a defined course of treatment with high levels of MRD negativity.”

Dr. Zelenetz reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and/or grant/research support from Acerta Pharma, Amgen Inc., BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, MEI Pharma, NanoString Technologies, Pharmacyclics, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Roche Laboratories, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – The choice of first-line therapy in symptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients depends largely on comorbidity burden, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“This is a disease of elderly patients. Frequently they have comorbidities,” he said. Categorizing these patients as having a low or high comorbidity burden can be done with the Cumulative Index Rating Scale score, which involves scoring of all organ systems on a 0-5 scale representing “not affected” to “extremely disabled.”

“We use this to determine first-line therapy,” said Dr. Zelenetz of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Zelenetz is chair of the NCCN Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Guidelines panel.

Treatment options for ‘go-go’ CLL patients

Among the treatment options for the latter is FCR–the combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, which was shown in the phase III CLL10 trial of patients with advanced CLL to be associated with improved complete response rates compared with the popular regimen of bendamustine and rituximab (BR), both overall and in patients under age 65. In older patients, the advantage disappeared, Dr. Zelenetz said.

FCR was also associated with improved outcomes vs. BR in patients with del(11q).

The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival, which favored FCR (median of 55.2 vs. 41.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.643), he said, noting that no difference was seen between the two regimens in terms of overall survival.

In a recent publication, MD Anderson Cancer Center reported its experience with its first 300 CLL patients treated with FCR. With long-term follow-up of at least 9-10 years (median of 12.8 years), patients in this trial have done extremely well.

“But interestingly, when you stratify these patients by whether they have IGHV [immunoglobulin heavy chain variable] mutated or unmutated [disease], the IGHV mutated patients have something that looks a whole lot like a survival plateau, and that survival plateau is not trivial – it’s about 60%,” he said. “So there is a group of patients with CLL who are, in fact, curable with conventional chemoimmunotherapy.

“This is an appropriate treatment for a young, fit, ‘go-go’ patient, and it has a big implication,” he said. That is, patients who are young and fit require IGHV mutation testing, as “you will absolutely choose FCR chemotherapy for the fit, young patients who has IGHV mutated disease.

“In that setting IGHV testing is now mandatory,” he stressed, noting that the benefits in this population extend to overall survival as well as progression-free survival.

Dr. Zelenetz also emphasized the need for increasing the single dose of rituximab from 375 mg/m² during cycle 1 to 500 mg/m² during cycles 2-6 in those receiving FCR, as this is often forgotten.

The data demonstrating the efficacy of FCR were based on this approach, he said.

Fludarabine is to be given at a dose of 25 mg/m², and cyclophosphamide at a dose of 250 mg/m² – both for 2-4 days during cycle 1 and for 1-3 days during cycles 2-6.

Treatment options for ‘slow-go’ CLL patients

In “slow-go” patients, an interesting approach is to use new anti-CD20 antibodies such as ofatumumab and obinutuzumab, which have features that are distinct from rituximab.

Both have been studied in CLL. The CLL11 trial compared chlorambucil, rituximab+chlorambucil, and obinutuzumab+chlorambucil, and the latest analysis showed substantial improvement in progression-free survival with obinutuzumab+chlorambucil vs. the other two regimens (26.7 months vs. 11.1 and 16.3 months, respectively), Dr. Zelenetz said, noting that rituximab+chlorambucil was also superior to chlorambucil alone, but that only the obinutuzumab regimen had an overall survival advantage vs. chlorambucil alone.

An updated analysis to be reported soon will show emerging evidence of a survival advantage of obinutuzumab+chlorambucil vs. rituximab+chlorambucil, he said.

“This suggests that obinutuzumab is a far better antibody,” he added, noting that the reasons for that are under debate, “but the way it’s given, it works better in CLL, and that, I think is unequivocal.”

A similar study looking at chlorambucil with and without ofatumumab in “slow-go” patients also demonstrated an improvement in PFS with ofatumumab, but showed “no difference whatsoever in overall survival.”

“This is actually very similar to the rituximab result, and I actually call this the ‘death of ofatumumab’ study, because clearly obinutuzumab in CLL is, I think, a superior anti-CD20 antibody,” Dr. Zelenetz said.

Studies in which obinutuzumab is substituted for rituximab in the FCR combination are currently underway as are a number of other studies of obinutuzumab, he noted.

Another treatment option in the up-front setting is ibrutinib, which was shown to be effective in the RESONATE 2 trial .

“But notice, a very, very small [complete response rate]. CRs are very difficult to achieve with ibrutinib alone, so this drug is given continuously, lifelong,” Dr. Zelenetz said, noting that it was, however, associated with an overall survival advantage vs. chlorambucil.

“Should this be the standard of care? I think it is in patients who have del(17p) or mutation of TP53. Outside of that setting, I’m still concerned about the cost of long-term tolerability of the agent,” he said.

Future of first-line CLL treatment

Avoidance of long-term therapy and conventional chemotherapy in patients with CLL is a goal, he added, noting that new understanding from studies in patients in the relapsed/refractory CLL setting – such as recent findings from a phase Ib study of venetoclax plus rituximab, which demonstrated potentially durable responses after treatment discontinuation in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative patients – are providing insights into achieving MRD negativity that could be applied in the front line treatment setting.

“We’re still trying to figure out how to best use this. We want to try to use some of this knowledge about achievement of MRD negativity in the up-front setting so we don’t have to give patients long-term therapy, and we would like to avoid conventional chemotherapy,” he said. “So I’m hoping we’re going to be able to replace chronic long-term therapy of CLL with a defined course of treatment with high levels of MRD negativity.”

Dr. Zelenetz reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and/or grant/research support from Acerta Pharma, Amgen Inc., BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, MEI Pharma, NanoString Technologies, Pharmacyclics, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Roche Laboratories, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America.

[email protected]

General Medical Sciences

A new study supports the idea that most cancer-driving mutations are a result of DNA replication errors, not heredity or lifestyle/environmental factors.

For all 32 cancer types studied, researchers found that 66% of driver mutations resulted from DNA replication errors, 29% could be attributed to lifestyle or environmental factors, and the remaining 5% were inherited.

In hematologic malignancies, the percentage of mutations caused by DNA replication errors was even higher—70% in Hodgkin lymphoma, 85% in leukemias, 96% in non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and 99% in myeloma.

Cristian Tomasetti, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these findings in Science.

“It is well-known that we must avoid environmental factors such as smoking to decrease our risk of getting cancer, but it is not as well-known that each time a normal cell divides and copies its DNA to produce 2 new cells, it makes multiple mistakes,” Dr Tomasetti said.

“These copying mistakes are a potent source of cancer mutations that, historically, have been scientifically undervalued, and this new work provides the first estimate of the fraction of mutations caused by these mistakes.”

In 2015, Dr Tomasetti and his colleagues reported that DNA replication errors could explain why certain cancers occur more often than others in the US.

The current study builds upon that research but includes additional cancers and encompasses an international population.

The researchers first studied the relationship between the number of normal stem cell divisions and the risk of 17 cancer types in 69 countries representing 4.8 billion people, or more than half of the world’s population.

The team said they observed a strong correlation between cancer incidence and normal stem cell divisions in all countries, regardless of their environment.

Next, the researchers set out to determine the percentage of driver mutations caused by DNA replication errors in 32 cancer types. The team developed a mathematical model using DNA sequencing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and epidemiologic data from the Cancer Research UK database.

According to the researchers, it generally takes 2 or more critical mutations for cancer to occur. In an individual, these mutations can be due to random DNA replication errors, the environment, or inherited genes.

Knowing this, the researchers used their mathematical model to show, for example, that when critical mutations in leukemia are added together, 85.2% of them are due to random DNA replication errors, 14.3% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

In Hodgkin lymphoma, 69.5% are due to DNA replication errors, 30% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity. In non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 95.6% are due to random DNA replication errors, 3.9% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

In myeloma, 99.3% are due to DNA replication errors, 0.2% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

Dr Tomasetti said these random DNA replication errors will only get more important as aging populations continue to grow, prolonging the opportunity for cells to make more and more errors.

