Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

Immunogenicity of the high-dose influenza vaccine (HD IIV3) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL, the precursor state to CLL) was found lower than reported in healthy adults according to a report in Vaccine.

In addition, immunogenicity to influenza B was found to be greater in those patients with MBL, compared with those with CLL.

“Acute and chronic leukemia patients hospitalized with influenza infection document a case fatality rate of 25%-37%,” according to Jennifer A. Whitaker, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues in pointing out the importance of their study.

The prospective pilot study assessed the humoral immune responses of patients to the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 HD IIV3 (Fluzone High-Dose; Sanofi Pasteur), which was administered as part of routine clinical care in 30 patients (17 with previously untreated CLL and 13 with MBL). The median patient age was 69.5 years.

The primary outcomes were seroconversion and seroprotection, as measured by hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI).
 

Lower response rate

At day 28 post vaccination, the seroprotection rates for the overall cohort were 19/30 (63.3%) for A/H1N1, 21/23 (91.3%) for A/H3N2, and 13/30 (43.3%) for influenza B. Patients with MBL achieved significantly higher day 28 HAI geometric mean titers (GMT), compared with CLL patients (54.1 vs. 12.1]; P = .01), In addition, MBL patients achieved higher day 28 seroprotection rates against the influenza B vaccine strain virus than did those with CLL (76.9% vs. 17.6%; P = .002). Seroconversion rates for the overall cohort were 3/30 (10%) for A/H1N1; 5/23 (21.7%) for A/H3N2; and 3/30 (10%) for influenza B. No individual with CLL demonstrated seroconversion for influenza B, according to the researchers.

“Our studies reinforce rigorous adherence to vaccination strategies in patients with hematologic malignancy, including those with CLL, given the increased risk of serious complications among those experiencing influenza infection,” the authors stated.

“Even suboptimal responses to influenza vaccination can provide partial protection, reduce hospitalization rates, and/or prevent serious disease complications. Given the recent major issue with novel and aggressive viruses such COVID-19, we absolutely must continue with larger prospective studies to confirm these findings and evaluate vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza or other novel viruses in these populations,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Whitaker reported having no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported financial relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

[email protected]

Immunogenicity of the high-dose influenza vaccine (HD IIV3) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL, the precursor state to CLL) was found lower than reported in healthy adults according to a report in Vaccine.

In addition, immunogenicity to influenza B was found to be greater in those patients with MBL, compared with those with CLL.

“Acute and chronic leukemia patients hospitalized with influenza infection document a case fatality rate of 25%-37%,” according to Jennifer A. Whitaker, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues in pointing out the importance of their study.

The prospective pilot study assessed the humoral immune responses of patients to the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 HD IIV3 (Fluzone High-Dose; Sanofi Pasteur), which was administered as part of routine clinical care in 30 patients (17 with previously untreated CLL and 13 with MBL). The median patient age was 69.5 years.

The primary outcomes were seroconversion and seroprotection, as measured by hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI).
 

Lower response rate

At day 28 post vaccination, the seroprotection rates for the overall cohort were 19/30 (63.3%) for A/H1N1, 21/23 (91.3%) for A/H3N2, and 13/30 (43.3%) for influenza B. Patients with MBL achieved significantly higher day 28 HAI geometric mean titers (GMT), compared with CLL patients (54.1 vs. 12.1]; P = .01), In addition, MBL patients achieved higher day 28 seroprotection rates against the influenza B vaccine strain virus than did those with CLL (76.9% vs. 17.6%; P = .002). Seroconversion rates for the overall cohort were 3/30 (10%) for A/H1N1; 5/23 (21.7%) for A/H3N2; and 3/30 (10%) for influenza B. No individual with CLL demonstrated seroconversion for influenza B, according to the researchers.

“Our studies reinforce rigorous adherence to vaccination strategies in patients with hematologic malignancy, including those with CLL, given the increased risk of serious complications among those experiencing influenza infection,” the authors stated.

“Even suboptimal responses to influenza vaccination can provide partial protection, reduce hospitalization rates, and/or prevent serious disease complications. Given the recent major issue with novel and aggressive viruses such COVID-19, we absolutely must continue with larger prospective studies to confirm these findings and evaluate vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza or other novel viruses in these populations,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Whitaker reported having no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported financial relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

[email protected]

Immunogenicity of the high-dose influenza vaccine (HD IIV3) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL, the precursor state to CLL) was found lower than reported in healthy adults according to a report in Vaccine.

In addition, immunogenicity to influenza B was found to be greater in those patients with MBL, compared with those with CLL.

“Acute and chronic leukemia patients hospitalized with influenza infection document a case fatality rate of 25%-37%,” according to Jennifer A. Whitaker, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues in pointing out the importance of their study.

The prospective pilot study assessed the humoral immune responses of patients to the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 HD IIV3 (Fluzone High-Dose; Sanofi Pasteur), which was administered as part of routine clinical care in 30 patients (17 with previously untreated CLL and 13 with MBL). The median patient age was 69.5 years.

The primary outcomes were seroconversion and seroprotection, as measured by hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI).
 

