Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

When a patient with cancer hears there isn’t much left that doctors can do, it always stays fresh in the mind.

Doug Olson was first diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over 20 years ago, in 1996. For several years, his doctors used the watch-and-wait approach. But then his cancer progressed and needed treatment. By 2010, it had mutated so much that it no longer responded to standard therapy.

He was rapidly running out of options. Back then, the only treatment left was a bone marrow transplant. Without one, his doctors said, he would have 1 or 2 years left to live.

“I was really trying to avoid a bone marrow transplant. You’re playing your last card if that doesn’t work. It’s a pretty rough procedure,” Olson told Medscape Medical News.

Looking back, Olson counts himself as lucky – for being in the right place, at the right time, with the right doctor. His oncologist was David Porter, MD, the principal investigator on a trial at the University of Pennsylvania that was investigating a brand new approach to treating cancer: chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

CAR T-cell therapy uses a patient’s own T cells engineered to express a receptor that targets proteins on cancer cells. CAR T cells are considered “living drugs” because they expand inside the body and stick around for years – maybe for a lifetime – to fight the cancer if it tries to come back.

“I was certainly intrigued by the approach. It had worked in mice, and it was the sort of thing that looked like it would work,” Olson recalled.

Science is not a foreign language to Olson. He holds a PhD in medicinal chemistry, spent most of his career in the in vitro diagnostics industry, and currently acts as chief executive officer of Buhlmann Diagnostics Corp.

So he read the clinical protocol for the first in-human trial of CAR T cells and agreed to become patient number two.

Olson’s T cells were harvested, engineered to attack the CD19 antigen found on malignant and normal B lymphocytes, and then were expanded into millions in the lab. After undergoing preconditioning with chemotherapy to minimize rejection and boost the CAR T cells’ expansion inside the body, he received several infusions of the new therapy over the course of 3 days.

Nothing really happened for 2 weeks. Then he developed severe flu-like symptoms – so bad that he was hospitalized.

Ironically, getting sick was a sign that the CAR T cells were working. Olson was experiencing one of the main short-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy: cytokine release syndrome. Symptoms include extremely high fevers and dangerous drops in blood pressure that can potentially cause end-organ damage.

In the early trials of these products, some patients experienced such a severe reaction that they needed intensive care, and some died. With increasing clinical experience, doctors have learned to control the reaction with the use of steroids and interleukein-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab (Actemra).

Fortunately for Olson, the reaction passed, and he was eventually discharged.

Then the “aha moment” happened. Four weeks after receiving the CAR T cells, Olson found out that he was cancer free.

“It still gives me shivers,” he said. “Dr Porter said, ‘Your bone marrow’s completely free. We just can’t find a cancer cell anywhere.’ “

The remission has lasted, and it is now 10 years later.
 

Balancing long-term risks vs benefits

Long-term data have been accumulating for these novel therapies since Olson’s treatment in 2010. This is particularly important for CAR T-cell therapy, because of its longevity. Because these are living cells and are expected to persist in the body for years, there is great interest in longer-term data, especially the risks for toxicity.

The FDA requires clinical follow-up for at least 15 years for patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy or any other genetically modified cells.

So far, most of the experience with CAR T cells comes from anti-CD19-directed therapy, which has shown “remarkable” remission rates in the 50% to 85% range, said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section of the Pediatric Oncology Branch at the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

The most recent results presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology support earlier efficacy data, she noted. In the longest follow-up to date, researchers reported remissions lasting over 9 years in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL treated with Kite›s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta), one of two anti-CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 (the other is Novartis’ tisagenlecleucel [Kymriah]).

This study included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved in 54% of patients, and 22% had partial remission.

The other focus is long-term safety. Although some of the long-term adverse effects are known and are manageable, others fall into the theoretical realm. In early May 2020, the NCI held a multidisciplinary virtual conference on CAR T-cell therapy «to encourage collaborative research about the subacute and potentially long-term toxicity profile of these treatments.»

“We know just a little at this point about late- and long-term effects of CAR-T therapy, because we are relatively early in the era of CAR T cells,” said Merav Bar, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
 

B-cell aplasia and risk for new infections

What is known is that B-cell aplasia represents the most common long-term adverse effect of CAR T-cell therapy. B-cell aplasia results when anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy wipes out healthy B cells as well as the malignant ones responsible for leukemia/lymphoma.

As major players in the immune system, B cells are a key defense against viruses. So B-cell aplasia represents a very specific type of immunosuppression. It is generally less severe than immunosuppression that occurs after organ transplant, which hits the immune system pretty much across the board and carries a much higher risk for infection.

The main concern is what happens when someone with B-cell aplasia encounters a new pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2.

After infection, B cells generate memory cells, which are not killed off by anti-CD19 therapy and that stick around for life. So a patient such as Olson would still make antibodies that fight infections they experienced before receiving CAR-T therapy, such as childhood chickenpox. But now they are unable to make new memory cells, so these patients receive monthly immunoglobulin infusions to protect against pathogens they have not previously encountered.

Olson takes this in stride and says he isn’t overly worried about COVID-19. He follows the recommended precautions for a man his age. He wears a mask, washes his hands frequently, and tries to maintain social distancing. But he doesn’t stay locked up in his New Hampshire home.

“I took the attitude when I was diagnosed with cancer that I’m going to live my life,” he said. “Quality of life to me is more important than quantity.”
 

Neuropsychiatric toxicity

Another problem is the possibility of neuropsychiatric toxicity. Past studies have reported a wide range of such toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, including seizures and hallucinations. Most have occurred early in the course of treatment and appear to be short-lived and reversible. However, there remain questions about long-term neuropsychiatric problems.

In a long-term study of 40 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and ALL, nearly half of patients (47.5%, 19/40) self-reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome (anxiety, depression, or cognitive difficulty) 1 to 5 years after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. In addition, 37.5% (15/40) self-reported cognitive difficulties.

“Patients with more severe neurotoxicity showed a trend for more cognitive difficulties afterwards,» said Bar, senior author of the study.

However, teasing out the role that CAR T-cell therapy plays in these problems poses a challenge. All of these patients had been heavily pretreated with previous cancer therapy, which has also been associated with neuropsychiatric problems.

“So far, we don’t know what caused it,” Bar said. “Nevertheless, people need to pay attention to neuropsychiatric symptoms in CAR T-cell therapy. It is important to continue to monitor these patients for these issues.”
 

Graft-vs-host disease

Another potential problem is graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). This is not uncommon after hematopoietic stem cell transplants. It develops when the donor T cells view antigens on healthy recipient cells as foreign and attack them.