“We need to continue to encourage people to avoid environmental agents and lifestyles that increase their risk of developing cancer mutations,” said study author Bert Vogelstein, MD, of The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University.

“However, many people will still develop cancers due to these random DNA copying errors, and better methods to detect all cancers earlier, while they are still curable, are urgently needed.”

General Medical Sciences

A new study supports the idea that most cancer-driving mutations are a result of DNA replication errors, not heredity or lifestyle/environmental factors.

For all 32 cancer types studied, researchers found that 66% of driver mutations resulted from DNA replication errors, 29% could be attributed to lifestyle or environmental factors, and the remaining 5% were inherited.

In hematologic malignancies, the percentage of mutations caused by DNA replication errors was even higher—70% in Hodgkin lymphoma, 85% in leukemias, 96% in non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and 99% in myeloma.

Cristian Tomasetti, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these findings in Science.

“It is well-known that we must avoid environmental factors such as smoking to decrease our risk of getting cancer, but it is not as well-known that each time a normal cell divides and copies its DNA to produce 2 new cells, it makes multiple mistakes,” Dr Tomasetti said.

“These copying mistakes are a potent source of cancer mutations that, historically, have been scientifically undervalued, and this new work provides the first estimate of the fraction of mutations caused by these mistakes.”

In 2015, Dr Tomasetti and his colleagues reported that DNA replication errors could explain why certain cancers occur more often than others in the US.

The current study builds upon that research but includes additional cancers and encompasses an international population.

The researchers first studied the relationship between the number of normal stem cell divisions and the risk of 17 cancer types in 69 countries representing 4.8 billion people, or more than half of the world’s population.

The team said they observed a strong correlation between cancer incidence and normal stem cell divisions in all countries, regardless of their environment.

Next, the researchers set out to determine the percentage of driver mutations caused by DNA replication errors in 32 cancer types. The team developed a mathematical model using DNA sequencing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and epidemiologic data from the Cancer Research UK database.

According to the researchers, it generally takes 2 or more critical mutations for cancer to occur. In an individual, these mutations can be due to random DNA replication errors, the environment, or inherited genes.

Knowing this, the researchers used their mathematical model to show, for example, that when critical mutations in leukemia are added together, 85.2% of them are due to random DNA replication errors, 14.3% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

In Hodgkin lymphoma, 69.5% are due to DNA replication errors, 30% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity. In non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 95.6% are due to random DNA replication errors, 3.9% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

In myeloma, 99.3% are due to DNA replication errors, 0.2% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

Dr Tomasetti said these random DNA replication errors will only get more important as aging populations continue to grow, prolonging the opportunity for cells to make more and more errors.

“We need to continue to encourage people to avoid environmental agents and lifestyles that increase their risk of developing cancer mutations,” said study author Bert Vogelstein, MD, of The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University.

“However, many people will still develop cancers due to these random DNA copying errors, and better methods to detect all cancers earlier, while they are still curable, are urgently needed.”

General Medical Sciences

A new study supports the idea that most cancer-driving mutations are a result of DNA replication errors, not heredity or lifestyle/environmental factors.

For all 32 cancer types studied, researchers found that 66% of driver mutations resulted from DNA replication errors, 29% could be attributed to lifestyle or environmental factors, and the remaining 5% were inherited.

In hematologic malignancies, the percentage of mutations caused by DNA replication errors was even higher—70% in Hodgkin lymphoma, 85% in leukemias, 96% in non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and 99% in myeloma.

Cristian Tomasetti, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these findings in Science.

“It is well-known that we must avoid environmental factors such as smoking to decrease our risk of getting cancer, but it is not as well-known that each time a normal cell divides and copies its DNA to produce 2 new cells, it makes multiple mistakes,” Dr Tomasetti said.

“These copying mistakes are a potent source of cancer mutations that, historically, have been scientifically undervalued, and this new work provides the first estimate of the fraction of mutations caused by these mistakes.”

In 2015, Dr Tomasetti and his colleagues reported that DNA replication errors could explain why certain cancers occur more often than others in the US.

The current study builds upon that research but includes additional cancers and encompasses an international population.

The researchers first studied the relationship between the number of normal stem cell divisions and the risk of 17 cancer types in 69 countries representing 4.8 billion people, or more than half of the world’s population.

The team said they observed a strong correlation between cancer incidence and normal stem cell divisions in all countries, regardless of their environment.

Next, the researchers set out to determine the percentage of driver mutations caused by DNA replication errors in 32 cancer types. The team developed a mathematical model using DNA sequencing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and epidemiologic data from the Cancer Research UK database.

According to the researchers, it generally takes 2 or more critical mutations for cancer to occur. In an individual, these mutations can be due to random DNA replication errors, the environment, or inherited genes.

Knowing this, the researchers used their mathematical model to show, for example, that when critical mutations in leukemia are added together, 85.2% of them are due to random DNA replication errors, 14.3% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

In Hodgkin lymphoma, 69.5% are due to DNA replication errors, 30% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity. In non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 95.6% are due to random DNA replication errors, 3.9% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

In myeloma, 99.3% are due to DNA replication errors, 0.2% to environmental factors, and 0.5% to heredity.

Dr Tomasetti said these random DNA replication errors will only get more important as aging populations continue to grow, prolonging the opportunity for cells to make more and more errors.

“We need to continue to encourage people to avoid environmental agents and lifestyles that increase their risk of developing cancer mutations,” said study author Bert Vogelstein, MD, of The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University.

“However, many people will still develop cancers due to these random DNA copying errors, and better methods to detect all cancers earlier, while they are still curable, are urgently needed.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US cancer care delivery system is undergoing changes to better meet the needs of cancer patients, but persistent hurdles threaten to slow progress, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

ASCO’s “The State of Cancer Care in America, 2017” report describes areas of progress, including new approaches for cancer diagnosis and treatment, improved data sharing to drive innovation, and an increased focus on value-based healthcare.

However, the report also suggests that access and affordability challenges, along with increased practice burdens, continue to pose barriers to high-value, high-quality cancer care.

The report was published in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

Challenges

The report notes that the US population is growing rapidly, changing demographically, and living longer. And all of these factors contribute to a record number of cancer cases/survivors.

It has been estimated that the number of cancer survivors in the US will grow from 15.5 million to 20.3 million by 2026.

Unfortunately, the report says, cancer care is unaffordable for many patients, even those with health insurance.

And significant health disparities persist that are independent of insurance status. Socioeconomic status, geography, and race/ethnicity all impact patient health outcomes.

The report also suggests that oncology practices are facing increased administrative burdens that divert time and resources from their patients.

Progress

Despite the aforementioned challenges, the report paints an optimistic vision about the future of cancer care and highlights activity in the past year aimed at improving care.

For instance, the Food and Drug Administration approved 5 new anticancer therapies, expanded the use of 13, and approved several diagnostic tests in 2016.

In addition, overall cancer incidence and mortality rates were lower in 2016 than in previous decades.

“Since 1991, we’ve been able to save 2.1 million lives because of significant advances in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment—something unimaginable even a decade ago,” said ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD.

“But there’s still more work to be done to ensure that every patient with cancer, no matter who they are or where they live, has access to high-quality, high-value cancer care.”

The report includes a list of recommendations that, ASCO believes, could help bring the US closer to achieving that goal.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US cancer care delivery system is undergoing changes to better meet the needs of cancer patients, but persistent hurdles threaten to slow progress, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

ASCO’s “The State of Cancer Care in America, 2017” report describes areas of progress, including new approaches for cancer diagnosis and treatment, improved data sharing to drive innovation, and an increased focus on value-based healthcare.

However, the report also suggests that access and affordability challenges, along with increased practice burdens, continue to pose barriers to high-value, high-quality cancer care.

The report was published in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

Challenges

The report notes that the US population is growing rapidly, changing demographically, and living longer. And all of these factors contribute to a record number of cancer cases/survivors.

It has been estimated that the number of cancer survivors in the US will grow from 15.5 million to 20.3 million by 2026.