Lower response rate

At day 28 post vaccination, the seroprotection rates for the overall cohort were 19/30 (63.3%) for A/H1N1, 21/23 (91.3%) for A/H3N2, and 13/30 (43.3%) for influenza B. Patients with MBL achieved significantly higher day 28 HAI geometric mean titers (GMT), compared with CLL patients (54.1 vs. 12.1]; P = .01), In addition, MBL patients achieved higher day 28 seroprotection rates against the influenza B vaccine strain virus than did those with CLL (76.9% vs. 17.6%; P = .002). Seroconversion rates for the overall cohort were 3/30 (10%) for A/H1N1; 5/23 (21.7%) for A/H3N2; and 3/30 (10%) for influenza B. No individual with CLL demonstrated seroconversion for influenza B, according to the researchers.

“Our studies reinforce rigorous adherence to vaccination strategies in patients with hematologic malignancy, including those with CLL, given the increased risk of serious complications among those experiencing influenza infection,” the authors stated.

“Even suboptimal responses to influenza vaccination can provide partial protection, reduce hospitalization rates, and/or prevent serious disease complications. Given the recent major issue with novel and aggressive viruses such COVID-19, we absolutely must continue with larger prospective studies to confirm these findings and evaluate vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza or other novel viruses in these populations,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Whitaker reported having no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported financial relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

[email protected]

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

For now at least, total body irradiation (TBI) plus etoposide remains the conditioning regimen of choice for children undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to an open-label, phase 3 trial from Europe.

The investigators sought to answer a question many physicians have raised: With improvements in human leukocyte antigen typing, better graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, and other advances, can myeloablative chemotherapy conditioning replace TBI, which is more toxic?

The downstream effects of TBI can include secondary malignancies and cataracts, as well as impaired growth and impaired gonadal and cognitive function.

But the answer to that question is no, or at least, not yet.

The phase 3 trial included individuals with ALL who were aged 4-21 years at time of transplant. They were randomly assigned to receive either fractionated TBI at 12 Gy plus etoposide or chemotherapy based on a myeloablative regimen: fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan.

The trial was stopped after 413 patients had undergone randomization – quite a bit short of the 1,000-patient goal. The trial was terminated because TBI proved clearly superior on an interim analysis at a median follow-up of 2.1 years.

The results showed that 72% of the TBI group – but only 51% of the chemotherapy arm – were relapse free at 2 years with no graft-versus-host disease (P = .0003).

The 2-year treatment-related mortality rate was 2% in the TBI group but 9% with chemotherapy conditioning (P = .03).

The study was published Feb. 1, 2020, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“We recommend TBI plus etoposide conditioning for patients [aged over] 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplant],” they concluded. The investigators were led by Christina Peters, MD, a pediatrics professor at the St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Vienna.

The benefits of TBI held on multivariate analysis and across subgroups, including children in their first and second remissions and among those with high-risk cytogenetics. Relapse risk factors, such as age at transplant, leukemic phenotype, and molecular aberrations, did not significantly affect outcomes, the authors reported.

Given that relapses plateaued with TBI at 2.5 years but were still on the upswing for patients who underwent chemoconditioning, “it is unlikely that secondary malignancies after TBI could jeopardize the survival advantage,” they wrote.

“So does this mean that the HCT community is forever chained to TBI as a standard of care? Certainly, it means that without very sound rationale to deviate, a TBI-based preparative regimen is the preferred therapy at present,” Michael Pulsipher, MD, head of blood and marrow transplantation at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, commented in an accompanying editorial.

However, “there are approaches under study currently that may define patients who do not need TBI for high rates of cure,” he suggested. Those approaches include selecting patients with the deepest remissions and using KIR-favorable haplotype to harness natural killer cell activity.

“In our new world of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells and immunotherapies, surely we can find safer paths to success,” Dr. Pulsipher wrote.

With regard to patient selection, the investigators noted that a recent review that included more than 3,000 children with ALL found no overall survival benefit with TBI versus chemoconditioning for patients in first complete remission but worse outcomes with chemoconditioning among patients in second complete remission. “A similar trend was observed in our subgroup analyses; however, our study was not powered to assess statistical significance in a sample size of 413 patients,” they wrote.

Minimal residual disease did not influence survival outcomes, probably because the investigators were aggressive in inducing deep remission in their patients before transplant, so for most patients, MRD was undetectable or very low beforehand.

The study was funded by Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Neovii, Medac, and others. Dr. Peters and coauthors, as well as Dr. Pulsipher have disclosed numerous ties with those and/or other companies.

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

For now at least, total body irradiation (TBI) plus etoposide remains the conditioning regimen of choice for children undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to an open-label, phase 3 trial from Europe.

The investigators sought to answer a question many physicians have raised: With improvements in human leukocyte antigen typing, better graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, and other advances, can myeloablative chemotherapy conditioning replace TBI, which is more toxic?

The downstream effects of TBI can include secondary malignancies and cataracts, as well as impaired growth and impaired gonadal and cognitive function.

But the answer to that question is no, or at least, not yet.

The phase 3 trial included individuals with ALL who were aged 4-21 years at time of transplant. They were randomly assigned to receive either fractionated TBI at 12 Gy plus etoposide or chemotherapy based on a myeloablative regimen: fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan.