For patients who are treated with CAR T cells, GVHD is mostly a concern among individuals who have previously had a transplant and who are already at increased risk for it.

In a study of late effects among 86 adults treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Bar and colleagues found that GVHD occurred only among patients who had received a previous donor stem cell transplant. Of these, 20% (3/15) developed GVHD about 28 months after CAR-T therapy.

“The data for CAR T cells causing GVHD really hasn’t shown that it’s a huge problem, although we have seen it and are continuing to monitor for it,” the NCI’s Shah commented to Medscape Medical News.

Other Long-term Adverse Effects

A range of other long-term adverse effects have been reported with CAR-T therapy, including prolonged cytopenias (reduced mature blood cells), myelodysplasia (bone marrow failure), and second malignancies.

In the study with the longest follow-up to date, 16% (7/43) of patients developed second malignancies, which is comparable to data from Bar’s study in Seattle (15%, 13/86). The researchers in this study consider this rate to be no higher than expected: these patients had already received extensive chemotherapy, which increases the risk for other cancers, they point out.

However, this brings up theoretical concerns about the long-term effects of gene modification. CAR T cells are engineered using retroviruses (mainly lentiviruses), which randomly insert the CAR genes into the host genome. Doing so may cause mutations that could promote cancer. These lentiviruses also carry the theoretical risk of becoming capable of viral replication once inside the body.

To address these concerns, viruses used to engineer CAR T cells go through comprehensive safety testing. After therapy, patients are checked every few months during the first year and annually after that.

So far, there have been no reports of cancers associated with CAR T-cell therapy.

“Any type of cancer is a very theoretical risk,” Bar told Medscape Medical News. «Most likely the malignancies in our study were related to prior treatment that the patients received. None of them had any evidence of replication-competent lentivirus, or any other evidence that the malignancies were related to the CAR T cells.»

Another theoretical concern is the possibility of new-onset autoimmune disease, although, once again, no cases have been reported so far.

“We think of it as a theoretic possibility. Whenever you jack up the immune system, autoimmune disease is a potential risk,” said Carl June, MD, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the University of Pennsylvania.

June was the co–principal investigator of the trial in which Olson participated. He is also the inventor on patents for CAR T cells licensed by the University of Pennsylvania to Novartis and Tmunity and is a scientific founder with equity in Tmunity.

Still, autoimmunity could occur, and scientists are looking out for it.

“We are continuing to be vigilant in our monitoring for autoimmune disease,” Shah added. “We’ve been doing CAR T-cell therapy since 2012, and I think we have yet to see true autoimmunity beyond GVHD.”
 

Future directions

In the 10 years since Olson received CAR T-cell therapy, an entire industry has sprung up. Over 100 companies worldwide are now developing CAR T-cell therapies targeting various antigens. These therapies are directed at about 60 different tumor types, including solid tumors. Nearly 200 clinical trials are underway, though most are still in early stages: as of September 2019, only 5% had reached phase 3.

Clinical data show promising results for CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD22 (overexpressed on ALL cells), and BCMA (found on almost all multiple myeloma cells). Yet questions remain as to whether CAR T cells will be as effective if they target antigens other than CD19 or cells other than B lymphocytes. One of the biggest research questions is whether they will be effective against solid tumors.

One research avenue being watched with great interest is the development of universal CAR T cells. So far, such products are at very early stages of development (phase 1 trials), but they are attractive because of the potential advantages they offer over bespoke CAR T cells. Automating the process holds the promise of immediate availability, standardizing production, expanding access, and lowering costs. And because the T cells for this universal product come from healthy donors, they may function better than T cells that have been battered and bruised by past cancer treatments, or even the cancer itself.

However, precisely because they are developed from healthy donor T cells, universal CAR T cells may pose increased risk for GVHD. Scientists are trying to get around this problem by engineering universal CAR T cells that lack the T-cell receptor involved in GVHD.

There are also other concerns. Nature has a penchant for mutation. Engineering CAR T cells without T-cell receptors means the body may no longer detect or reject a universal CAR T cell if it goes rogue. Also, gene insertion in universal CAR-T therapy is targeted rather than random (as in bespoke CAR T cells), which could create off-target effects. Both issues create a theoretical risk of such products inducing an untreatable CAR T-cell therapy–associated cancer.

“The theoretic risk with universal cells is that their safety profile may not be as good for long term,” June commented.
 

Hope for the future

From that first trial in which June and Porter used CAR T cells, two of three patients they treated are still alive 10 years later.

Olson is one of these two, and he still undergoes monitoring every 3 months to check for relapse. So far, none of his tests have shown signs of his cancer returning.

After going into remission, Doug spent the next 6 to 9 months regaining his health and strength.

“I figured if I had this amazing treatment that saved my life, I had an obligation to stay alive,” he said. “I’d better not die of something like a heart attack!”

He took up long distance running and has completed six half marathons. He became involved in the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, participating in fund-raising and helping newly diagnosed patients. Over the years, he has also given talks for researchers, people with cancer, and healthcare providers.

Doug is now 73. Today, he marvels at how rapidly the CAR-T field has progressed.

“Twenty years ago, if you had cancer, your prospects weren’t nearly as good as these days. In 2010, people still didn’t believe in CAR T-cell therapy,” he said. “My goal always in telling my story is a message of hope.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When a patient with cancer hears there isn’t much left that doctors can do, it always stays fresh in the mind.

Doug Olson was first diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over 20 years ago, in 1996. For several years, his doctors used the watch-and-wait approach. But then his cancer progressed and needed treatment. By 2010, it had mutated so much that it no longer responded to standard therapy.

He was rapidly running out of options. Back then, the only treatment left was a bone marrow transplant. Without one, his doctors said, he would have 1 or 2 years left to live.

“I was really trying to avoid a bone marrow transplant. You’re playing your last card if that doesn’t work. It’s a pretty rough procedure,” Olson told Medscape Medical News.

Looking back, Olson counts himself as lucky – for being in the right place, at the right time, with the right doctor. His oncologist was David Porter, MD, the principal investigator on a trial at the University of Pennsylvania that was investigating a brand new approach to treating cancer: chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

CAR T-cell therapy uses a patient’s own T cells engineered to express a receptor that targets proteins on cancer cells. CAR T cells are considered “living drugs” because they expand inside the body and stick around for years – maybe for a lifetime – to fight the cancer if it tries to come back.

“I was certainly intrigued by the approach. It had worked in mice, and it was the sort of thing that looked like it would work,” Olson recalled.

Science is not a foreign language to Olson. He holds a PhD in medicinal chemistry, spent most of his career in the in vitro diagnostics industry, and currently acts as chief executive officer of Buhlmann Diagnostics Corp.