Unfortunately, the report says, cancer care is unaffordable for many patients, even those with health insurance.

And significant health disparities persist that are independent of insurance status. Socioeconomic status, geography, and race/ethnicity all impact patient health outcomes.

The report also suggests that oncology practices are facing increased administrative burdens that divert time and resources from their patients.

Progress

Despite the aforementioned challenges, the report paints an optimistic vision about the future of cancer care and highlights activity in the past year aimed at improving care.

For instance, the Food and Drug Administration approved 5 new anticancer therapies, expanded the use of 13, and approved several diagnostic tests in 2016.

In addition, overall cancer incidence and mortality rates were lower in 2016 than in previous decades.

“Since 1991, we’ve been able to save 2.1 million lives because of significant advances in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment—something unimaginable even a decade ago,” said ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD.

“But there’s still more work to be done to ensure that every patient with cancer, no matter who they are or where they live, has access to high-quality, high-value cancer care.”

The report includes a list of recommendations that, ASCO believes, could help bring the US closer to achieving that goal.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US cancer care delivery system is undergoing changes to better meet the needs of cancer patients, but persistent hurdles threaten to slow progress, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

ASCO’s “The State of Cancer Care in America, 2017” report describes areas of progress, including new approaches for cancer diagnosis and treatment, improved data sharing to drive innovation, and an increased focus on value-based healthcare.

However, the report also suggests that access and affordability challenges, along with increased practice burdens, continue to pose barriers to high-value, high-quality cancer care.

The report was published in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

Challenges

The report notes that the US population is growing rapidly, changing demographically, and living longer. And all of these factors contribute to a record number of cancer cases/survivors.

It has been estimated that the number of cancer survivors in the US will grow from 15.5 million to 20.3 million by 2026.

Unfortunately, the report says, cancer care is unaffordable for many patients, even those with health insurance.

And significant health disparities persist that are independent of insurance status. Socioeconomic status, geography, and race/ethnicity all impact patient health outcomes.

The report also suggests that oncology practices are facing increased administrative burdens that divert time and resources from their patients.

Progress

Despite the aforementioned challenges, the report paints an optimistic vision about the future of cancer care and highlights activity in the past year aimed at improving care.

For instance, the Food and Drug Administration approved 5 new anticancer therapies, expanded the use of 13, and approved several diagnostic tests in 2016.

In addition, overall cancer incidence and mortality rates were lower in 2016 than in previous decades.

“Since 1991, we’ve been able to save 2.1 million lives because of significant advances in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment—something unimaginable even a decade ago,” said ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD.

“But there’s still more work to be done to ensure that every patient with cancer, no matter who they are or where they live, has access to high-quality, high-value cancer care.”

The report includes a list of recommendations that, ASCO believes, could help bring the US closer to achieving that goal.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) has announced the release of a toolkit intended to help prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients.

The Time to Talk CINV™ toolkit was designed to facilitate dialogue between patients and their healthcare teams to ensure no patient is needlessly suffering from CINV.

The tools in the kit, which are targeted to both patients and healthcare providers, were created with guidance from patients, caregivers, pharmacists, and nurses.

The entire toolkit is available for free download at TimeToTalkCINV.com.

The toolkit is part of the Time to Talk CINV™ campaign, which is a collaboration between HOPA, Eisai Inc., and Helsinn Therapeutics (US), Inc. (funded by Eisai and Helsinn Therapeutics).

The campaign began in response to results from a survey of cancer patients.

“Our research revealed a vast majority of patients on chemotherapy who experience nausea and vomiting expect to have this side effect, and 95% of these patients said, at some point, chemo-induced nausea and vomiting had an impact on their daily lives,” said Sarah Peters, PharmD, president of HOPA.

“In response to these findings, as well as the finding that healthcare team members are looking for better communication tools, the Time to Talk CINV toolkit was created to facilitate efficient and effective conversations about nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy to ensure that each patient is receiving the right information and effective management approaches.”

The Time to Talk CINV toolkit includes the following resources:

• A list of myths and truths about CINV intended to eliminate common misperceptions
• A checklist of questions patients can ask healthcare providers to better understand CINV
• A chemotherapy side effect tracker, which enables patients to track their experience and report back to their healthcare team
• A communication checklist for the healthcare team outlining best practices for communicating with patients to prevent CINV.

Each tool can be printed or filled out digitally.

Additional information about CINV, including videos and infographics, can be found on the Time to Talk CINV website.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) has announced the release of a toolkit intended to help prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients.

The Time to Talk CINV™ toolkit was designed to facilitate dialogue between patients and their healthcare teams to ensure no patient is needlessly suffering from CINV.

The tools in the kit, which are targeted to both patients and healthcare providers, were created with guidance from patients, caregivers, pharmacists, and nurses.

The entire toolkit is available for free download at TimeToTalkCINV.com.

The toolkit is part of the Time to Talk CINV™ campaign, which is a collaboration between HOPA, Eisai Inc., and Helsinn Therapeutics (US), Inc. (funded by Eisai and Helsinn Therapeutics).

The campaign began in response to results from a survey of cancer patients.

“Our research revealed a vast majority of patients on chemotherapy who experience nausea and vomiting expect to have this side effect, and 95% of these patients said, at some point, chemo-induced nausea and vomiting had an impact on their daily lives,” said Sarah Peters, PharmD, president of HOPA.

“In response to these findings, as well as the finding that healthcare team members are looking for better communication tools, the Time to Talk CINV toolkit was created to facilitate efficient and effective conversations about nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy to ensure that each patient is receiving the right information and effective management approaches.”

The Time to Talk CINV toolkit includes the following resources:

• A list of myths and truths about CINV intended to eliminate common misperceptions
• A checklist of questions patients can ask healthcare providers to better understand CINV
• A chemotherapy side effect tracker, which enables patients to track their experience and report back to their healthcare team
• A communication checklist for the healthcare team outlining best practices for communicating with patients to prevent CINV.

Each tool can be printed or filled out digitally.

Additional information about CINV, including videos and infographics, can be found on the Time to Talk CINV website.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) has announced the release of a toolkit intended to help prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients.

The Time to Talk CINV™ toolkit was designed to facilitate dialogue between patients and their healthcare teams to ensure no patient is needlessly suffering from CINV.

The tools in the kit, which are targeted to both patients and healthcare providers, were created with guidance from patients, caregivers, pharmacists, and nurses.

The entire toolkit is available for free download at TimeToTalkCINV.com.

The toolkit is part of the Time to Talk CINV™ campaign, which is a collaboration between HOPA, Eisai Inc., and Helsinn Therapeutics (US), Inc. (funded by Eisai and Helsinn Therapeutics).

The campaign began in response to results from a survey of cancer patients.

“Our research revealed a vast majority of patients on chemotherapy who experience nausea and vomiting expect to have this side effect, and 95% of these patients said, at some point, chemo-induced nausea and vomiting had an impact on their daily lives,” said Sarah Peters, PharmD, president of HOPA.

“In response to these findings, as well as the finding that healthcare team members are looking for better communication tools, the Time to Talk CINV toolkit was created to facilitate efficient and effective conversations about nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy to ensure that each patient is receiving the right information and effective management approaches.”

The Time to Talk CINV toolkit includes the following resources:

• A list of myths and truths about CINV intended to eliminate common misperceptions
• A checklist of questions patients can ask healthcare providers to better understand CINV
• A chemotherapy side effect tracker, which enables patients to track their experience and report back to their healthcare team
• A communication checklist for the healthcare team outlining best practices for communicating with patients to prevent CINV.

Each tool can be printed or filled out digitally.

Additional information about CINV, including videos and infographics, can be found on the Time to Talk CINV website.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study indicates that adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors continue to face social difficulties for more than 2 years after their diagnosis.

The research, published in Cancer, suggests these patients may see some improvement in their social lives during the first year after diagnosis.

However, their social functioning tends to remain constant after that, leaving them socially impaired relative to their cancer-free peers.

Previous studies have shown that AYAs with cancer experience greater challenges in social functioning than their cancer-free peers or even compared to older cancer patients.