The trial was stopped after 413 patients had undergone randomization – quite a bit short of the 1,000-patient goal. The trial was terminated because TBI proved clearly superior on an interim analysis at a median follow-up of 2.1 years.

The results showed that 72% of the TBI group – but only 51% of the chemotherapy arm – were relapse free at 2 years with no graft-versus-host disease (P = .0003).

The 2-year treatment-related mortality rate was 2% in the TBI group but 9% with chemotherapy conditioning (P = .03).

The study was published Feb. 1, 2020, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“We recommend TBI plus etoposide conditioning for patients [aged over] 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplant],” they concluded. The investigators were led by Christina Peters, MD, a pediatrics professor at the St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Vienna.

The benefits of TBI held on multivariate analysis and across subgroups, including children in their first and second remissions and among those with high-risk cytogenetics. Relapse risk factors, such as age at transplant, leukemic phenotype, and molecular aberrations, did not significantly affect outcomes, the authors reported.

Given that relapses plateaued with TBI at 2.5 years but were still on the upswing for patients who underwent chemoconditioning, “it is unlikely that secondary malignancies after TBI could jeopardize the survival advantage,” they wrote.

“So does this mean that the HCT community is forever chained to TBI as a standard of care? Certainly, it means that without very sound rationale to deviate, a TBI-based preparative regimen is the preferred therapy at present,” Michael Pulsipher, MD, head of blood and marrow transplantation at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, commented in an accompanying editorial.

However, “there are approaches under study currently that may define patients who do not need TBI for high rates of cure,” he suggested. Those approaches include selecting patients with the deepest remissions and using KIR-favorable haplotype to harness natural killer cell activity.

“In our new world of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells and immunotherapies, surely we can find safer paths to success,” Dr. Pulsipher wrote.

With regard to patient selection, the investigators noted that a recent review that included more than 3,000 children with ALL found no overall survival benefit with TBI versus chemoconditioning for patients in first complete remission but worse outcomes with chemoconditioning among patients in second complete remission. “A similar trend was observed in our subgroup analyses; however, our study was not powered to assess statistical significance in a sample size of 413 patients,” they wrote.

Minimal residual disease did not influence survival outcomes, probably because the investigators were aggressive in inducing deep remission in their patients before transplant, so for most patients, MRD was undetectable or very low beforehand.

The study was funded by Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Neovii, Medac, and others. Dr. Peters and coauthors, as well as Dr. Pulsipher have disclosed numerous ties with those and/or other companies.

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

For now at least, total body irradiation (TBI) plus etoposide remains the conditioning regimen of choice for children undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to an open-label, phase 3 trial from Europe.

The investigators sought to answer a question many physicians have raised: With improvements in human leukocyte antigen typing, better graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, and other advances, can myeloablative chemotherapy conditioning replace TBI, which is more toxic?

The downstream effects of TBI can include secondary malignancies and cataracts, as well as impaired growth and impaired gonadal and cognitive function.

But the answer to that question is no, or at least, not yet.

The phase 3 trial included individuals with ALL who were aged 4-21 years at time of transplant. They were randomly assigned to receive either fractionated TBI at 12 Gy plus etoposide or chemotherapy based on a myeloablative regimen: fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan.

The trial was stopped after 413 patients had undergone randomization – quite a bit short of the 1,000-patient goal. The trial was terminated because TBI proved clearly superior on an interim analysis at a median follow-up of 2.1 years.

The results showed that 72% of the TBI group – but only 51% of the chemotherapy arm – were relapse free at 2 years with no graft-versus-host disease (P = .0003).

The 2-year treatment-related mortality rate was 2% in the TBI group but 9% with chemotherapy conditioning (P = .03).

The study was published Feb. 1, 2020, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“We recommend TBI plus etoposide conditioning for patients [aged over] 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplant],” they concluded. The investigators were led by Christina Peters, MD, a pediatrics professor at the St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Vienna.

The benefits of TBI held on multivariate analysis and across subgroups, including children in their first and second remissions and among those with high-risk cytogenetics. Relapse risk factors, such as age at transplant, leukemic phenotype, and molecular aberrations, did not significantly affect outcomes, the authors reported.

Given that relapses plateaued with TBI at 2.5 years but were still on the upswing for patients who underwent chemoconditioning, “it is unlikely that secondary malignancies after TBI could jeopardize the survival advantage,” they wrote.

“So does this mean that the HCT community is forever chained to TBI as a standard of care? Certainly, it means that without very sound rationale to deviate, a TBI-based preparative regimen is the preferred therapy at present,” Michael Pulsipher, MD, head of blood and marrow transplantation at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, commented in an accompanying editorial.

However, “there are approaches under study currently that may define patients who do not need TBI for high rates of cure,” he suggested. Those approaches include selecting patients with the deepest remissions and using KIR-favorable haplotype to harness natural killer cell activity.

“In our new world of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells and immunotherapies, surely we can find safer paths to success,” Dr. Pulsipher wrote.

With regard to patient selection, the investigators noted that a recent review that included more than 3,000 children with ALL found no overall survival benefit with TBI versus chemoconditioning for patients in first complete remission but worse outcomes with chemoconditioning among patients in second complete remission. “A similar trend was observed in our subgroup analyses; however, our study was not powered to assess statistical significance in a sample size of 413 patients,” they wrote.