So he read the clinical protocol for the first in-human trial of CAR T cells and agreed to become patient number two.

Olson’s T cells were harvested, engineered to attack the CD19 antigen found on malignant and normal B lymphocytes, and then were expanded into millions in the lab. After undergoing preconditioning with chemotherapy to minimize rejection and boost the CAR T cells’ expansion inside the body, he received several infusions of the new therapy over the course of 3 days.

Nothing really happened for 2 weeks. Then he developed severe flu-like symptoms – so bad that he was hospitalized.

Ironically, getting sick was a sign that the CAR T cells were working. Olson was experiencing one of the main short-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy: cytokine release syndrome. Symptoms include extremely high fevers and dangerous drops in blood pressure that can potentially cause end-organ damage.

In the early trials of these products, some patients experienced such a severe reaction that they needed intensive care, and some died. With increasing clinical experience, doctors have learned to control the reaction with the use of steroids and interleukein-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab (Actemra).

Fortunately for Olson, the reaction passed, and he was eventually discharged.

Then the “aha moment” happened. Four weeks after receiving the CAR T cells, Olson found out that he was cancer free.

“It still gives me shivers,” he said. “Dr Porter said, ‘Your bone marrow’s completely free. We just can’t find a cancer cell anywhere.’ “

The remission has lasted, and it is now 10 years later.
 

Balancing long-term risks vs benefits

Long-term data have been accumulating for these novel therapies since Olson’s treatment in 2010. This is particularly important for CAR T-cell therapy, because of its longevity. Because these are living cells and are expected to persist in the body for years, there is great interest in longer-term data, especially the risks for toxicity.

The FDA requires clinical follow-up for at least 15 years for patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy or any other genetically modified cells.

So far, most of the experience with CAR T cells comes from anti-CD19-directed therapy, which has shown “remarkable” remission rates in the 50% to 85% range, said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section of the Pediatric Oncology Branch at the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

The most recent results presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology support earlier efficacy data, she noted. In the longest follow-up to date, researchers reported remissions lasting over 9 years in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL treated with Kite›s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta), one of two anti-CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 (the other is Novartis’ tisagenlecleucel [Kymriah]).

This study included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved in 54% of patients, and 22% had partial remission.

The other focus is long-term safety. Although some of the long-term adverse effects are known and are manageable, others fall into the theoretical realm. In early May 2020, the NCI held a multidisciplinary virtual conference on CAR T-cell therapy «to encourage collaborative research about the subacute and potentially long-term toxicity profile of these treatments.»

“We know just a little at this point about late- and long-term effects of CAR-T therapy, because we are relatively early in the era of CAR T cells,” said Merav Bar, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
 

B-cell aplasia and risk for new infections

What is known is that B-cell aplasia represents the most common long-term adverse effect of CAR T-cell therapy. B-cell aplasia results when anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy wipes out healthy B cells as well as the malignant ones responsible for leukemia/lymphoma.

As major players in the immune system, B cells are a key defense against viruses. So B-cell aplasia represents a very specific type of immunosuppression. It is generally less severe than immunosuppression that occurs after organ transplant, which hits the immune system pretty much across the board and carries a much higher risk for infection.

The main concern is what happens when someone with B-cell aplasia encounters a new pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2.

After infection, B cells generate memory cells, which are not killed off by anti-CD19 therapy and that stick around for life. So a patient such as Olson would still make antibodies that fight infections they experienced before receiving CAR-T therapy, such as childhood chickenpox. But now they are unable to make new memory cells, so these patients receive monthly immunoglobulin infusions to protect against pathogens they have not previously encountered.

Olson takes this in stride and says he isn’t overly worried about COVID-19. He follows the recommended precautions for a man his age. He wears a mask, washes his hands frequently, and tries to maintain social distancing. But he doesn’t stay locked up in his New Hampshire home.

“I took the attitude when I was diagnosed with cancer that I’m going to live my life,” he said. “Quality of life to me is more important than quantity.”
 

Neuropsychiatric toxicity

Another problem is the possibility of neuropsychiatric toxicity. Past studies have reported a wide range of such toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, including seizures and hallucinations. Most have occurred early in the course of treatment and appear to be short-lived and reversible. However, there remain questions about long-term neuropsychiatric problems.

In a long-term study of 40 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and ALL, nearly half of patients (47.5%, 19/40) self-reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome (anxiety, depression, or cognitive difficulty) 1 to 5 years after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. In addition, 37.5% (15/40) self-reported cognitive difficulties.

“Patients with more severe neurotoxicity showed a trend for more cognitive difficulties afterwards,» said Bar, senior author of the study.

However, teasing out the role that CAR T-cell therapy plays in these problems poses a challenge. All of these patients had been heavily pretreated with previous cancer therapy, which has also been associated with neuropsychiatric problems.

“So far, we don’t know what caused it,” Bar said. “Nevertheless, people need to pay attention to neuropsychiatric symptoms in CAR T-cell therapy. It is important to continue to monitor these patients for these issues.”
 

Graft-vs-host disease

Another potential problem is graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). This is not uncommon after hematopoietic stem cell transplants. It develops when the donor T cells view antigens on healthy recipient cells as foreign and attack them.

For patients who are treated with CAR T cells, GVHD is mostly a concern among individuals who have previously had a transplant and who are already at increased risk for it.

In a study of late effects among 86 adults treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Bar and colleagues found that GVHD occurred only among patients who had received a previous donor stem cell transplant. Of these, 20% (3/15) developed GVHD about 28 months after CAR-T therapy.

“The data for CAR T cells causing GVHD really hasn’t shown that it’s a huge problem, although we have seen it and are continuing to monitor for it,” the NCI’s Shah commented to Medscape Medical News.

Other Long-term Adverse Effects

A range of other long-term adverse effects have been reported with CAR-T therapy, including prolonged cytopenias (reduced mature blood cells), myelodysplasia (bone marrow failure), and second malignancies.

In the study with the longest follow-up to date, 16% (7/43) of patients developed second malignancies, which is comparable to data from Bar’s study in Seattle (15%, 13/86). The researchers in this study consider this rate to be no higher than expected: these patients had already received extensive chemotherapy, which increases the risk for other cancers, they point out.

However, this brings up theoretical concerns about the long-term effects of gene modification. CAR T cells are engineered using retroviruses (mainly lentiviruses), which randomly insert the CAR genes into the host genome. Doing so may cause mutations that could promote cancer. These lentiviruses also carry the theoretical risk of becoming capable of viral replication once inside the body.