But few studies have examined this phenomenon by following the same patients over time.

Olga Husson, PhD, of the Radboud University Medical Center in The Netherlands, and her colleagues set out to examine changes in social functioning among AYAs in the early years after a cancer diagnosis.

The researchers asked AYA cancer patients at 5 US medical institutions to complete a survey about social functioning within 4 months of their diagnosis, 12 months later, and 24 months later.

There were 141 patients (ages 14 to 39 at diagnosis) who completed the surveys.

The researchers found that, when compared to population norms, the cancer patients had inferior social functioning at all the time points studied.

Among the cancer patients, the mean social functioning score from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey (version 2) was 52.0 around the time of cancer diagnosis, 73.1 at the 12-month follow-up, and 69.2 at the 24-month follow-up. In comparison, the population norm (for people ages 18 to 44) is 85.1 (P<0.001 for all time points).

The researchers did note that cancer patients experienced significant improvements in social functioning from baseline to the 12-month follow-up, but there was no further improvement after that.

The researchers also examined the different trajectories of social functioning over time. They found that social functioning improved over time for 47% of the cancer patients but worsened for 13%. In addition, 32% of patients had consistently low social functioning, and 9% had consistently high social functioning.

The cancer patients with consistently low social functioning were more likely to be off treatment at the time of follow-up, report more physical symptoms and higher levels of psychological distress (at both baseline and follow-up), and perceive themselves to receive less social support.

“Reducing physical symptoms and psychological distress and enhancing social support by interventions in the period after treatment may potentially help these young survivors to better reintegrate into society,” Dr Husson said.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study indicates that adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors continue to face social difficulties for more than 2 years after their diagnosis.

The research, published in Cancer, suggests these patients may see some improvement in their social lives during the first year after diagnosis.

However, their social functioning tends to remain constant after that, leaving them socially impaired relative to their cancer-free peers.

Previous studies have shown that AYAs with cancer experience greater challenges in social functioning than their cancer-free peers or even compared to older cancer patients.

But few studies have examined this phenomenon by following the same patients over time.

Olga Husson, PhD, of the Radboud University Medical Center in The Netherlands, and her colleagues set out to examine changes in social functioning among AYAs in the early years after a cancer diagnosis.

The researchers asked AYA cancer patients at 5 US medical institutions to complete a survey about social functioning within 4 months of their diagnosis, 12 months later, and 24 months later.

There were 141 patients (ages 14 to 39 at diagnosis) who completed the surveys.

The researchers found that, when compared to population norms, the cancer patients had inferior social functioning at all the time points studied.

Among the cancer patients, the mean social functioning score from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey (version 2) was 52.0 around the time of cancer diagnosis, 73.1 at the 12-month follow-up, and 69.2 at the 24-month follow-up. In comparison, the population norm (for people ages 18 to 44) is 85.1 (P<0.001 for all time points).

The researchers did note that cancer patients experienced significant improvements in social functioning from baseline to the 12-month follow-up, but there was no further improvement after that.

The researchers also examined the different trajectories of social functioning over time. They found that social functioning improved over time for 47% of the cancer patients but worsened for 13%. In addition, 32% of patients had consistently low social functioning, and 9% had consistently high social functioning.

The cancer patients with consistently low social functioning were more likely to be off treatment at the time of follow-up, report more physical symptoms and higher levels of psychological distress (at both baseline and follow-up), and perceive themselves to receive less social support.

“Reducing physical symptoms and psychological distress and enhancing social support by interventions in the period after treatment may potentially help these young survivors to better reintegrate into society,” Dr Husson said.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study indicates that adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors continue to face social difficulties for more than 2 years after their diagnosis.

The research, published in Cancer, suggests these patients may see some improvement in their social lives during the first year after diagnosis.

However, their social functioning tends to remain constant after that, leaving them socially impaired relative to their cancer-free peers.

Previous studies have shown that AYAs with cancer experience greater challenges in social functioning than their cancer-free peers or even compared to older cancer patients.

But few studies have examined this phenomenon by following the same patients over time.

Olga Husson, PhD, of the Radboud University Medical Center in The Netherlands, and her colleagues set out to examine changes in social functioning among AYAs in the early years after a cancer diagnosis.

The researchers asked AYA cancer patients at 5 US medical institutions to complete a survey about social functioning within 4 months of their diagnosis, 12 months later, and 24 months later.

There were 141 patients (ages 14 to 39 at diagnosis) who completed the surveys.

The researchers found that, when compared to population norms, the cancer patients had inferior social functioning at all the time points studied.

Among the cancer patients, the mean social functioning score from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey (version 2) was 52.0 around the time of cancer diagnosis, 73.1 at the 12-month follow-up, and 69.2 at the 24-month follow-up. In comparison, the population norm (for people ages 18 to 44) is 85.1 (P<0.001 for all time points).

The researchers did note that cancer patients experienced significant improvements in social functioning from baseline to the 12-month follow-up, but there was no further improvement after that.

The researchers also examined the different trajectories of social functioning over time. They found that social functioning improved over time for 47% of the cancer patients but worsened for 13%. In addition, 32% of patients had consistently low social functioning, and 9% had consistently high social functioning.

The cancer patients with consistently low social functioning were more likely to be off treatment at the time of follow-up, report more physical symptoms and higher levels of psychological distress (at both baseline and follow-up), and perceive themselves to receive less social support.

“Reducing physical symptoms and psychological distress and enhancing social support by interventions in the period after treatment may potentially help these young survivors to better reintegrate into society,” Dr Husson said.

Hospital Medical Center

Researchers say they have identified 2 signaling proteins that enable resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and could be therapeutic targets for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

The team found that by deleting these proteins—c-Fos and Dusp1—they could eradicate BCR-ABL-induced B-cell ALL in mice.

And treatment combining c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors with the TKI imatinib was able to cure mice with BCR-ABL-driven CML.

The researchers reported these findings in Nature Medicine.

“We think that, within the next 5 years, our data will change the way people think about cancer development and targeted therapy,” said study author Mohammad Azam, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio.

“This study identifies a potential Achilles’ heel of kinase-driven cancers, and what we propose is intended to be curative, not just treatment.”

The potential Achilles’ heel is a common point of passage in cells—a signaling node—that appears to be required to generate cancer cells. The node is formed by the signaling proteins c-Fos and Dusp1, according to the researchers.

The team identified c-Fos and Dusp1 by conducting global gene-expression analysis of mouse leukemia cells and human CML cells. Analysis of the human cells revealed extremely high levels of c-FOS and DUSP1 in BCR-ABL-positive, TKI-resistant cells.

Dr Azam and his colleagues found that signaling from tyrosine kinase and growth factor proteins that support cell expansion (such as IL-3 and IL-6) converge to elevate c-Fos and Dusp1 levels in leukemia cells.

Working together, these molecules maintain the survival of leukemia stem cells (LSCs), which translates to minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment.

Dr Azam said Dusp1 and c-Fos support the survival of LSCs by increasing the toxic threshold needed to kill them. This means imatinib and other TKIs cannot eliminate the residual LSCs.

After describing the roles of c-Fos and Dusp1, Dr Azam and his colleagues put their ideas to the test in mouse models of CML.

The team tested several treatments in these mice, including:

• monotherapy with imatinib
• inhibitors of c-Fos and Dusp1
• treatment with imatinib and inhibitors of c-Fos and Dusp1.

As suspected, treatment with imatinib alone initially stopped CML progression, but mice ultimately relapsed.

Treatment with c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors significantly slowed CML progression and prolonged survival in a majority of mice, but this treatment wasn’t curative.

However, a month of treatment with c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors as well as imatinib cured about 90% of mice with CML, and there were no signs of MRD.

The researchers also found that simply deleting c-Fos and Dusp1 was sufficient to block the development of B-cell ALL in mice.

The team said they are following up this study by testing c-Fos and Dusp1 as treatment targets for different kinase-fueled cancers.

