Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of an intravenous (IV) formulation of aprepitant (CINVANTI™) to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

CINVANTI is intended to be used in combination with other antiemetic agents to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

CINVANTI is to be used in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone.

The full prescribing information is available at www.cinvanti.com.

The US commercial launch of CINVANTI is planned for January 2018.

CINVANTI is the first IV formulation to directly deliver aprepitant, a substance P/neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist.

Aprepitant is also the active ingredient in EMEND^® capsules, which were approved by the FDA in 2003. EMEND IV^®, which was approved in 2008, contains aprepitant’s prodrug, fosaprepitant.

Heron Therapeutics, Inc., developed CINVANTI in an attempt to provide an IV formulation of aprepitant that has the same efficacy as IV fosaprepitant but does not pose the risk of adverse events (AEs) related to polysorbate 80.

“Aprepitant has long been the standard in the NK1 class, and it remains the only single-agent NK1 with proven efficacy in preventing CINV in both the acute and delayed phases in HEC and MEC,” said Rudolph M. Navari, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama Birmingham School of Medicine.

“Because CINVANTI is a novel, polysorbate 80-free, IV formulation of aprepitant, it enables physicians to provide patients with standard-of-care efficacy without the potential risk of polysorbate 80-related adverse events, such as infusion-site reactions.”

The FDA approved CINVANTI based on data demonstrating the bioequivalence of CINVANTI to EMEND IV.

A phase 1, randomized, 2-way cross-over study comparing the drugs enrolled 100 healthy subjects. The subjects received CINVANTI at 130 mg or EMEND IV at 150 mg, given over 30 minutes on day 1 of periods 1 and 2.

The researchers said 90% confidence intervals for CINVANTI AUC_0-t (area under the time-concentration curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration), AUC_0-inf (area under the time-concentration curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity), and C12h (plasma concentration at 12 hours) “were well within bioequivalence bounds,” which was 80% to 125%.

The team also found the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was lower with CINVANTI than EMEND IV—21% and 28%, respectively. The same was true for related treatment-emergent AEs—15% and 28%, respectively.

These data were presented at the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association Annual Conference in March/April and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO) Annual Meeting in June.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of an intravenous (IV) formulation of aprepitant (CINVANTI™) to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

CINVANTI is intended to be used in combination with other antiemetic agents to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

CINVANTI is to be used in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone.

The full prescribing information is available at www.cinvanti.com.

The US commercial launch of CINVANTI is planned for January 2018.

CINVANTI is the first IV formulation to directly deliver aprepitant, a substance P/neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist.

Aprepitant is also the active ingredient in EMEND^® capsules, which were approved by the FDA in 2003. EMEND IV^®, which was approved in 2008, contains aprepitant’s prodrug, fosaprepitant.

Heron Therapeutics, Inc., developed CINVANTI in an attempt to provide an IV formulation of aprepitant that has the same efficacy as IV fosaprepitant but does not pose the risk of adverse events (AEs) related to polysorbate 80.

“Aprepitant has long been the standard in the NK1 class, and it remains the only single-agent NK1 with proven efficacy in preventing CINV in both the acute and delayed phases in HEC and MEC,” said Rudolph M. Navari, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama Birmingham School of Medicine.

“Because CINVANTI is a novel, polysorbate 80-free, IV formulation of aprepitant, it enables physicians to provide patients with standard-of-care efficacy without the potential risk of polysorbate 80-related adverse events, such as infusion-site reactions.”

The FDA approved CINVANTI based on data demonstrating the bioequivalence of CINVANTI to EMEND IV.

A phase 1, randomized, 2-way cross-over study comparing the drugs enrolled 100 healthy subjects. The subjects received CINVANTI at 130 mg or EMEND IV at 150 mg, given over 30 minutes on day 1 of periods 1 and 2.