Minimal residual disease did not influence survival outcomes, probably because the investigators were aggressive in inducing deep remission in their patients before transplant, so for most patients, MRD was undetectable or very low beforehand.

The study was funded by Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Neovii, Medac, and others. Dr. Peters and coauthors, as well as Dr. Pulsipher have disclosed numerous ties with those and/or other companies.

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

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

In heavily pretreated pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), venetoclax plus navitoclax with chemotherapy was well tolerated with promising responses, according to results of a phase 1 trial. Delayed count recovery, however, stated lead author Jeffrey E. Rubnitz, MD, PhD, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, remained a key safety concern.
 

Unmet medical need

Despite intensive chemotherapy and novel therapeutics, Dr. Rubnitz said in a virtual oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, patients with relapsed or refractory ALL and LL have a poor prognosis and represent an unmet medical need. Venetoclax, a potent, highly selective oral B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, and navitoclax, an oral BCL-2, BCL-XL, and BCL-W inhibitor, directly bind their BCL-2 family member targets to promote apoptosis. In ALL preclinical models, venetoclax and navitoclax have demonstrated antileukemic effects, which suggests dependence on BCL-2 family members. Venetoclax efficacy associated with BCL-2 family inhibition may be potentiated and dose-limiting thrombocytopenia associated with standard-dose navitoclax monotherapy may be avoided by adding venetoclax to low-dose navitoclax. Previous reports of an ongoing phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study in an adult and pediatric population (NCT03181126), Dr. Rubnitz noted, showed the venetoclax/navitoclax/chemotherapy combination to be well tolerated with promising response rates. In the current report, Dr. Rubnitz presented data on the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the triplet regimen in the subgroup of pediatric patients.

The study included pediatric patients (ages, 4-18 years and weight ≥20 kg) receiving venetoclax (weight-adjusted equivalent of 400 mg daily) and navitoclax at three dose levels (25, 50, 100 mg) for patients weighing ≥45 kg and two dose levels (25, 50 mg) for patients weighing <45 kg. At investigator’s discretion, patients could receive chemotherapy (polyethylene glycosylated–asparaginase, vincristine, and dexamethasone). The primary outcomes were safety (including incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events) and pharmacokinetics. A safety expansion cohort assessed a 21-day dosing schedule of venetoclax at 400 mg followed by 7 days off plus navitoclax at 50 mg (patients ≥45 kg) or 25 mg (patients <45 kg).

Investigators enrolled 18 patients <18 years (median age, 10 years; range, 6-16; 56% male), with 12 in the dose-escalation cohort and 6 in the safety-expansion cohort. Three patients had prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T treatment and four had received prior stem cell transplantation. In the overall cohort, B-cell ALL was most common (n = 13, 72%), with T-cell ALL (n = 3, 17%) and LL (n = 2, 11%) following. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). All patients received chemotherapy.
 

Grade 3-4 adverse events

Venetoclax-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 56% of patients. Similarly, navitoclax-related grade 3-4 events were reported in 56% of patients. Navitoclax dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two patients (11%), delayed count recovery on 25 mg and sepsis on 50 mg. No grade 5 adverse events and tumor lysis syndrome were reported.

Among secondary endpoint efficacy parameters, complete responses, CRs with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) and CRs without platelet recovery (CRp) combined occurred in 62% of B-ALL patients (8/13), 33% of T-cell ALL patients (1/3) and in 50% of LL patients (1/2). Separately, CRs/CRis/CRps occurred in 33%/22%/0% of all patients, respectively.

Subsequently, 5 of 18 (28%) of patients proceeded to stem cell transplantation and 3 (17%) to CAR T. Eight patients (44%) died from disease progression.
 

BH3 profiling

BH3 profiling revealed that at baseline, patients with B-cell ALL had more diversity in BCL-2 and BCL-XL dependency than did patients with T-cell ALL or early T-cell precursor ALL. The fact that responses were observed in patients who were BCL-2 or BCL-XL dependent, Dr. Rubnitz said, supports the use of venetoclax plus navitoclax in these patients. Analysis of these results led to a recommended phase 2 dose for pediatric patients of 400 mg venetoclax with 25 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing <45 kg) or 50 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing 45 kg or more).

Dr. Rubnitz concluded: “Venetoclax plus navitoclax plus chemotherapy was well tolerated in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory ALL or LL, with promising response rates observed in a heavily pretreated pediatric population.”

Asked whether the combination might be used also before the refractory setting, in a minimal residual disease (MRD) setting, Dr. Rubnitz replied: “We have a lot of safety data on venetoclax but very little on navitoclax. The next trial, being developed by Seth Karol, MD, will include relapsed patients. MRD-positive patients will also be eligible for enrollment.” To a further question as to whether guiding titration via BH3 profiling would lead to improved outcomes, Dr. Rubnitz said, “I think BH3 profiling can be used to identify which patients will respond to these drugs, but we are still a long way from using it for titrating the doses and dose ratios for the two drugs.”

Dr. Rubnitz disclosed research funding from AbbVie.

SOURCE: Rubnitz JE et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 466.