Hospital Medical Center

Researchers say they have identified 2 signaling proteins that enable resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and could be therapeutic targets for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

The team found that by deleting these proteins—c-Fos and Dusp1—they could eradicate BCR-ABL-induced B-cell ALL in mice.

And treatment combining c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors with the TKI imatinib was able to cure mice with BCR-ABL-driven CML.

The researchers reported these findings in Nature Medicine.

“We think that, within the next 5 years, our data will change the way people think about cancer development and targeted therapy,” said study author Mohammad Azam, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio.

“This study identifies a potential Achilles’ heel of kinase-driven cancers, and what we propose is intended to be curative, not just treatment.”

The potential Achilles’ heel is a common point of passage in cells—a signaling node—that appears to be required to generate cancer cells. The node is formed by the signaling proteins c-Fos and Dusp1, according to the researchers.

The team identified c-Fos and Dusp1 by conducting global gene-expression analysis of mouse leukemia cells and human CML cells. Analysis of the human cells revealed extremely high levels of c-FOS and DUSP1 in BCR-ABL-positive, TKI-resistant cells.

Dr Azam and his colleagues found that signaling from tyrosine kinase and growth factor proteins that support cell expansion (such as IL-3 and IL-6) converge to elevate c-Fos and Dusp1 levels in leukemia cells.

Working together, these molecules maintain the survival of leukemia stem cells (LSCs), which translates to minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment.

Dr Azam said Dusp1 and c-Fos support the survival of LSCs by increasing the toxic threshold needed to kill them. This means imatinib and other TKIs cannot eliminate the residual LSCs.

After describing the roles of c-Fos and Dusp1, Dr Azam and his colleagues put their ideas to the test in mouse models of CML.

The team tested several treatments in these mice, including:

• monotherapy with imatinib
• inhibitors of c-Fos and Dusp1
• treatment with imatinib and inhibitors of c-Fos and Dusp1.

As suspected, treatment with imatinib alone initially stopped CML progression, but mice ultimately relapsed.

Treatment with c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors significantly slowed CML progression and prolonged survival in a majority of mice, but this treatment wasn’t curative.

However, a month of treatment with c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors as well as imatinib cured about 90% of mice with CML, and there were no signs of MRD.

The researchers also found that simply deleting c-Fos and Dusp1 was sufficient to block the development of B-cell ALL in mice.

The team said they are following up this study by testing c-Fos and Dusp1 as treatment targets for different kinase-fueled cancers.

Hospital Medical Center

Researchers say they have identified 2 signaling proteins that enable resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and could be therapeutic targets for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

The team found that by deleting these proteins—c-Fos and Dusp1—they could eradicate BCR-ABL-induced B-cell ALL in mice.

And treatment combining c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors with the TKI imatinib was able to cure mice with BCR-ABL-driven CML.

The researchers reported these findings in Nature Medicine.

“We think that, within the next 5 years, our data will change the way people think about cancer development and targeted therapy,” said study author Mohammad Azam, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio.

“This study identifies a potential Achilles’ heel of kinase-driven cancers, and what we propose is intended to be curative, not just treatment.”

The potential Achilles’ heel is a common point of passage in cells—a signaling node—that appears to be required to generate cancer cells. The node is formed by the signaling proteins c-Fos and Dusp1, according to the researchers.

The team identified c-Fos and Dusp1 by conducting global gene-expression analysis of mouse leukemia cells and human CML cells. Analysis of the human cells revealed extremely high levels of c-FOS and DUSP1 in BCR-ABL-positive, TKI-resistant cells.

Dr Azam and his colleagues found that signaling from tyrosine kinase and growth factor proteins that support cell expansion (such as IL-3 and IL-6) converge to elevate c-Fos and Dusp1 levels in leukemia cells.

Working together, these molecules maintain the survival of leukemia stem cells (LSCs), which translates to minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment.

Dr Azam said Dusp1 and c-Fos support the survival of LSCs by increasing the toxic threshold needed to kill them. This means imatinib and other TKIs cannot eliminate the residual LSCs.

After describing the roles of c-Fos and Dusp1, Dr Azam and his colleagues put their ideas to the test in mouse models of CML.

The team tested several treatments in these mice, including:

• monotherapy with imatinib
• inhibitors of c-Fos and Dusp1
• treatment with imatinib and inhibitors of c-Fos and Dusp1.

As suspected, treatment with imatinib alone initially stopped CML progression, but mice ultimately relapsed.

Treatment with c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors significantly slowed CML progression and prolonged survival in a majority of mice, but this treatment wasn’t curative.

However, a month of treatment with c-Fos and Dusp1 inhibitors as well as imatinib cured about 90% of mice with CML, and there were no signs of MRD.

The researchers also found that simply deleting c-Fos and Dusp1 was sufficient to block the development of B-cell ALL in mice.

The team said they are following up this study by testing c-Fos and Dusp1 as treatment targets for different kinase-fueled cancers.

Image by Spencer Phillips

New research appears to explain how 10q21.2 influences the risk of high-hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (HD-ALL).

Previous research indicated that variation in the gene ARID5B at 10q21.2 is associated with HD-ALL.

Now, researchers have reported that the 10q21.2 risk locus for HD-ALL is mediated through the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs7090445, which disrupts RUNX3 transcription factor binding.

Specifically, the rs7090445-C allele confers an increased risk of HD-ALL through reduced RUNX3-mediated expression of ARID5B.

The researchers described these findings in Nature Communications.

“This study expands our understanding of how genetic risk factors can influence the development of acute lymphoblastic leukemia . . .,” said study author Richard Houlston, MD, PhD, of The Institute of Cancer Research in London, UK.

Dr Houlston and his colleagues focused this research on 10q21.2 because it had previously been implicated in HD-ALL, but it wasn’t clear how the region affects the risk of HD-ALL.

The team said they found that a SNP in the region, rs7090445, is “highly associated” with HD-ALL.

Further investigation revealed that variation at rs7090445 disrupts RUNX3 binding and reduces the expression of ARID5B, as RUNX3 regulates ARID5B expression.

The researchers also discovered that the rs7090445-C risk allele, which is associated with reduced ARID5B expression, is amplified in HD-ALL. The risk allele is “preferentially retained” on additional copies of chromosome 10 in HD-ALL blasts.

“We implicate reduced expression of a gene called ARID5B in the production and release of the immature ‘blast’ cells that characterize [HD-ALL],” Dr Houlston said. “Our study gives a new insight into the causes of the disease and may open up new strategies for prevention.”

Image by Spencer Phillips

New research appears to explain how 10q21.2 influences the risk of high-hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (HD-ALL).

Previous research indicated that variation in the gene ARID5B at 10q21.2 is associated with HD-ALL.

Now, researchers have reported that the 10q21.2 risk locus for HD-ALL is mediated through the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs7090445, which disrupts RUNX3 transcription factor binding.

Specifically, the rs7090445-C allele confers an increased risk of HD-ALL through reduced RUNX3-mediated expression of ARID5B.

The researchers described these findings in Nature Communications.

“This study expands our understanding of how genetic risk factors can influence the development of acute lymphoblastic leukemia . . .,” said study author Richard Houlston, MD, PhD, of The Institute of Cancer Research in London, UK.

Dr Houlston and his colleagues focused this research on 10q21.2 because it had previously been implicated in HD-ALL, but it wasn’t clear how the region affects the risk of HD-ALL.

The team said they found that a SNP in the region, rs7090445, is “highly associated” with HD-ALL.

Further investigation revealed that variation at rs7090445 disrupts RUNX3 binding and reduces the expression of ARID5B, as RUNX3 regulates ARID5B expression.

The researchers also discovered that the rs7090445-C risk allele, which is associated with reduced ARID5B expression, is amplified in HD-ALL. The risk allele is “preferentially retained” on additional copies of chromosome 10 in HD-ALL blasts.

“We implicate reduced expression of a gene called ARID5B in the production and release of the immature ‘blast’ cells that characterize [HD-ALL],” Dr Houlston said. “Our study gives a new insight into the causes of the disease and may open up new strategies for prevention.”

Image by Spencer Phillips

New research appears to explain how 10q21.2 influences the risk of high-hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (HD-ALL).