To address these concerns, viruses used to engineer CAR T cells go through comprehensive safety testing. After therapy, patients are checked every few months during the first year and annually after that.

So far, there have been no reports of cancers associated with CAR T-cell therapy.

“Any type of cancer is a very theoretical risk,” Bar told Medscape Medical News. «Most likely the malignancies in our study were related to prior treatment that the patients received. None of them had any evidence of replication-competent lentivirus, or any other evidence that the malignancies were related to the CAR T cells.»

Another theoretical concern is the possibility of new-onset autoimmune disease, although, once again, no cases have been reported so far.

“We think of it as a theoretic possibility. Whenever you jack up the immune system, autoimmune disease is a potential risk,” said Carl June, MD, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the University of Pennsylvania.

June was the co–principal investigator of the trial in which Olson participated. He is also the inventor on patents for CAR T cells licensed by the University of Pennsylvania to Novartis and Tmunity and is a scientific founder with equity in Tmunity.

Still, autoimmunity could occur, and scientists are looking out for it.

“We are continuing to be vigilant in our monitoring for autoimmune disease,” Shah added. “We’ve been doing CAR T-cell therapy since 2012, and I think we have yet to see true autoimmunity beyond GVHD.”
 

Future directions

In the 10 years since Olson received CAR T-cell therapy, an entire industry has sprung up. Over 100 companies worldwide are now developing CAR T-cell therapies targeting various antigens. These therapies are directed at about 60 different tumor types, including solid tumors. Nearly 200 clinical trials are underway, though most are still in early stages: as of September 2019, only 5% had reached phase 3.

Clinical data show promising results for CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD22 (overexpressed on ALL cells), and BCMA (found on almost all multiple myeloma cells). Yet questions remain as to whether CAR T cells will be as effective if they target antigens other than CD19 or cells other than B lymphocytes. One of the biggest research questions is whether they will be effective against solid tumors.

One research avenue being watched with great interest is the development of universal CAR T cells. So far, such products are at very early stages of development (phase 1 trials), but they are attractive because of the potential advantages they offer over bespoke CAR T cells. Automating the process holds the promise of immediate availability, standardizing production, expanding access, and lowering costs. And because the T cells for this universal product come from healthy donors, they may function better than T cells that have been battered and bruised by past cancer treatments, or even the cancer itself.

However, precisely because they are developed from healthy donor T cells, universal CAR T cells may pose increased risk for GVHD. Scientists are trying to get around this problem by engineering universal CAR T cells that lack the T-cell receptor involved in GVHD.

There are also other concerns. Nature has a penchant for mutation. Engineering CAR T cells without T-cell receptors means the body may no longer detect or reject a universal CAR T cell if it goes rogue. Also, gene insertion in universal CAR-T therapy is targeted rather than random (as in bespoke CAR T cells), which could create off-target effects. Both issues create a theoretical risk of such products inducing an untreatable CAR T-cell therapy–associated cancer.

“The theoretic risk with universal cells is that their safety profile may not be as good for long term,” June commented.
 

Hope for the future

From that first trial in which June and Porter used CAR T cells, two of three patients they treated are still alive 10 years later.

Olson is one of these two, and he still undergoes monitoring every 3 months to check for relapse. So far, none of his tests have shown signs of his cancer returning.

After going into remission, Doug spent the next 6 to 9 months regaining his health and strength.

“I figured if I had this amazing treatment that saved my life, I had an obligation to stay alive,” he said. “I’d better not die of something like a heart attack!”

He took up long distance running and has completed six half marathons. He became involved in the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, participating in fund-raising and helping newly diagnosed patients. Over the years, he has also given talks for researchers, people with cancer, and healthcare providers.

Doug is now 73. Today, he marvels at how rapidly the CAR-T field has progressed.

“Twenty years ago, if you had cancer, your prospects weren’t nearly as good as these days. In 2010, people still didn’t believe in CAR T-cell therapy,” he said. “My goal always in telling my story is a message of hope.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When a patient with cancer hears there isn’t much left that doctors can do, it always stays fresh in the mind.

Doug Olson was first diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over 20 years ago, in 1996. For several years, his doctors used the watch-and-wait approach. But then his cancer progressed and needed treatment. By 2010, it had mutated so much that it no longer responded to standard therapy.

He was rapidly running out of options. Back then, the only treatment left was a bone marrow transplant. Without one, his doctors said, he would have 1 or 2 years left to live.

“I was really trying to avoid a bone marrow transplant. You’re playing your last card if that doesn’t work. It’s a pretty rough procedure,” Olson told Medscape Medical News.

Looking back, Olson counts himself as lucky – for being in the right place, at the right time, with the right doctor. His oncologist was David Porter, MD, the principal investigator on a trial at the University of Pennsylvania that was investigating a brand new approach to treating cancer: chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

CAR T-cell therapy uses a patient’s own T cells engineered to express a receptor that targets proteins on cancer cells. CAR T cells are considered “living drugs” because they expand inside the body and stick around for years – maybe for a lifetime – to fight the cancer if it tries to come back.

“I was certainly intrigued by the approach. It had worked in mice, and it was the sort of thing that looked like it would work,” Olson recalled.

Science is not a foreign language to Olson. He holds a PhD in medicinal chemistry, spent most of his career in the in vitro diagnostics industry, and currently acts as chief executive officer of Buhlmann Diagnostics Corp.

So he read the clinical protocol for the first in-human trial of CAR T cells and agreed to become patient number two.

Olson’s T cells were harvested, engineered to attack the CD19 antigen found on malignant and normal B lymphocytes, and then were expanded into millions in the lab. After undergoing preconditioning with chemotherapy to minimize rejection and boost the CAR T cells’ expansion inside the body, he received several infusions of the new therapy over the course of 3 days.

Nothing really happened for 2 weeks. Then he developed severe flu-like symptoms – so bad that he was hospitalized.

Ironically, getting sick was a sign that the CAR T cells were working. Olson was experiencing one of the main short-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy: cytokine release syndrome. Symptoms include extremely high fevers and dangerous drops in blood pressure that can potentially cause end-organ damage.

In the early trials of these products, some patients experienced such a severe reaction that they needed intensive care, and some died. With increasing clinical experience, doctors have learned to control the reaction with the use of steroids and interleukein-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab (Actemra).

Fortunately for Olson, the reaction passed, and he was eventually discharged.

Then the “aha moment” happened. Four weeks after receiving the CAR T cells, Olson found out that he was cancer free.

“It still gives me shivers,” he said. “Dr Porter said, ‘Your bone marrow’s completely free. We just can’t find a cancer cell anywhere.’ “

The remission has lasted, and it is now 10 years later.
 