The researchers said 90% confidence intervals for CINVANTI AUC_0-t (area under the time-concentration curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration), AUC_0-inf (area under the time-concentration curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity), and C12h (plasma concentration at 12 hours) “were well within bioequivalence bounds,” which was 80% to 125%.

The team also found the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was lower with CINVANTI than EMEND IV—21% and 28%, respectively. The same was true for related treatment-emergent AEs—15% and 28%, respectively.

These data were presented at the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association Annual Conference in March/April and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO) Annual Meeting in June.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of an intravenous (IV) formulation of aprepitant (CINVANTI™) to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

CINVANTI is intended to be used in combination with other antiemetic agents to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

CINVANTI is to be used in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone.

The full prescribing information is available at www.cinvanti.com.

The US commercial launch of CINVANTI is planned for January 2018.

CINVANTI is the first IV formulation to directly deliver aprepitant, a substance P/neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist.

Aprepitant is also the active ingredient in EMEND^® capsules, which were approved by the FDA in 2003. EMEND IV^®, which was approved in 2008, contains aprepitant’s prodrug, fosaprepitant.

Heron Therapeutics, Inc., developed CINVANTI in an attempt to provide an IV formulation of aprepitant that has the same efficacy as IV fosaprepitant but does not pose the risk of adverse events (AEs) related to polysorbate 80.

“Aprepitant has long been the standard in the NK1 class, and it remains the only single-agent NK1 with proven efficacy in preventing CINV in both the acute and delayed phases in HEC and MEC,” said Rudolph M. Navari, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama Birmingham School of Medicine.

“Because CINVANTI is a novel, polysorbate 80-free, IV formulation of aprepitant, it enables physicians to provide patients with standard-of-care efficacy without the potential risk of polysorbate 80-related adverse events, such as infusion-site reactions.”

The FDA approved CINVANTI based on data demonstrating the bioequivalence of CINVANTI to EMEND IV.

A phase 1, randomized, 2-way cross-over study comparing the drugs enrolled 100 healthy subjects. The subjects received CINVANTI at 130 mg or EMEND IV at 150 mg, given over 30 minutes on day 1 of periods 1 and 2.

The researchers said 90% confidence intervals for CINVANTI AUC_0-t (area under the time-concentration curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration), AUC_0-inf (area under the time-concentration curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity), and C12h (plasma concentration at 12 hours) “were well within bioequivalence bounds,” which was 80% to 125%.

The team also found the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was lower with CINVANTI than EMEND IV—21% and 28%, respectively. The same was true for related treatment-emergent AEs—15% and 28%, respectively.

These data were presented at the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association Annual Conference in March/April and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO) Annual Meeting in June.

The Food and Drug Administration has given the biopharmaceutical company Cellectis permission to resume phase 1 trials of UCART123, a gene-edited T-cell investigational drug that targets CD123, as a potential treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), according to a press release from the company.

UCART123 is the first allogeneic, “off-the-shelf” gene-edited chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product candidate that the FDA has approved for clinical trials. The agency had placed a clinical hold on phase 1 trials of the gene-edited CAR T-cell drug on Sept. 4, following a patient death in the BPDCN clinical study. In order to proceed with the trials, Cellectis agreed to several changes in the study protocols.

The changes include decreasing the dose of the UCART123 therapy to 6.25x10⁴ cells/kg and lowering the dose of the lympho-depleting regimen of cyclophosphamide to 750 mg/m² per day over 3 days with a maximum daily dose of 1.33 g. Additionally, there can be no uncontrolled infection after receipt of the lympho-depleting preconditioning regimen. Patients must be afebrile at the start of treatment, off all but a replacement dose of corticosteroids, and have no organ dysfunction. Plus, the next three patients treated in each study must be under age 65.

There’s also a condition that patient enrollments be staggered by at least 28 days.

The drug sponsor is working with investigators and each clinical site to obtain the Institutional Review Board’s approval of the revised protocols.