Previous research indicated that variation in the gene ARID5B at 10q21.2 is associated with HD-ALL.

Now, researchers have reported that the 10q21.2 risk locus for HD-ALL is mediated through the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs7090445, which disrupts RUNX3 transcription factor binding.

Specifically, the rs7090445-C allele confers an increased risk of HD-ALL through reduced RUNX3-mediated expression of ARID5B.

The researchers described these findings in Nature Communications.

“This study expands our understanding of how genetic risk factors can influence the development of acute lymphoblastic leukemia . . .,” said study author Richard Houlston, MD, PhD, of The Institute of Cancer Research in London, UK.

Dr Houlston and his colleagues focused this research on 10q21.2 because it had previously been implicated in HD-ALL, but it wasn’t clear how the region affects the risk of HD-ALL.

The team said they found that a SNP in the region, rs7090445, is “highly associated” with HD-ALL.

Further investigation revealed that variation at rs7090445 disrupts RUNX3 binding and reduces the expression of ARID5B, as RUNX3 regulates ARID5B expression.

The researchers also discovered that the rs7090445-C risk allele, which is associated with reduced ARID5B expression, is amplified in HD-ALL. The risk allele is “preferentially retained” on additional copies of chromosome 10 in HD-ALL blasts.

“We implicate reduced expression of a gene called ARID5B in the production and release of the immature ‘blast’ cells that characterize [HD-ALL],” Dr Houlston said. “Our study gives a new insight into the causes of the disease and may open up new strategies for prevention.”

ORLANDO – For post–autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto-HCT) patients, the 10-year risk of developing a myeloid neoplasm was as high as 6%, based on a recent review of two large cancer databases.

Older age at transplant, receiving total body irradiation, and receiving multiple lines of chemotherapy before transplant all upped the risk of later cancers, according to a study presented by Shahrukh Hashmi, MD, and his collaborators at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

“The guidelines for autologous stem cell transplantation for surveillance for AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and MDS [myelodysplastic syndrome] need to be clearly formulated. We are doing 30,000 autologous transplants a year globally and these patients are at risk for the most feared cancer, which is leukemia and MDS, for which outcomes are very poor,” said Dr. Hashmi of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

The researchers examined data from auto-HCT patients with diagnoses of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma to determine the relative risks of developing AML and MDS. The study also explored which patient characteristics and aspects of the conditioning regimen might affect risk for later myeloid neoplasms.

In the dataset of 9,108 patients that Dr. Hashmi and his colleagues obtained from CIBMTR, 3,540 patients had NHL.

“As age progresses, the risk of acquiring myeloid neoplasms increases significantly,” he said, noting that the relative risk (RR) rose to 4.52 for patients aged 55 years and older at the time of transplant (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.63-7.77; P less than .0001).

Patients with NHL who received more than two lines of chemotherapy had approximately double the rate of myeloid cancers (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.34-2.78; P = .0004).

The type of conditioning regimen made a difference for NHL patients as well. With total-body irradiation set as the reference at RR = 1, carmustine-etoposide-cytarabine-melphalan (BEAM) or similar therapies were relatively protective, with an RR of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.40-0.87; P = .0083). Also protective were cyclophosphamide-carmustine-etoposide (CBV) and similar therapies (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.99; P = .0463).

Age at transplant was a factor among the 4,653 patients with multiple myeloma, with an RR of 2.47 for those transplanted at age 55 years or older (95% CI, 1.55-3.93; P = .0001). Multiple lines of chemotherapy also increased risk, with patients who received more than two lines having an RR of 1.77 for neoplasm (95% CI, 0.04-2.06; P = .0302). Women had less than half the risk of recurrence as men (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.69; P = .0003).

Among the 915 study patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, patients aged 45 years and older at the time of transplant carried an RR of 5.59 for new myeloid neoplasms (95% CI, 2.98-11.70; P less than .0001).

Total-body irradiation was received by 14% of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and by 5% of patients with multiple myeloma and Hodgkin lymphoma. Total-body irradiation was associated with a fourfold increase in neoplasm risk (RR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.40-11.55; P = .0096).

Dr. Hashmi and his colleagues then examined the incidence rates for myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database , finding that, even at baseline, the rates of myeloid neoplasms were higher for patients with NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, or MM patients than for the general population of cancer survivors. “Post NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma, the risks are significantly higher to begin with. … We saw a high risk of AML and MDS compared to the SEER controls – risks as high as 100 times greater for auto-transplant patients,” said Dr. Hashmi. “A risk of one hundred times more for MDS was astounding, surprising, unexpected,” he said. The risk of AML, he said, was elevated about 10-50 times in the CIBMTR data.

The cumulative incidence of MDS or AML for NHL was 6% at 10 years post transplant, 4% for Hodgkin lymphoma, and 3% for multiple myeloma.

A limitation of the study, said Dr. Hashmi, was that the investigators did not assess for post-transplant maintenance chemotherapy.

“We have to prospectively assess our transplant patients in a fashion to detect changes early. Or maybe they were present at the time of transplant and we never did sophisticated methods [like] next-generation sequencing” to detect them, he said.

Dr. Hashmi reported no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

ORLANDO – For post–autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto-HCT) patients, the 10-year risk of developing a myeloid neoplasm was as high as 6%, based on a recent review of two large cancer databases.

Older age at transplant, receiving total body irradiation, and receiving multiple lines of chemotherapy before transplant all upped the risk of later cancers, according to a study presented by Shahrukh Hashmi, MD, and his collaborators at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

“The guidelines for autologous stem cell transplantation for surveillance for AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and MDS [myelodysplastic syndrome] need to be clearly formulated. We are doing 30,000 autologous transplants a year globally and these patients are at risk for the most feared cancer, which is leukemia and MDS, for which outcomes are very poor,” said Dr. Hashmi of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

The researchers examined data from auto-HCT patients with diagnoses of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma to determine the relative risks of developing AML and MDS. The study also explored which patient characteristics and aspects of the conditioning regimen might affect risk for later myeloid neoplasms.

In the dataset of 9,108 patients that Dr. Hashmi and his colleagues obtained from CIBMTR, 3,540 patients had NHL.

“As age progresses, the risk of acquiring myeloid neoplasms increases significantly,” he said, noting that the relative risk (RR) rose to 4.52 for patients aged 55 years and older at the time of transplant (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.63-7.77; P less than .0001).

Patients with NHL who received more than two lines of chemotherapy had approximately double the rate of myeloid cancers (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.34-2.78; P = .0004).

The type of conditioning regimen made a difference for NHL patients as well. With total-body irradiation set as the reference at RR = 1, carmustine-etoposide-cytarabine-melphalan (BEAM) or similar therapies were relatively protective, with an RR of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.40-0.87; P = .0083). Also protective were cyclophosphamide-carmustine-etoposide (CBV) and similar therapies (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.99; P = .0463).

Age at transplant was a factor among the 4,653 patients with multiple myeloma, with an RR of 2.47 for those transplanted at age 55 years or older (95% CI, 1.55-3.93; P = .0001). Multiple lines of chemotherapy also increased risk, with patients who received more than two lines having an RR of 1.77 for neoplasm (95% CI, 0.04-2.06; P = .0302). Women had less than half the risk of recurrence as men (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.69; P = .0003).

Among the 915 study patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, patients aged 45 years and older at the time of transplant carried an RR of 5.59 for new myeloid neoplasms (95% CI, 2.98-11.70; P less than .0001).

Total-body irradiation was received by 14% of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and by 5% of patients with multiple myeloma and Hodgkin lymphoma. Total-body irradiation was associated with a fourfold increase in neoplasm risk (RR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.40-11.55; P = .0096).

Dr. Hashmi and his colleagues then examined the incidence rates for myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database , finding that, even at baseline, the rates of myeloid neoplasms were higher for patients with NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, or MM patients than for the general population of cancer survivors. “Post NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma, the risks are significantly higher to begin with. … We saw a high risk of AML and MDS compared to the SEER controls – risks as high as 100 times greater for auto-transplant patients,” said Dr. Hashmi. “A risk of one hundred times more for MDS was astounding, surprising, unexpected,” he said. The risk of AML, he said, was elevated about 10-50 times in the CIBMTR data.