Balancing long-term risks vs benefits

Long-term data have been accumulating for these novel therapies since Olson’s treatment in 2010. This is particularly important for CAR T-cell therapy, because of its longevity. Because these are living cells and are expected to persist in the body for years, there is great interest in longer-term data, especially the risks for toxicity.

The FDA requires clinical follow-up for at least 15 years for patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy or any other genetically modified cells.

So far, most of the experience with CAR T cells comes from anti-CD19-directed therapy, which has shown “remarkable” remission rates in the 50% to 85% range, said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section of the Pediatric Oncology Branch at the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

The most recent results presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology support earlier efficacy data, she noted. In the longest follow-up to date, researchers reported remissions lasting over 9 years in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL treated with Kite›s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta), one of two anti-CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 (the other is Novartis’ tisagenlecleucel [Kymriah]).

This study included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved in 54% of patients, and 22% had partial remission.

The other focus is long-term safety. Although some of the long-term adverse effects are known and are manageable, others fall into the theoretical realm. In early May 2020, the NCI held a multidisciplinary virtual conference on CAR T-cell therapy «to encourage collaborative research about the subacute and potentially long-term toxicity profile of these treatments.»

“We know just a little at this point about late- and long-term effects of CAR-T therapy, because we are relatively early in the era of CAR T cells,” said Merav Bar, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
 

B-cell aplasia and risk for new infections

What is known is that B-cell aplasia represents the most common long-term adverse effect of CAR T-cell therapy. B-cell aplasia results when anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy wipes out healthy B cells as well as the malignant ones responsible for leukemia/lymphoma.

As major players in the immune system, B cells are a key defense against viruses. So B-cell aplasia represents a very specific type of immunosuppression. It is generally less severe than immunosuppression that occurs after organ transplant, which hits the immune system pretty much across the board and carries a much higher risk for infection.

The main concern is what happens when someone with B-cell aplasia encounters a new pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2.

After infection, B cells generate memory cells, which are not killed off by anti-CD19 therapy and that stick around for life. So a patient such as Olson would still make antibodies that fight infections they experienced before receiving CAR-T therapy, such as childhood chickenpox. But now they are unable to make new memory cells, so these patients receive monthly immunoglobulin infusions to protect against pathogens they have not previously encountered.

Olson takes this in stride and says he isn’t overly worried about COVID-19. He follows the recommended precautions for a man his age. He wears a mask, washes his hands frequently, and tries to maintain social distancing. But he doesn’t stay locked up in his New Hampshire home.

“I took the attitude when I was diagnosed with cancer that I’m going to live my life,” he said. “Quality of life to me is more important than quantity.”
 

Neuropsychiatric toxicity

Another problem is the possibility of neuropsychiatric toxicity. Past studies have reported a wide range of such toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, including seizures and hallucinations. Most have occurred early in the course of treatment and appear to be short-lived and reversible. However, there remain questions about long-term neuropsychiatric problems.

In a long-term study of 40 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and ALL, nearly half of patients (47.5%, 19/40) self-reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome (anxiety, depression, or cognitive difficulty) 1 to 5 years after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. In addition, 37.5% (15/40) self-reported cognitive difficulties.

“Patients with more severe neurotoxicity showed a trend for more cognitive difficulties afterwards,» said Bar, senior author of the study.

However, teasing out the role that CAR T-cell therapy plays in these problems poses a challenge. All of these patients had been heavily pretreated with previous cancer therapy, which has also been associated with neuropsychiatric problems.

“So far, we don’t know what caused it,” Bar said. “Nevertheless, people need to pay attention to neuropsychiatric symptoms in CAR T-cell therapy. It is important to continue to monitor these patients for these issues.”
 

Graft-vs-host disease

Another potential problem is graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). This is not uncommon after hematopoietic stem cell transplants. It develops when the donor T cells view antigens on healthy recipient cells as foreign and attack them.

For patients who are treated with CAR T cells, GVHD is mostly a concern among individuals who have previously had a transplant and who are already at increased risk for it.

In a study of late effects among 86 adults treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Bar and colleagues found that GVHD occurred only among patients who had received a previous donor stem cell transplant. Of these, 20% (3/15) developed GVHD about 28 months after CAR-T therapy.

“The data for CAR T cells causing GVHD really hasn’t shown that it’s a huge problem, although we have seen it and are continuing to monitor for it,” the NCI’s Shah commented to Medscape Medical News.

Other Long-term Adverse Effects

A range of other long-term adverse effects have been reported with CAR-T therapy, including prolonged cytopenias (reduced mature blood cells), myelodysplasia (bone marrow failure), and second malignancies.

In the study with the longest follow-up to date, 16% (7/43) of patients developed second malignancies, which is comparable to data from Bar’s study in Seattle (15%, 13/86). The researchers in this study consider this rate to be no higher than expected: these patients had already received extensive chemotherapy, which increases the risk for other cancers, they point out.

However, this brings up theoretical concerns about the long-term effects of gene modification. CAR T cells are engineered using retroviruses (mainly lentiviruses), which randomly insert the CAR genes into the host genome. Doing so may cause mutations that could promote cancer. These lentiviruses also carry the theoretical risk of becoming capable of viral replication once inside the body.

To address these concerns, viruses used to engineer CAR T cells go through comprehensive safety testing. After therapy, patients are checked every few months during the first year and annually after that.

So far, there have been no reports of cancers associated with CAR T-cell therapy.

“Any type of cancer is a very theoretical risk,” Bar told Medscape Medical News. «Most likely the malignancies in our study were related to prior treatment that the patients received. None of them had any evidence of replication-competent lentivirus, or any other evidence that the malignancies were related to the CAR T cells.»

Another theoretical concern is the possibility of new-onset autoimmune disease, although, once again, no cases have been reported so far.

“We think of it as a theoretic possibility. Whenever you jack up the immune system, autoimmune disease is a potential risk,” said Carl June, MD, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the University of Pennsylvania.

June was the co–principal investigator of the trial in which Olson participated. He is also the inventor on patents for CAR T cells licensed by the University of Pennsylvania to Novartis and Tmunity and is a scientific founder with equity in Tmunity.

Still, autoimmunity could occur, and scientists are looking out for it.

“We are continuing to be vigilant in our monitoring for autoimmune disease,” Shah added. “We’ve been doing CAR T-cell therapy since 2012, and I think we have yet to see true autoimmunity beyond GVHD.”
 