In heavily pretreated pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), venetoclax plus navitoclax with chemotherapy was well tolerated with promising responses, according to results of a phase 1 trial. Delayed count recovery, however, stated lead author Jeffrey E. Rubnitz, MD, PhD, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, remained a key safety concern.
 

Unmet medical need

Despite intensive chemotherapy and novel therapeutics, Dr. Rubnitz said in a virtual oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, patients with relapsed or refractory ALL and LL have a poor prognosis and represent an unmet medical need. Venetoclax, a potent, highly selective oral B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, and navitoclax, an oral BCL-2, BCL-XL, and BCL-W inhibitor, directly bind their BCL-2 family member targets to promote apoptosis. In ALL preclinical models, venetoclax and navitoclax have demonstrated antileukemic effects, which suggests dependence on BCL-2 family members. Venetoclax efficacy associated with BCL-2 family inhibition may be potentiated and dose-limiting thrombocytopenia associated with standard-dose navitoclax monotherapy may be avoided by adding venetoclax to low-dose navitoclax. Previous reports of an ongoing phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study in an adult and pediatric population (NCT03181126), Dr. Rubnitz noted, showed the venetoclax/navitoclax/chemotherapy combination to be well tolerated with promising response rates. In the current report, Dr. Rubnitz presented data on the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the triplet regimen in the subgroup of pediatric patients.

The study included pediatric patients (ages, 4-18 years and weight ≥20 kg) receiving venetoclax (weight-adjusted equivalent of 400 mg daily) and navitoclax at three dose levels (25, 50, 100 mg) for patients weighing ≥45 kg and two dose levels (25, 50 mg) for patients weighing <45 kg. At investigator’s discretion, patients could receive chemotherapy (polyethylene glycosylated–asparaginase, vincristine, and dexamethasone). The primary outcomes were safety (including incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events) and pharmacokinetics. A safety expansion cohort assessed a 21-day dosing schedule of venetoclax at 400 mg followed by 7 days off plus navitoclax at 50 mg (patients ≥45 kg) or 25 mg (patients <45 kg).

Investigators enrolled 18 patients <18 years (median age, 10 years; range, 6-16; 56% male), with 12 in the dose-escalation cohort and 6 in the safety-expansion cohort. Three patients had prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T treatment and four had received prior stem cell transplantation. In the overall cohort, B-cell ALL was most common (n = 13, 72%), with T-cell ALL (n = 3, 17%) and LL (n = 2, 11%) following. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). All patients received chemotherapy.
 

Grade 3-4 adverse events

Venetoclax-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 56% of patients. Similarly, navitoclax-related grade 3-4 events were reported in 56% of patients. Navitoclax dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two patients (11%), delayed count recovery on 25 mg and sepsis on 50 mg. No grade 5 adverse events and tumor lysis syndrome were reported.

Among secondary endpoint efficacy parameters, complete responses, CRs with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) and CRs without platelet recovery (CRp) combined occurred in 62% of B-ALL patients (8/13), 33% of T-cell ALL patients (1/3) and in 50% of LL patients (1/2). Separately, CRs/CRis/CRps occurred in 33%/22%/0% of all patients, respectively.

Subsequently, 5 of 18 (28%) of patients proceeded to stem cell transplantation and 3 (17%) to CAR T. Eight patients (44%) died from disease progression.
 

BH3 profiling

BH3 profiling revealed that at baseline, patients with B-cell ALL had more diversity in BCL-2 and BCL-XL dependency than did patients with T-cell ALL or early T-cell precursor ALL. The fact that responses were observed in patients who were BCL-2 or BCL-XL dependent, Dr. Rubnitz said, supports the use of venetoclax plus navitoclax in these patients. Analysis of these results led to a recommended phase 2 dose for pediatric patients of 400 mg venetoclax with 25 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing <45 kg) or 50 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing 45 kg or more).

Dr. Rubnitz concluded: “Venetoclax plus navitoclax plus chemotherapy was well tolerated in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory ALL or LL, with promising response rates observed in a heavily pretreated pediatric population.”

Asked whether the combination might be used also before the refractory setting, in a minimal residual disease (MRD) setting, Dr. Rubnitz replied: “We have a lot of safety data on venetoclax but very little on navitoclax. The next trial, being developed by Seth Karol, MD, will include relapsed patients. MRD-positive patients will also be eligible for enrollment.” To a further question as to whether guiding titration via BH3 profiling would lead to improved outcomes, Dr. Rubnitz said, “I think BH3 profiling can be used to identify which patients will respond to these drugs, but we are still a long way from using it for titrating the doses and dose ratios for the two drugs.”

Dr. Rubnitz disclosed research funding from AbbVie.

SOURCE: Rubnitz JE et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 466.

In heavily pretreated pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), venetoclax plus navitoclax with chemotherapy was well tolerated with promising responses, according to results of a phase 1 trial. Delayed count recovery, however, stated lead author Jeffrey E. Rubnitz, MD, PhD, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, remained a key safety concern.
 