The cumulative incidence of MDS or AML for NHL was 6% at 10 years post transplant, 4% for Hodgkin lymphoma, and 3% for multiple myeloma.

A limitation of the study, said Dr. Hashmi, was that the investigators did not assess for post-transplant maintenance chemotherapy.

“We have to prospectively assess our transplant patients in a fashion to detect changes early. Or maybe they were present at the time of transplant and we never did sophisticated methods [like] next-generation sequencing” to detect them, he said.

Dr. Hashmi reported no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

ORLANDO – For post–autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto-HCT) patients, the 10-year risk of developing a myeloid neoplasm was as high as 6%, based on a recent review of two large cancer databases.

Older age at transplant, receiving total body irradiation, and receiving multiple lines of chemotherapy before transplant all upped the risk of later cancers, according to a study presented by Shahrukh Hashmi, MD, and his collaborators at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

“The guidelines for autologous stem cell transplantation for surveillance for AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and MDS [myelodysplastic syndrome] need to be clearly formulated. We are doing 30,000 autologous transplants a year globally and these patients are at risk for the most feared cancer, which is leukemia and MDS, for which outcomes are very poor,” said Dr. Hashmi of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

The researchers examined data from auto-HCT patients with diagnoses of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma to determine the relative risks of developing AML and MDS. The study also explored which patient characteristics and aspects of the conditioning regimen might affect risk for later myeloid neoplasms.

In the dataset of 9,108 patients that Dr. Hashmi and his colleagues obtained from CIBMTR, 3,540 patients had NHL.

“As age progresses, the risk of acquiring myeloid neoplasms increases significantly,” he said, noting that the relative risk (RR) rose to 4.52 for patients aged 55 years and older at the time of transplant (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.63-7.77; P less than .0001).

Patients with NHL who received more than two lines of chemotherapy had approximately double the rate of myeloid cancers (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.34-2.78; P = .0004).

The type of conditioning regimen made a difference for NHL patients as well. With total-body irradiation set as the reference at RR = 1, carmustine-etoposide-cytarabine-melphalan (BEAM) or similar therapies were relatively protective, with an RR of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.40-0.87; P = .0083). Also protective were cyclophosphamide-carmustine-etoposide (CBV) and similar therapies (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.99; P = .0463).

Age at transplant was a factor among the 4,653 patients with multiple myeloma, with an RR of 2.47 for those transplanted at age 55 years or older (95% CI, 1.55-3.93; P = .0001). Multiple lines of chemotherapy also increased risk, with patients who received more than two lines having an RR of 1.77 for neoplasm (95% CI, 0.04-2.06; P = .0302). Women had less than half the risk of recurrence as men (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.69; P = .0003).

Among the 915 study patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, patients aged 45 years and older at the time of transplant carried an RR of 5.59 for new myeloid neoplasms (95% CI, 2.98-11.70; P less than .0001).

Total-body irradiation was received by 14% of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and by 5% of patients with multiple myeloma and Hodgkin lymphoma. Total-body irradiation was associated with a fourfold increase in neoplasm risk (RR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.40-11.55; P = .0096).

Dr. Hashmi and his colleagues then examined the incidence rates for myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database , finding that, even at baseline, the rates of myeloid neoplasms were higher for patients with NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, or MM patients than for the general population of cancer survivors. “Post NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma, the risks are significantly higher to begin with. … We saw a high risk of AML and MDS compared to the SEER controls – risks as high as 100 times greater for auto-transplant patients,” said Dr. Hashmi. “A risk of one hundred times more for MDS was astounding, surprising, unexpected,” he said. The risk of AML, he said, was elevated about 10-50 times in the CIBMTR data.

The cumulative incidence of MDS or AML for NHL was 6% at 10 years post transplant, 4% for Hodgkin lymphoma, and 3% for multiple myeloma.

A limitation of the study, said Dr. Hashmi, was that the investigators did not assess for post-transplant maintenance chemotherapy.

“We have to prospectively assess our transplant patients in a fashion to detect changes early. Or maybe they were present at the time of transplant and we never did sophisticated methods [like] next-generation sequencing” to detect them, he said.

Dr. Hashmi reported no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

Cpl Si Longworth RLC

People who have served in the Armed Forces do not have an increased risk of leukemia or lymphoma, according to research published in Cancer Epidemiology.

Researchers analyzed the long-term risks of developing leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in veterans living in Scotland.

At a mean 30 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in the risk of the aforementioned malignancies between veterans and non-veterans in Scotland.

This retrospective study included 56,205 veterans and 172,741 non-veterans.

The veterans’ earliest date of entering service was January 1960, and the latest date of leaving service was December 2012.

At a mean follow-up of 29.3 years, 294 (0.52%) veterans and 974 (0.56%) non-veterans were diagnosed with leukemia, HL, or NHL.

There were 125 (0.22%) cases of leukemia in veterans and 365 (0.21%) in non-veterans. There were 59 (0.10%) cases of HL in veterans and 182 (0.11%) in non-veterans. And there were 144 (0.26%) cases of NHL in veterans and 538 (0.31%) in non-veterans.

There was no significant difference in the risk of all 3 cancer types between the veterans and non-veterans. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.96 (P=0.541).

There were no significant differences in an adjusted analysis either. (The analysis was adjusted for regional deprivation, which takes into account information on income, employment, health, education, housing, crime, and access to services.)

The adjusted HR was 1.03 (P=0.773) for leukemias, 1.19 (P=0.272) for HL, and 0.86 (P=0.110) for NHL.

“This is an important study which provides reassurance that military service in the last 50 years does not increase people’s risk of leukemia overall,” said study author Beverly Bergman, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in the UK.

“The Armed Forces comply with all relevant health and safety legislation and regulations, and we can now see that their risk is no different from the general population.”

Cpl Si Longworth RLC

People who have served in the Armed Forces do not have an increased risk of leukemia or lymphoma, according to research published in Cancer Epidemiology.

Researchers analyzed the long-term risks of developing leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in veterans living in Scotland.

At a mean 30 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in the risk of the aforementioned malignancies between veterans and non-veterans in Scotland.

This retrospective study included 56,205 veterans and 172,741 non-veterans.

The veterans’ earliest date of entering service was January 1960, and the latest date of leaving service was December 2012.

At a mean follow-up of 29.3 years, 294 (0.52%) veterans and 974 (0.56%) non-veterans were diagnosed with leukemia, HL, or NHL.

There were 125 (0.22%) cases of leukemia in veterans and 365 (0.21%) in non-veterans. There were 59 (0.10%) cases of HL in veterans and 182 (0.11%) in non-veterans. And there were 144 (0.26%) cases of NHL in veterans and 538 (0.31%) in non-veterans.

There was no significant difference in the risk of all 3 cancer types between the veterans and non-veterans. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.96 (P=0.541).

There were no significant differences in an adjusted analysis either. (The analysis was adjusted for regional deprivation, which takes into account information on income, employment, health, education, housing, crime, and access to services.)

The adjusted HR was 1.03 (P=0.773) for leukemias, 1.19 (P=0.272) for HL, and 0.86 (P=0.110) for NHL.

“This is an important study which provides reassurance that military service in the last 50 years does not increase people’s risk of leukemia overall,” said study author Beverly Bergman, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in the UK.

“The Armed Forces comply with all relevant health and safety legislation and regulations, and we can now see that their risk is no different from the general population.”

Cpl Si Longworth RLC

People who have served in the Armed Forces do not have an increased risk of leukemia or lymphoma, according to research published in Cancer Epidemiology.

Researchers analyzed the long-term risks of developing leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in veterans living in Scotland.

At a mean 30 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in the risk of the aforementioned malignancies between veterans and non-veterans in Scotland.

This retrospective study included 56,205 veterans and 172,741 non-veterans.

The veterans’ earliest date of entering service was January 1960, and the latest date of leaving service was December 2012.