Future directions

In the 10 years since Olson received CAR T-cell therapy, an entire industry has sprung up. Over 100 companies worldwide are now developing CAR T-cell therapies targeting various antigens. These therapies are directed at about 60 different tumor types, including solid tumors. Nearly 200 clinical trials are underway, though most are still in early stages: as of September 2019, only 5% had reached phase 3.

Clinical data show promising results for CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD22 (overexpressed on ALL cells), and BCMA (found on almost all multiple myeloma cells). Yet questions remain as to whether CAR T cells will be as effective if they target antigens other than CD19 or cells other than B lymphocytes. One of the biggest research questions is whether they will be effective against solid tumors.

One research avenue being watched with great interest is the development of universal CAR T cells. So far, such products are at very early stages of development (phase 1 trials), but they are attractive because of the potential advantages they offer over bespoke CAR T cells. Automating the process holds the promise of immediate availability, standardizing production, expanding access, and lowering costs. And because the T cells for this universal product come from healthy donors, they may function better than T cells that have been battered and bruised by past cancer treatments, or even the cancer itself.

However, precisely because they are developed from healthy donor T cells, universal CAR T cells may pose increased risk for GVHD. Scientists are trying to get around this problem by engineering universal CAR T cells that lack the T-cell receptor involved in GVHD.

There are also other concerns. Nature has a penchant for mutation. Engineering CAR T cells without T-cell receptors means the body may no longer detect or reject a universal CAR T cell if it goes rogue. Also, gene insertion in universal CAR-T therapy is targeted rather than random (as in bespoke CAR T cells), which could create off-target effects. Both issues create a theoretical risk of such products inducing an untreatable CAR T-cell therapy–associated cancer.

“The theoretic risk with universal cells is that their safety profile may not be as good for long term,” June commented.
 

Hope for the future

From that first trial in which June and Porter used CAR T cells, two of three patients they treated are still alive 10 years later.

Olson is one of these two, and he still undergoes monitoring every 3 months to check for relapse. So far, none of his tests have shown signs of his cancer returning.

After going into remission, Doug spent the next 6 to 9 months regaining his health and strength.

“I figured if I had this amazing treatment that saved my life, I had an obligation to stay alive,” he said. “I’d better not die of something like a heart attack!”

He took up long distance running and has completed six half marathons. He became involved in the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, participating in fund-raising and helping newly diagnosed patients. Over the years, he has also given talks for researchers, people with cancer, and healthcare providers.

Doug is now 73. Today, he marvels at how rapidly the CAR-T field has progressed.

“Twenty years ago, if you had cancer, your prospects weren’t nearly as good as these days. In 2010, people still didn’t believe in CAR T-cell therapy,” he said. “My goal always in telling my story is a message of hope.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

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

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

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

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Inqovi (decitabine and cedazuridine tablets, Astex Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). The agency’s action gives physicians and patients a new treatment option – an oral-formulation MDS and CMML medication that can be taken at home.

Approval of the tablets could obviate the need for some patients to come to healthcare settings for intravenous therapy, a consideration that goes beyond patient convenience. “The FDA remains committed to providing additional treatments to patients during the coronavirus pandemic. In this case, the FDA is making available an oral outpatient treatment option that can reduce the need for frequent visits to health care facilities,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, stated in a news release.

“At this critical time, we continue to focus on providing options to patients with cancer, including regimens that can be taken at home,” added Dr. Pazdur, who is also acting director of the office of oncologic diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Inqovi received an Orphan Drug designation and a Priority Review from the agency.

The FDA based the new formulation approval on clinical trials that showed patients taking Inqovi had similar drug concentrations, compared with others receiving intravenous decitabine.

The two therapies also had similar safety profiles. Fatigue, constipation, hemorrhage, muscle pain, mucositis, arthralgia, nausea, and fever with low white blood cell count were common side effects reported in people taking Inqovi. The agency noted that Inqovi can cause fetal harm, and that both male and female patients of reproductive age are advised to use effective contraception.

In the clinical trials, approximately half of the patients formerly dependent on transfusions no longer required them during an 8-week period.

Inqovi is taken as one tablet by mouth once daily for 5 consecutive days of each 28-day cycle.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Inqovi (decitabine and cedazuridine tablets, Astex Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). The agency’s action gives physicians and patients a new treatment option – an oral-formulation MDS and CMML medication that can be taken at home.

Approval of the tablets could obviate the need for some patients to come to healthcare settings for intravenous therapy, a consideration that goes beyond patient convenience. “The FDA remains committed to providing additional treatments to patients during the coronavirus pandemic. In this case, the FDA is making available an oral outpatient treatment option that can reduce the need for frequent visits to health care facilities,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, stated in a news release.

“At this critical time, we continue to focus on providing options to patients with cancer, including regimens that can be taken at home,” added Dr. Pazdur, who is also acting director of the office of oncologic diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Inqovi received an Orphan Drug designation and a Priority Review from the agency.

The FDA based the new formulation approval on clinical trials that showed patients taking Inqovi had similar drug concentrations, compared with others receiving intravenous decitabine.

The two therapies also had similar safety profiles. Fatigue, constipation, hemorrhage, muscle pain, mucositis, arthralgia, nausea, and fever with low white blood cell count were common side effects reported in people taking Inqovi. The agency noted that Inqovi can cause fetal harm, and that both male and female patients of reproductive age are advised to use effective contraception.

In the clinical trials, approximately half of the patients formerly dependent on transfusions no longer required them during an 8-week period.

Inqovi is taken as one tablet by mouth once daily for 5 consecutive days of each 28-day cycle.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Inqovi (decitabine and cedazuridine tablets, Astex Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). The agency’s action gives physicians and patients a new treatment option – an oral-formulation MDS and CMML medication that can be taken at home.

Approval of the tablets could obviate the need for some patients to come to healthcare settings for intravenous therapy, a consideration that goes beyond patient convenience. “The FDA remains committed to providing additional treatments to patients during the coronavirus pandemic. In this case, the FDA is making available an oral outpatient treatment option that can reduce the need for frequent visits to health care facilities,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, stated in a news release.

“At this critical time, we continue to focus on providing options to patients with cancer, including regimens that can be taken at home,” added Dr. Pazdur, who is also acting director of the office of oncologic diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Inqovi received an Orphan Drug designation and a Priority Review from the agency.

The FDA based the new formulation approval on clinical trials that showed patients taking Inqovi had similar drug concentrations, compared with others receiving intravenous decitabine.

The two therapies also had similar safety profiles. Fatigue, constipation, hemorrhage, muscle pain, mucositis, arthralgia, nausea, and fever with low white blood cell count were common side effects reported in people taking Inqovi. The agency noted that Inqovi can cause fetal harm, and that both male and female patients of reproductive age are advised to use effective contraception.