Unmet medical need

Despite intensive chemotherapy and novel therapeutics, Dr. Rubnitz said in a virtual oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, patients with relapsed or refractory ALL and LL have a poor prognosis and represent an unmet medical need. Venetoclax, a potent, highly selective oral B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, and navitoclax, an oral BCL-2, BCL-XL, and BCL-W inhibitor, directly bind their BCL-2 family member targets to promote apoptosis. In ALL preclinical models, venetoclax and navitoclax have demonstrated antileukemic effects, which suggests dependence on BCL-2 family members. Venetoclax efficacy associated with BCL-2 family inhibition may be potentiated and dose-limiting thrombocytopenia associated with standard-dose navitoclax monotherapy may be avoided by adding venetoclax to low-dose navitoclax. Previous reports of an ongoing phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study in an adult and pediatric population (NCT03181126), Dr. Rubnitz noted, showed the venetoclax/navitoclax/chemotherapy combination to be well tolerated with promising response rates. In the current report, Dr. Rubnitz presented data on the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the triplet regimen in the subgroup of pediatric patients.

The study included pediatric patients (ages, 4-18 years and weight ≥20 kg) receiving venetoclax (weight-adjusted equivalent of 400 mg daily) and navitoclax at three dose levels (25, 50, 100 mg) for patients weighing ≥45 kg and two dose levels (25, 50 mg) for patients weighing <45 kg. At investigator’s discretion, patients could receive chemotherapy (polyethylene glycosylated–asparaginase, vincristine, and dexamethasone). The primary outcomes were safety (including incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events) and pharmacokinetics. A safety expansion cohort assessed a 21-day dosing schedule of venetoclax at 400 mg followed by 7 days off plus navitoclax at 50 mg (patients ≥45 kg) or 25 mg (patients <45 kg).

Investigators enrolled 18 patients <18 years (median age, 10 years; range, 6-16; 56% male), with 12 in the dose-escalation cohort and 6 in the safety-expansion cohort. Three patients had prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T treatment and four had received prior stem cell transplantation. In the overall cohort, B-cell ALL was most common (n = 13, 72%), with T-cell ALL (n = 3, 17%) and LL (n = 2, 11%) following. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). All patients received chemotherapy.
 

Grade 3-4 adverse events

Venetoclax-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 56% of patients. Similarly, navitoclax-related grade 3-4 events were reported in 56% of patients. Navitoclax dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two patients (11%), delayed count recovery on 25 mg and sepsis on 50 mg. No grade 5 adverse events and tumor lysis syndrome were reported.

Among secondary endpoint efficacy parameters, complete responses, CRs with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) and CRs without platelet recovery (CRp) combined occurred in 62% of B-ALL patients (8/13), 33% of T-cell ALL patients (1/3) and in 50% of LL patients (1/2). Separately, CRs/CRis/CRps occurred in 33%/22%/0% of all patients, respectively.

Subsequently, 5 of 18 (28%) of patients proceeded to stem cell transplantation and 3 (17%) to CAR T. Eight patients (44%) died from disease progression.
 

BH3 profiling

BH3 profiling revealed that at baseline, patients with B-cell ALL had more diversity in BCL-2 and BCL-XL dependency than did patients with T-cell ALL or early T-cell precursor ALL. The fact that responses were observed in patients who were BCL-2 or BCL-XL dependent, Dr. Rubnitz said, supports the use of venetoclax plus navitoclax in these patients. Analysis of these results led to a recommended phase 2 dose for pediatric patients of 400 mg venetoclax with 25 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing <45 kg) or 50 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing 45 kg or more).

Dr. Rubnitz concluded: “Venetoclax plus navitoclax plus chemotherapy was well tolerated in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory ALL or LL, with promising response rates observed in a heavily pretreated pediatric population.”

Asked whether the combination might be used also before the refractory setting, in a minimal residual disease (MRD) setting, Dr. Rubnitz replied: “We have a lot of safety data on venetoclax but very little on navitoclax. The next trial, being developed by Seth Karol, MD, will include relapsed patients. MRD-positive patients will also be eligible for enrollment.” To a further question as to whether guiding titration via BH3 profiling would lead to improved outcomes, Dr. Rubnitz said, “I think BH3 profiling can be used to identify which patients will respond to these drugs, but we are still a long way from using it for titrating the doses and dose ratios for the two drugs.”

Dr. Rubnitz disclosed research funding from AbbVie.

SOURCE: Rubnitz JE et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 466.

Hyper-CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) with sequential blinatumomab is highly effective as frontline therapy for Philadelphia Chromosome (Ph)–negative B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to results of a phase 2 study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Favorable minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and overall survival with low higher-grade toxicities suggest that reductions in chemotherapy in this setting are feasible, said Nicholas J. Short, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

While complete response rates with current ALL therapy are 80%-90%, long-term overall survival is only 40%-50%. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engaging CD3-CD19 antibody, has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL, and to produce high rates of MRD eradication, the most important prognostic factor in ALL, Dr. Short said at the meeting, which was held virtually.

The hypothesis of the current study was that early incorporation of blinatumomab with hyper-CVAD in patients with newly diagnosed Ph-negative B-cell ALL would decrease the need for intensive chemotherapy and lead to higher efficacy and cure rates with less myelosuppression. Patients were required to have a performance status of 3 or less, total bilirubin 2 mg/dL or less and creatinine 2 mg/dL or less. Investigators enrolled 38 patients (mean age, 37 years,; range, 17-59) with most (79%) in performance status 0-1. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS).
 