At a mean follow-up of 29.3 years, 294 (0.52%) veterans and 974 (0.56%) non-veterans were diagnosed with leukemia, HL, or NHL.

There were 125 (0.22%) cases of leukemia in veterans and 365 (0.21%) in non-veterans. There were 59 (0.10%) cases of HL in veterans and 182 (0.11%) in non-veterans. And there were 144 (0.26%) cases of NHL in veterans and 538 (0.31%) in non-veterans.

There was no significant difference in the risk of all 3 cancer types between the veterans and non-veterans. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.96 (P=0.541).

There were no significant differences in an adjusted analysis either. (The analysis was adjusted for regional deprivation, which takes into account information on income, employment, health, education, housing, crime, and access to services.)

The adjusted HR was 1.03 (P=0.773) for leukemias, 1.19 (P=0.272) for HL, and 0.86 (P=0.110) for NHL.

“This is an important study which provides reassurance that military service in the last 50 years does not increase people’s risk of leukemia overall,” said study author Beverly Bergman, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in the UK.

“The Armed Forces comply with all relevant health and safety legislation and regulations, and we can now see that their risk is no different from the general population.”

Photo by Esther Dyson

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on all trials of selinexor (KPT-330).

Selinexor is an inhibitor being evaluated in multiple trials of patients with relapsed and/or refractory hematologic and solid tumor malignancies.

While the partial clinical hold remains in effect, patients with stable disease or better may remain on selinexor.

However, no new patients may be enrolled in selinexor trials until the hold is lifted.

The FDA has indicated that the partial clinical hold is due to incomplete information in the existing version of the investigator’s brochure, including an incomplete list of serious adverse events associated with selinexor.

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., the company developing selinexor, said it has amended the brochure, updated the informed consent documents accordingly, and submitted the documents to the FDA as requested.

As of March 10, Karyopharm had provided all requested materials to the FDA believed to be required to lift the partial clinical hold.  By regulation, the FDA has 30 days from the receipt of Karyopharm’s submission to notify the company whether the partial clinical hold is lifted.

Karyopharm said it is working with the FDA to seek the release of the hold and resume enrollment in its selinexor trials as expeditiously as possible. The company believes its previously disclosed enrollment rates and timelines for its ongoing trials will remain materially unchanged.

About selinexor

Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) XPO1 antagonist. The drug binds with and inhibits XPO1, leading to the accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins in the cell nucleus. This reinitiates and amplifies their tumor suppressor function and is believed to induce apoptosis in cancer cells while largely sparing normal cells.

To date, more than 1900 patients have been treated with selinexor. The drug is currently being evaluated in several trials across multiple cancer indications.

One of these is the phase 2 SOPRA trial, in which selinexor is being compared to investigator’s choice of therapy (1 of 3 potential salvage therapies). The trial is enrolling patients 60 years of age or older with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia who are ineligible for standard intensive chemotherapy and/or transplant.

The SADAL study is a phase 2b trial comparing high and low doses of selinexor in patients with relapsed and/or refractory de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who have no therapeutic options of demonstrated clinical benefit.

STORM is a phase 2b trial evaluating selinexor and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM). And STOMP is a phase 1b/2 study evaluating selinexor in combination with existing therapies across the broader population in MM.

Karyopharm is also planning a randomized, phase 3 study known as BOSTON. In this trial, researchers will compare selinexor plus bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone to bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone in MM patients who have had 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy.

Additional phase 1, 2, and 3 studies are ongoing or currently planned. 

Photo by Esther Dyson

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on all trials of selinexor (KPT-330).

Selinexor is an inhibitor being evaluated in multiple trials of patients with relapsed and/or refractory hematologic and solid tumor malignancies.

While the partial clinical hold remains in effect, patients with stable disease or better may remain on selinexor.

However, no new patients may be enrolled in selinexor trials until the hold is lifted.

The FDA has indicated that the partial clinical hold is due to incomplete information in the existing version of the investigator’s brochure, including an incomplete list of serious adverse events associated with selinexor.

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., the company developing selinexor, said it has amended the brochure, updated the informed consent documents accordingly, and submitted the documents to the FDA as requested.

As of March 10, Karyopharm had provided all requested materials to the FDA believed to be required to lift the partial clinical hold.  By regulation, the FDA has 30 days from the receipt of Karyopharm’s submission to notify the company whether the partial clinical hold is lifted.

Karyopharm said it is working with the FDA to seek the release of the hold and resume enrollment in its selinexor trials as expeditiously as possible. The company believes its previously disclosed enrollment rates and timelines for its ongoing trials will remain materially unchanged.

About selinexor

Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) XPO1 antagonist. The drug binds with and inhibits XPO1, leading to the accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins in the cell nucleus. This reinitiates and amplifies their tumor suppressor function and is believed to induce apoptosis in cancer cells while largely sparing normal cells.

To date, more than 1900 patients have been treated with selinexor. The drug is currently being evaluated in several trials across multiple cancer indications.

One of these is the phase 2 SOPRA trial, in which selinexor is being compared to investigator’s choice of therapy (1 of 3 potential salvage therapies). The trial is enrolling patients 60 years of age or older with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia who are ineligible for standard intensive chemotherapy and/or transplant.

The SADAL study is a phase 2b trial comparing high and low doses of selinexor in patients with relapsed and/or refractory de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who have no therapeutic options of demonstrated clinical benefit.

STORM is a phase 2b trial evaluating selinexor and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM). And STOMP is a phase 1b/2 study evaluating selinexor in combination with existing therapies across the broader population in MM.

Karyopharm is also planning a randomized, phase 3 study known as BOSTON. In this trial, researchers will compare selinexor plus bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone to bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone in MM patients who have had 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy.

Additional phase 1, 2, and 3 studies are ongoing or currently planned. 

Photo by Esther Dyson

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on all trials of selinexor (KPT-330).

Selinexor is an inhibitor being evaluated in multiple trials of patients with relapsed and/or refractory hematologic and solid tumor malignancies.

While the partial clinical hold remains in effect, patients with stable disease or better may remain on selinexor.

However, no new patients may be enrolled in selinexor trials until the hold is lifted.

The FDA has indicated that the partial clinical hold is due to incomplete information in the existing version of the investigator’s brochure, including an incomplete list of serious adverse events associated with selinexor.

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., the company developing selinexor, said it has amended the brochure, updated the informed consent documents accordingly, and submitted the documents to the FDA as requested.

As of March 10, Karyopharm had provided all requested materials to the FDA believed to be required to lift the partial clinical hold.  By regulation, the FDA has 30 days from the receipt of Karyopharm’s submission to notify the company whether the partial clinical hold is lifted.

Karyopharm said it is working with the FDA to seek the release of the hold and resume enrollment in its selinexor trials as expeditiously as possible. The company believes its previously disclosed enrollment rates and timelines for its ongoing trials will remain materially unchanged.

About selinexor

Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) XPO1 antagonist. The drug binds with and inhibits XPO1, leading to the accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins in the cell nucleus. This reinitiates and amplifies their tumor suppressor function and is believed to induce apoptosis in cancer cells while largely sparing normal cells.

To date, more than 1900 patients have been treated with selinexor. The drug is currently being evaluated in several trials across multiple cancer indications.

One of these is the phase 2 SOPRA trial, in which selinexor is being compared to investigator’s choice of therapy (1 of 3 potential salvage therapies). The trial is enrolling patients 60 years of age or older with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia who are ineligible for standard intensive chemotherapy and/or transplant.

The SADAL study is a phase 2b trial comparing high and low doses of selinexor in patients with relapsed and/or refractory de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who have no therapeutic options of demonstrated clinical benefit.

STORM is a phase 2b trial evaluating selinexor and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM). And STOMP is a phase 1b/2 study evaluating selinexor in combination with existing therapies across the broader population in MM.

Karyopharm is also planning a randomized, phase 3 study known as BOSTON. In this trial, researchers will compare selinexor plus bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone to bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone in MM patients who have had 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy.

Additional phase 1, 2, and 3 studies are ongoing or currently planned.