The hold followed the death of a 78-year-old man with relapsed/refractory BPDCN with 30% blasts in his bone marrow and cutaneous lesions. The first dose of UCART123 at 6.25x10⁵ cells/kg was administered without complication, but at day 5 the patient began experiencing side effects, including cytokine release syndrome and a lung infection. At day 8, the cytokine release syndrome had worsened and the patient had also developed capillary leak syndrome. He died on day 9 of the study.

In the AML phase 1 study, a 58-year-old woman with AML and 84% blasts in her bone marrow received the same dose of UCART123. She also developed cytokine release syndrome and capillary leak syndrome but both resolved with treatment.

Both patients also received the same preconditioning treatment: 30 mg/m² per day fludarabine for 4 days and 1g/m² per day cyclophosphamide for 3 days.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

The Food and Drug Administration has given the biopharmaceutical company Cellectis permission to resume phase 1 trials of UCART123, a gene-edited T-cell investigational drug that targets CD123, as a potential treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), according to a press release from the company.

UCART123 is the first allogeneic, “off-the-shelf” gene-edited chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product candidate that the FDA has approved for clinical trials. The agency had placed a clinical hold on phase 1 trials of the gene-edited CAR T-cell drug on Sept. 4, following a patient death in the BPDCN clinical study. In order to proceed with the trials, Cellectis agreed to several changes in the study protocols.

The changes include decreasing the dose of the UCART123 therapy to 6.25x10⁴ cells/kg and lowering the dose of the lympho-depleting regimen of cyclophosphamide to 750 mg/m² per day over 3 days with a maximum daily dose of 1.33 g. Additionally, there can be no uncontrolled infection after receipt of the lympho-depleting preconditioning regimen. Patients must be afebrile at the start of treatment, off all but a replacement dose of corticosteroids, and have no organ dysfunction. Plus, the next three patients treated in each study must be under age 65.

There’s also a condition that patient enrollments be staggered by at least 28 days.

The drug sponsor is working with investigators and each clinical site to obtain the Institutional Review Board’s approval of the revised protocols.

The hold followed the death of a 78-year-old man with relapsed/refractory BPDCN with 30% blasts in his bone marrow and cutaneous lesions. The first dose of UCART123 at 6.25x10⁵ cells/kg was administered without complication, but at day 5 the patient began experiencing side effects, including cytokine release syndrome and a lung infection. At day 8, the cytokine release syndrome had worsened and the patient had also developed capillary leak syndrome. He died on day 9 of the study.

In the AML phase 1 study, a 58-year-old woman with AML and 84% blasts in her bone marrow received the same dose of UCART123. She also developed cytokine release syndrome and capillary leak syndrome but both resolved with treatment.

Both patients also received the same preconditioning treatment: 30 mg/m² per day fludarabine for 4 days and 1g/m² per day cyclophosphamide for 3 days.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

The Food and Drug Administration has given the biopharmaceutical company Cellectis permission to resume phase 1 trials of UCART123, a gene-edited T-cell investigational drug that targets CD123, as a potential treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), according to a press release from the company.

UCART123 is the first allogeneic, “off-the-shelf” gene-edited chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product candidate that the FDA has approved for clinical trials. The agency had placed a clinical hold on phase 1 trials of the gene-edited CAR T-cell drug on Sept. 4, following a patient death in the BPDCN clinical study. In order to proceed with the trials, Cellectis agreed to several changes in the study protocols.

The changes include decreasing the dose of the UCART123 therapy to 6.25x10⁴ cells/kg and lowering the dose of the lympho-depleting regimen of cyclophosphamide to 750 mg/m² per day over 3 days with a maximum daily dose of 1.33 g. Additionally, there can be no uncontrolled infection after receipt of the lympho-depleting preconditioning regimen. Patients must be afebrile at the start of treatment, off all but a replacement dose of corticosteroids, and have no organ dysfunction. Plus, the next three patients treated in each study must be under age 65.

There’s also a condition that patient enrollments be staggered by at least 28 days.