Study details

Patients received hyper-CVAD alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine for up to four cycles followed by four cycles of blinatumomab at standard doses. Those with CD20-positive disease (1% or greater percentage of the cells) received eight doses of ofatumumab or rituximab, and prophylactic intrathecal chemotherapy was given eight times in the first four cycles. Maintenance consisted of alternating blocks of POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, prednisone) and blinatumomab. When two patients with high-risk features experienced early relapse, investigators amended the protocol to allow blinatumomab after only two cycles of hyper-CVAD in those with high-risk features (e.g., CRLF2 positive by flow cytometry, complex karyotype, KMT2A rearranged, low hypodiploidy/near triploidy, TP53 mutation, or persistent MRD). Nineteen patients (56%) had at least one high-risk feature, and 82% received ofatumumab or rituximab. Six patients were in complete remission at the start of the study (four of them MRD negative).

Complete responses

After induction, complete responses were achieved in 81% (26/32), with all patients achieving a complete response at some point, according to Dr. Short. The MRD negativity rate was 71% (24/34) after induction and 97% (33/34) at any time. Among the 38 patients, all with complete response at median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2-45), relapses occurred only in those 5 patients with high-risk features. Twelve patients underwent transplant in the first remission. Two relapsed, both with high-risk features. The other 21 patients had ongoing complete responses.

RFS at 1- and 2-years was 80% and 71%, respectively. Five among seven relapses were without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and 2 were post HSCT. Two deaths occurred in patients with complete responses (one pulmonary embolism and one with post-HSCT complications). Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 85% and 80%, respectively, with the 2-year rate comparable with prior reports for hyper-CVAD plus ofatumumab, Dr. Short said.

The most common nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events with hyper-CVAD plus blinatumomab were ALT/AST elevation (24%) and hyperglycemia (21%). The overall cytokine release syndrome rate was 13%, with 3% for higher-grade reactions. The rate for blinatumomab-related neurologic events was 45% overall and 13% for higher grades, with 1 discontinuation attributed to grade 2 encephalopathy and dysphasia.

“Overall, this study shows the potential benefit of incorporating frontline blinatumomab into the treatment of younger adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-cell lymphoma, and shows, as well, that reduction of chemotherapy in this context is feasible,” Dr. Short stated.

“Ultimately, often for any patients with acute leukemias and ALL, our only chance to cure them is in the frontline setting, so our approach is to include all of the most effective agents we have. So that means including blinatumomab in all of our frontline regimens in clinical trials – and now we’ve amended that to add inotuzumab ozogamicin with the goal of deepening responses and increasing cure rates,” he added.

Dr. Short reported consulting with Takeda Oncology and Astrazeneca, and receiving research funding and honoraria from Amgen, Astella, and Takeda Oncology.

SOURCE: Short NG et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 464.

Hyper-CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) with sequential blinatumomab is highly effective as frontline therapy for Philadelphia Chromosome (Ph)–negative B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to results of a phase 2 study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Favorable minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and overall survival with low higher-grade toxicities suggest that reductions in chemotherapy in this setting are feasible, said Nicholas J. Short, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

While complete response rates with current ALL therapy are 80%-90%, long-term overall survival is only 40%-50%. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engaging CD3-CD19 antibody, has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL, and to produce high rates of MRD eradication, the most important prognostic factor in ALL, Dr. Short said at the meeting, which was held virtually.

The hypothesis of the current study was that early incorporation of blinatumomab with hyper-CVAD in patients with newly diagnosed Ph-negative B-cell ALL would decrease the need for intensive chemotherapy and lead to higher efficacy and cure rates with less myelosuppression. Patients were required to have a performance status of 3 or less, total bilirubin 2 mg/dL or less and creatinine 2 mg/dL or less. Investigators enrolled 38 patients (mean age, 37 years,; range, 17-59) with most (79%) in performance status 0-1. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS).
 

Study details

Patients received hyper-CVAD alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine for up to four cycles followed by four cycles of blinatumomab at standard doses. Those with CD20-positive disease (1% or greater percentage of the cells) received eight doses of ofatumumab or rituximab, and prophylactic intrathecal chemotherapy was given eight times in the first four cycles. Maintenance consisted of alternating blocks of POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, prednisone) and blinatumomab. When two patients with high-risk features experienced early relapse, investigators amended the protocol to allow blinatumomab after only two cycles of hyper-CVAD in those with high-risk features (e.g., CRLF2 positive by flow cytometry, complex karyotype, KMT2A rearranged, low hypodiploidy/near triploidy, TP53 mutation, or persistent MRD). Nineteen patients (56%) had at least one high-risk feature, and 82% received ofatumumab or rituximab. Six patients were in complete remission at the start of the study (four of them MRD negative).

Complete responses

After induction, complete responses were achieved in 81% (26/32), with all patients achieving a complete response at some point, according to Dr. Short. The MRD negativity rate was 71% (24/34) after induction and 97% (33/34) at any time. Among the 38 patients, all with complete response at median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2-45), relapses occurred only in those 5 patients with high-risk features. Twelve patients underwent transplant in the first remission. Two relapsed, both with high-risk features. The other 21 patients had ongoing complete responses.