In the clinical trials, approximately half of the patients formerly dependent on transfusions no longer required them during an 8-week period.

Inqovi is taken as one tablet by mouth once daily for 5 consecutive days of each 28-day cycle.

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.

Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.

“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.

About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.

The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.

Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m² for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.

Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.

The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.

Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).

However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).

A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.

Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).

Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.

The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
 

SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.

Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.

“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.

About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.

The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.

Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m² for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.

Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.

The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.

Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).

However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).

A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.

Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).

Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.

The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
 

SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.

Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.

“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.

About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.

The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.

Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m² for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.

Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.

The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.

Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).

However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).

A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.

Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).

Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.

The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
 

SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.

Therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia (tALL) is less common and less well known than therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia, but tALL also appears to be associated with poor-prognosis features, compared with de novo ALL, investigators said.

“Currently, this condition is not fully recognized by the [World Health Organization] classification, but it has emerged as a relevant and increasingly common form of ALL. There is no standardized therapy for tALL at this time due to the rarity of the condition. Therefore, more information regarding characteristics, prognosis, and treatment is needed,” wrote Brayan Merchán, MD, and colleagues at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

At their center, the median overall survival (OS) among 58 patients with tALL who received front line induction therapy was 13 months, although patients who were able to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant had a 400% longer OS than patients who did not receive HSCT, they reported in an electronic poster presented as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

A hematologist-oncologist who has studied tALL agreed that it appears to be a distinct clinical entity from de novo ALL.

“It is distinct from the other ALL because the age [at diagnosis] is different, the cytogenetic and molecular profiles are different, and while responses are the same, it seems that survival is lower in cases who don’t go through bone marrow transplant as consolidation,” said Ibrahim Aldoss, MD, from City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

Dr. Aldoss, who was not involved in the study, was the lead author of a study published in 2018 which found that, “[a]lthough survival of therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia was inferior to de novo cases, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes were comparable for the two entities” (Haematologica. 2018 Oct; 103[10]:1662-8).

He noted that induction regimen options for patients with tALL may be limited because some patients may had previous exposures to cytotoxic chemotherapy agents – such as anthracyclines used in standard regimens for breast cancer – that have cumulative toxicities and lifetime dose limits.

In addition, “these patients tend to be older, because they went through another cancer and then developed therapy-related ALL, and usually they’re not eligible for pediatric-inspired regimens that we use more frequently in younger patients,” he said.
 

Retrospective study

Dr. Merchán and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of all consecutive adults with ALL treated at their center from 1999 to 2019 and followed until January 2020. Of this group, they identified 59 patients who had been exposed to chemotherapy or radiation for other diseases prior to their ALL diagnosis.

The mean age of the 59 patients (31 women and 28 men) was 54.7 years. In all, 34 had solid cancers and 25 had hematologic malignancies before their ALL diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was breast cancer in 15 patients, followed by multiple myeloma in 11, lymphoma in 7, and AML in 5. Other prior diagnoses were not specified.

Prior therapies included chemotherapy alone in 18 patients, radiotherapy alone in 19, and 20 had both treatment modalities (information about 2 remaining patients was not presented).

For the overall population the median time to tALL diagnosis was 5 years, but for 9 patients with the poor-prognosis MLL gene rearrangement the median time to tALL was just 21 months. The disease latency period was 21 months for patients who received chemotherapy, compared with 117 months for patients treated with radiotherapy.

The majority of patients (53) had B-phenotype ALL. Of the 49 for whom cytogenetic data were available, 41 had cytogenetic abnormalities, including the MLL rearrangement in 9, and complex karyotype in 7. Of all 59 patients, 12 had translocation t(9;22).

One patient did not undergo induction therapy for ALL because of poor performance status. All of the other patients received induction therapy, either a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute protocol in 44 patients, hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) in 5, or blinatumomab in 3.

A complete response was seen in 41 patients (70%); 7 patients died during induction from causes attributed to therapy.

The mean follow-up for all patients was 27 months, and median overall survival was 13 months.

Median overall survival was 98 months for patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT versus a median of 19 months for patients who did not undergo transplant. This difference was not statistically significant, however, likely because of the small sample size.

Causes of death in 11 patients after transplant included relapse in 4 and graft-versus-host disease in 2 (other causes were not specified). Among the 34 patients who did not undergo HSCT following induction, 15 died from disease progression.

“From our results, tALL patients who were able to receive HSCT had better OS. Our data also supports the notion that tALL may be distinct entity with poor prognosis features compared to de novo ALL,” the investigators concluded.

The authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Merchán and Dr. Aldoss reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Merchán B et al. EHA25, Abstract EP391.

Therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia (tALL) is less common and less well known than therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia, but tALL also appears to be associated with poor-prognosis features, compared with de novo ALL, investigators said.

“Currently, this condition is not fully recognized by the [World Health Organization] classification, but it has emerged as a relevant and increasingly common form of ALL. There is no standardized therapy for tALL at this time due to the rarity of the condition. Therefore, more information regarding characteristics, prognosis, and treatment is needed,” wrote Brayan Merchán, MD, and colleagues at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

At their center, the median overall survival (OS) among 58 patients with tALL who received front line induction therapy was 13 months, although patients who were able to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant had a 400% longer OS than patients who did not receive HSCT, they reported in an electronic poster presented as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

A hematologist-oncologist who has studied tALL agreed that it appears to be a distinct clinical entity from de novo ALL.

“It is distinct from the other ALL because the age [at diagnosis] is different, the cytogenetic and molecular profiles are different, and while responses are the same, it seems that survival is lower in cases who don’t go through bone marrow transplant as consolidation,” said Ibrahim Aldoss, MD, from City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

Dr. Aldoss, who was not involved in the study, was the lead author of a study published in 2018 which found that, “[a]lthough survival of therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia was inferior to de novo cases, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes were comparable for the two entities” (Haematologica. 2018 Oct; 103[10]:1662-8).

He noted that induction regimen options for patients with tALL may be limited because some patients may had previous exposures to cytotoxic chemotherapy agents – such as anthracyclines used in standard regimens for breast cancer – that have cumulative toxicities and lifetime dose limits.

In addition, “these patients tend to be older, because they went through another cancer and then developed therapy-related ALL, and usually they’re not eligible for pediatric-inspired regimens that we use more frequently in younger patients,” he said.
 

Retrospective study

Dr. Merchán and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of all consecutive adults with ALL treated at their center from 1999 to 2019 and followed until January 2020. Of this group, they identified 59 patients who had been exposed to chemotherapy or radiation for other diseases prior to their ALL diagnosis.