The drug sponsor is working with investigators and each clinical site to obtain the Institutional Review Board’s approval of the revised protocols.

The hold followed the death of a 78-year-old man with relapsed/refractory BPDCN with 30% blasts in his bone marrow and cutaneous lesions. The first dose of UCART123 at 6.25x10⁵ cells/kg was administered without complication, but at day 5 the patient began experiencing side effects, including cytokine release syndrome and a lung infection. At day 8, the cytokine release syndrome had worsened and the patient had also developed capillary leak syndrome. He died on day 9 of the study.

In the AML phase 1 study, a 58-year-old woman with AML and 84% blasts in her bone marrow received the same dose of UCART123. She also developed cytokine release syndrome and capillary leak syndrome but both resolved with treatment.

Both patients also received the same preconditioning treatment: 30 mg/m² per day fludarabine for 4 days and 1g/m² per day cyclophosphamide for 3 days.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

Image by Lance Liotta

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has granted accelerated assessment to a marketing authorization application (MAA) for CPX-351 (Vyxeos™), a fixed-ratio combination of cytarabine and daunorubicin inside a lipid vesicle.

The MAA is for CPX-351 to treat adults with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML), defined as therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes.

Accelerated assessment is designed to reduce the review timeline for products of major interest for public health and therapeutic innovation.

“If approved, Vyxeos will become the first new chemotherapy treatment option specifically for European patients with therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes,” said Karen Smith, MD, PhD, executive vice president, research and development and chief medical officer at Jazz Pharmaceuticals, the company developing and marketing CPX-351.

The MAA for CPX-351 is supported by clinical data from 5 studies, including a phase 3 study. Results from this study were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.

In this study, researchers compared CPX-351 to cytarabine and daunorubicin (7+3) in 309 patients, ages 60 to 75, with newly diagnosed, therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes.

The complete response rate was 38% in the CPX-351 arm and 26% in the 7+3 arm (P=0.036).

The rate of hematopoietic stem cell transplant was 34% in the CPX-351 arm and 25% in the 7+3 arm.

The median overall survival was 9.6 months in the CPX-351 arm and 5.9 months in the 7+3 arm (P=0.005).

All-cause 30-day mortality was 6% in the CPX-351 arm and 11% in the 7+3 arm. Sixty-day mortality was 14% and 21%, respectively.

Six percent of patients in both arms had a fatal adverse event (AE) on treatment or within 30 days of therapy that was not in the setting of progressive disease.

The rate of AEs that led to discontinuation was 18% in the CPX-351 arm and 13% in the 7+3 arm. AEs leading to discontinuation in the CPX-351 arm included prolonged cytopenias, infection, cardiotoxicity, respiratory failure, hemorrhage, renal insufficiency, colitis, and generalized medical deterioration.

The most common AEs (incidence ≥ 25%) in the CPX-351 arm were hemorrhagic events, febrile neutropenia, rash, edema, nausea, mucositis, diarrhea, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, abdominal pain, dyspnea, headache, cough, decreased appetite, arrhythmia, pneumonia, bacteremia, chills, sleep disorders, and vomiting.

The most common serious AEs (incidence ≥ 5%) in the CPX-351 arm were dyspnea, myocardial toxicity, sepsis, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, bacteremia, and hemorrhage.

Image by Lance Liotta

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has granted accelerated assessment to a marketing authorization application (MAA) for CPX-351 (Vyxeos™), a fixed-ratio combination of cytarabine and daunorubicin inside a lipid vesicle.

The MAA is for CPX-351 to treat adults with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML), defined as therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes.

Accelerated assessment is designed to reduce the review timeline for products of major interest for public health and therapeutic innovation.

“If approved, Vyxeos will become the first new chemotherapy treatment option specifically for European patients with therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes,” said Karen Smith, MD, PhD, executive vice president, research and development and chief medical officer at Jazz Pharmaceuticals, the company developing and marketing CPX-351.