RFS at 1- and 2-years was 80% and 71%, respectively. Five among seven relapses were without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and 2 were post HSCT. Two deaths occurred in patients with complete responses (one pulmonary embolism and one with post-HSCT complications). Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 85% and 80%, respectively, with the 2-year rate comparable with prior reports for hyper-CVAD plus ofatumumab, Dr. Short said.

The most common nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events with hyper-CVAD plus blinatumomab were ALT/AST elevation (24%) and hyperglycemia (21%). The overall cytokine release syndrome rate was 13%, with 3% for higher-grade reactions. The rate for blinatumomab-related neurologic events was 45% overall and 13% for higher grades, with 1 discontinuation attributed to grade 2 encephalopathy and dysphasia.

“Overall, this study shows the potential benefit of incorporating frontline blinatumomab into the treatment of younger adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-cell lymphoma, and shows, as well, that reduction of chemotherapy in this context is feasible,” Dr. Short stated.

“Ultimately, often for any patients with acute leukemias and ALL, our only chance to cure them is in the frontline setting, so our approach is to include all of the most effective agents we have. So that means including blinatumomab in all of our frontline regimens in clinical trials – and now we’ve amended that to add inotuzumab ozogamicin with the goal of deepening responses and increasing cure rates,” he added.

Dr. Short reported consulting with Takeda Oncology and Astrazeneca, and receiving research funding and honoraria from Amgen, Astella, and Takeda Oncology.

SOURCE: Short NG et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 464.

Hyper-CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) with sequential blinatumomab is highly effective as frontline therapy for Philadelphia Chromosome (Ph)–negative B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to results of a phase 2 study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Favorable minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and overall survival with low higher-grade toxicities suggest that reductions in chemotherapy in this setting are feasible, said Nicholas J. Short, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

While complete response rates with current ALL therapy are 80%-90%, long-term overall survival is only 40%-50%. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engaging CD3-CD19 antibody, has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL, and to produce high rates of MRD eradication, the most important prognostic factor in ALL, Dr. Short said at the meeting, which was held virtually.

The hypothesis of the current study was that early incorporation of blinatumomab with hyper-CVAD in patients with newly diagnosed Ph-negative B-cell ALL would decrease the need for intensive chemotherapy and lead to higher efficacy and cure rates with less myelosuppression. Patients were required to have a performance status of 3 or less, total bilirubin 2 mg/dL or less and creatinine 2 mg/dL or less. Investigators enrolled 38 patients (mean age, 37 years,; range, 17-59) with most (79%) in performance status 0-1. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS).
 

Study details

Patients received hyper-CVAD alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine for up to four cycles followed by four cycles of blinatumomab at standard doses. Those with CD20-positive disease (1% or greater percentage of the cells) received eight doses of ofatumumab or rituximab, and prophylactic intrathecal chemotherapy was given eight times in the first four cycles. Maintenance consisted of alternating blocks of POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, prednisone) and blinatumomab. When two patients with high-risk features experienced early relapse, investigators amended the protocol to allow blinatumomab after only two cycles of hyper-CVAD in those with high-risk features (e.g., CRLF2 positive by flow cytometry, complex karyotype, KMT2A rearranged, low hypodiploidy/near triploidy, TP53 mutation, or persistent MRD). Nineteen patients (56%) had at least one high-risk feature, and 82% received ofatumumab or rituximab. Six patients were in complete remission at the start of the study (four of them MRD negative).

Complete responses

After induction, complete responses were achieved in 81% (26/32), with all patients achieving a complete response at some point, according to Dr. Short. The MRD negativity rate was 71% (24/34) after induction and 97% (33/34) at any time. Among the 38 patients, all with complete response at median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2-45), relapses occurred only in those 5 patients with high-risk features. Twelve patients underwent transplant in the first remission. Two relapsed, both with high-risk features. The other 21 patients had ongoing complete responses.

RFS at 1- and 2-years was 80% and 71%, respectively. Five among seven relapses were without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and 2 were post HSCT. Two deaths occurred in patients with complete responses (one pulmonary embolism and one with post-HSCT complications). Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 85% and 80%, respectively, with the 2-year rate comparable with prior reports for hyper-CVAD plus ofatumumab, Dr. Short said.

The most common nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events with hyper-CVAD plus blinatumomab were ALT/AST elevation (24%) and hyperglycemia (21%). The overall cytokine release syndrome rate was 13%, with 3% for higher-grade reactions. The rate for blinatumomab-related neurologic events was 45% overall and 13% for higher grades, with 1 discontinuation attributed to grade 2 encephalopathy and dysphasia.

“Overall, this study shows the potential benefit of incorporating frontline blinatumomab into the treatment of younger adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-cell lymphoma, and shows, as well, that reduction of chemotherapy in this context is feasible,” Dr. Short stated.

“Ultimately, often for any patients with acute leukemias and ALL, our only chance to cure them is in the frontline setting, so our approach is to include all of the most effective agents we have. So that means including blinatumomab in all of our frontline regimens in clinical trials – and now we’ve amended that to add inotuzumab ozogamicin with the goal of deepening responses and increasing cure rates,” he added.

Dr. Short reported consulting with Takeda Oncology and Astrazeneca, and receiving research funding and honoraria from Amgen, Astella, and Takeda Oncology.

SOURCE: Short NG et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 464.

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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