The mean age of the 59 patients (31 women and 28 men) was 54.7 years. In all, 34 had solid cancers and 25 had hematologic malignancies before their ALL diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was breast cancer in 15 patients, followed by multiple myeloma in 11, lymphoma in 7, and AML in 5. Other prior diagnoses were not specified.

Prior therapies included chemotherapy alone in 18 patients, radiotherapy alone in 19, and 20 had both treatment modalities (information about 2 remaining patients was not presented).

For the overall population the median time to tALL diagnosis was 5 years, but for 9 patients with the poor-prognosis MLL gene rearrangement the median time to tALL was just 21 months. The disease latency period was 21 months for patients who received chemotherapy, compared with 117 months for patients treated with radiotherapy.

The majority of patients (53) had B-phenotype ALL. Of the 49 for whom cytogenetic data were available, 41 had cytogenetic abnormalities, including the MLL rearrangement in 9, and complex karyotype in 7. Of all 59 patients, 12 had translocation t(9;22).

One patient did not undergo induction therapy for ALL because of poor performance status. All of the other patients received induction therapy, either a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute protocol in 44 patients, hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) in 5, or blinatumomab in 3.

A complete response was seen in 41 patients (70%); 7 patients died during induction from causes attributed to therapy.

The mean follow-up for all patients was 27 months, and median overall survival was 13 months.

Median overall survival was 98 months for patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT versus a median of 19 months for patients who did not undergo transplant. This difference was not statistically significant, however, likely because of the small sample size.

Causes of death in 11 patients after transplant included relapse in 4 and graft-versus-host disease in 2 (other causes were not specified). Among the 34 patients who did not undergo HSCT following induction, 15 died from disease progression.

“From our results, tALL patients who were able to receive HSCT had better OS. Our data also supports the notion that tALL may be distinct entity with poor prognosis features compared to de novo ALL,” the investigators concluded.

The authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Merchán and Dr. Aldoss reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Merchán B et al. EHA25, Abstract EP391.

Therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia (tALL) is less common and less well known than therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia, but tALL also appears to be associated with poor-prognosis features, compared with de novo ALL, investigators said.

“Currently, this condition is not fully recognized by the [World Health Organization] classification, but it has emerged as a relevant and increasingly common form of ALL. There is no standardized therapy for tALL at this time due to the rarity of the condition. Therefore, more information regarding characteristics, prognosis, and treatment is needed,” wrote Brayan Merchán, MD, and colleagues at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

At their center, the median overall survival (OS) among 58 patients with tALL who received front line induction therapy was 13 months, although patients who were able to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant had a 400% longer OS than patients who did not receive HSCT, they reported in an electronic poster presented as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

A hematologist-oncologist who has studied tALL agreed that it appears to be a distinct clinical entity from de novo ALL.

“It is distinct from the other ALL because the age [at diagnosis] is different, the cytogenetic and molecular profiles are different, and while responses are the same, it seems that survival is lower in cases who don’t go through bone marrow transplant as consolidation,” said Ibrahim Aldoss, MD, from City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

Dr. Aldoss, who was not involved in the study, was the lead author of a study published in 2018 which found that, “[a]lthough survival of therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia was inferior to de novo cases, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes were comparable for the two entities” (Haematologica. 2018 Oct; 103[10]:1662-8).

He noted that induction regimen options for patients with tALL may be limited because some patients may had previous exposures to cytotoxic chemotherapy agents – such as anthracyclines used in standard regimens for breast cancer – that have cumulative toxicities and lifetime dose limits.

In addition, “these patients tend to be older, because they went through another cancer and then developed therapy-related ALL, and usually they’re not eligible for pediatric-inspired regimens that we use more frequently in younger patients,” he said.
 

Retrospective study

Dr. Merchán and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of all consecutive adults with ALL treated at their center from 1999 to 2019 and followed until January 2020. Of this group, they identified 59 patients who had been exposed to chemotherapy or radiation for other diseases prior to their ALL diagnosis.

The mean age of the 59 patients (31 women and 28 men) was 54.7 years. In all, 34 had solid cancers and 25 had hematologic malignancies before their ALL diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was breast cancer in 15 patients, followed by multiple myeloma in 11, lymphoma in 7, and AML in 5. Other prior diagnoses were not specified.

Prior therapies included chemotherapy alone in 18 patients, radiotherapy alone in 19, and 20 had both treatment modalities (information about 2 remaining patients was not presented).

For the overall population the median time to tALL diagnosis was 5 years, but for 9 patients with the poor-prognosis MLL gene rearrangement the median time to tALL was just 21 months. The disease latency period was 21 months for patients who received chemotherapy, compared with 117 months for patients treated with radiotherapy.

The majority of patients (53) had B-phenotype ALL. Of the 49 for whom cytogenetic data were available, 41 had cytogenetic abnormalities, including the MLL rearrangement in 9, and complex karyotype in 7. Of all 59 patients, 12 had translocation t(9;22).

One patient did not undergo induction therapy for ALL because of poor performance status. All of the other patients received induction therapy, either a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute protocol in 44 patients, hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) in 5, or blinatumomab in 3.

A complete response was seen in 41 patients (70%); 7 patients died during induction from causes attributed to therapy.

The mean follow-up for all patients was 27 months, and median overall survival was 13 months.

Median overall survival was 98 months for patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT versus a median of 19 months for patients who did not undergo transplant. This difference was not statistically significant, however, likely because of the small sample size.

Causes of death in 11 patients after transplant included relapse in 4 and graft-versus-host disease in 2 (other causes were not specified). Among the 34 patients who did not undergo HSCT following induction, 15 died from disease progression.

“From our results, tALL patients who were able to receive HSCT had better OS. Our data also supports the notion that tALL may be distinct entity with poor prognosis features compared to de novo ALL,” the investigators concluded.

The authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Merchán and Dr. Aldoss reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Merchán B et al. EHA25, Abstract EP391.

In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.

An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.

“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
 

Not ready to change practice

A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.

“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
 

Prerandomization results

Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.

A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.

As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.

The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.

A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.

A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.

“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.

The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.

The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.

Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.

Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.

In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.

An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.

“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
 

Not ready to change practice

A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.

“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
 

Prerandomization results

Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.

A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.

As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.

The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.

A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.

A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.

“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.

The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.

The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.

Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.

Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.

In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.

An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.

“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
 

Not ready to change practice

A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.

“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
 

Prerandomization results

Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.

A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.

As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.

The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.

A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.

A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.

“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.

The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.

The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.

Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.

Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.