The MAA for CPX-351 is supported by clinical data from 5 studies, including a phase 3 study. Results from this study were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.

In this study, researchers compared CPX-351 to cytarabine and daunorubicin (7+3) in 309 patients, ages 60 to 75, with newly diagnosed, therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes.

The complete response rate was 38% in the CPX-351 arm and 26% in the 7+3 arm (P=0.036).

The rate of hematopoietic stem cell transplant was 34% in the CPX-351 arm and 25% in the 7+3 arm.

The median overall survival was 9.6 months in the CPX-351 arm and 5.9 months in the 7+3 arm (P=0.005).

All-cause 30-day mortality was 6% in the CPX-351 arm and 11% in the 7+3 arm. Sixty-day mortality was 14% and 21%, respectively.

Six percent of patients in both arms had a fatal adverse event (AE) on treatment or within 30 days of therapy that was not in the setting of progressive disease.

The rate of AEs that led to discontinuation was 18% in the CPX-351 arm and 13% in the 7+3 arm. AEs leading to discontinuation in the CPX-351 arm included prolonged cytopenias, infection, cardiotoxicity, respiratory failure, hemorrhage, renal insufficiency, colitis, and generalized medical deterioration.

The most common AEs (incidence ≥ 25%) in the CPX-351 arm were hemorrhagic events, febrile neutropenia, rash, edema, nausea, mucositis, diarrhea, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, abdominal pain, dyspnea, headache, cough, decreased appetite, arrhythmia, pneumonia, bacteremia, chills, sleep disorders, and vomiting.

The most common serious AEs (incidence ≥ 5%) in the CPX-351 arm were dyspnea, myocardial toxicity, sepsis, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, bacteremia, and hemorrhage.

Image by Lance Liotta

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has granted accelerated assessment to a marketing authorization application (MAA) for CPX-351 (Vyxeos™), a fixed-ratio combination of cytarabine and daunorubicin inside a lipid vesicle.

The MAA is for CPX-351 to treat adults with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML), defined as therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes.

Accelerated assessment is designed to reduce the review timeline for products of major interest for public health and therapeutic innovation.

“If approved, Vyxeos will become the first new chemotherapy treatment option specifically for European patients with therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes,” said Karen Smith, MD, PhD, executive vice president, research and development and chief medical officer at Jazz Pharmaceuticals, the company developing and marketing CPX-351.

The MAA for CPX-351 is supported by clinical data from 5 studies, including a phase 3 study. Results from this study were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.

In this study, researchers compared CPX-351 to cytarabine and daunorubicin (7+3) in 309 patients, ages 60 to 75, with newly diagnosed, therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes.

The complete response rate was 38% in the CPX-351 arm and 26% in the 7+3 arm (P=0.036).

The rate of hematopoietic stem cell transplant was 34% in the CPX-351 arm and 25% in the 7+3 arm.

The median overall survival was 9.6 months in the CPX-351 arm and 5.9 months in the 7+3 arm (P=0.005).

All-cause 30-day mortality was 6% in the CPX-351 arm and 11% in the 7+3 arm. Sixty-day mortality was 14% and 21%, respectively.

Six percent of patients in both arms had a fatal adverse event (AE) on treatment or within 30 days of therapy that was not in the setting of progressive disease.

The rate of AEs that led to discontinuation was 18% in the CPX-351 arm and 13% in the 7+3 arm. AEs leading to discontinuation in the CPX-351 arm included prolonged cytopenias, infection, cardiotoxicity, respiratory failure, hemorrhage, renal insufficiency, colitis, and generalized medical deterioration.

The most common AEs (incidence ≥ 25%) in the CPX-351 arm were hemorrhagic events, febrile neutropenia, rash, edema, nausea, mucositis, diarrhea, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, abdominal pain, dyspnea, headache, cough, decreased appetite, arrhythmia, pneumonia, bacteremia, chills, sleep disorders, and vomiting.

The most common serious AEs (incidence ≥ 5%) in the CPX-351 arm were dyspnea, myocardial toxicity, sepsis, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, bacteremia, and hemorrhage.

Image from NIAID

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lifted the full clinical hold on 2 phase 1 studies of UCART123, an allogeneic chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy targeting CD123.

One of these studies was designed for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and the other was designed for patients with blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN).

The hold meant no new subjects could be enrolled in either trial, and there could be no further dosing of subjects who were already enrolled.

The hold was placed in September because the first patient treated in the BPDCN trial died. The patient developed grade 2 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and a grade 3 lung infection. This was followed by grade 4 capillary leak syndrome and grade 5 CRS.

The first patient treated in the AML trial also developed grade 4 capillary leak syndrome and grade 3 CRS, but both resolved.

Now, the FDA has lifted the hold on the trials because Cellectis, the company developing UCART123, agreed to implement the following main revisions to phase 1 UCART123 protocols:

• Decrease the cohort dose level to 6.25 x 10⁴ UCART123 cells/kg
• Decrease the cyclophosphamide dose of the lymphodepleting regimen to 750 mg/m²/day over 3 days, with a maximum daily dose of 1.33 grams
• Include specific criteria at Day 0, the day of UCART123 infusion, such as no new uncontrolled infection after receipt of lymphodepletion, afebrile, off all but replacement dose of corticosteroids, and no organ dysfunction since eligibility screening
• Ensure the next 3 patients to be treated in each protocol will be under the age of 65
• Ensure that enrollment will be staggered across the UCART123 protocols; at least 28 days should elapse between the enrollments of 2 patients across the 2 studies.

Cellectis is currently working with investigators and clinical sites to obtain internal review board approval on the revised protocols and resume patient enrollment.

Image from NIAID

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lifted the full clinical hold on 2 phase 1 studies of UCART123, an allogeneic chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy targeting CD123.

One of these studies was designed for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and the other was designed for patients with blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN).

The hold meant no new subjects could be enrolled in either trial, and there could be no further dosing of subjects who were already enrolled.

The hold was placed in September because the first patient treated in the BPDCN trial died. The patient developed grade 2 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and a grade 3 lung infection. This was followed by grade 4 capillary leak syndrome and grade 5 CRS.

The first patient treated in the AML trial also developed grade 4 capillary leak syndrome and grade 3 CRS, but both resolved.

Now, the FDA has lifted the hold on the trials because Cellectis, the company developing UCART123, agreed to implement the following main revisions to phase 1 UCART123 protocols:

• Decrease the cohort dose level to 6.25 x 10⁴ UCART123 cells/kg
• Decrease the cyclophosphamide dose of the lymphodepleting regimen to 750 mg/m²/day over 3 days, with a maximum daily dose of 1.33 grams
• Include specific criteria at Day 0, the day of UCART123 infusion, such as no new uncontrolled infection after receipt of lymphodepletion, afebrile, off all but replacement dose of corticosteroids, and no organ dysfunction since eligibility screening
• Ensure the next 3 patients to be treated in each protocol will be under the age of 65
• Ensure that enrollment will be staggered across the UCART123 protocols; at least 28 days should elapse between the enrollments of 2 patients across the 2 studies.

Cellectis is currently working with investigators and clinical sites to obtain internal review board approval on the revised protocols and resume patient enrollment.

Image from NIAID

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lifted the full clinical hold on 2 phase 1 studies of UCART123, an allogeneic chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy targeting CD123.

One of these studies was designed for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and the other was designed for patients with blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN).

The hold meant no new subjects could be enrolled in either trial, and there could be no further dosing of subjects who were already enrolled.

The hold was placed in September because the first patient treated in the BPDCN trial died. The patient developed grade 2 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and a grade 3 lung infection. This was followed by grade 4 capillary leak syndrome and grade 5 CRS.

The first patient treated in the AML trial also developed grade 4 capillary leak syndrome and grade 3 CRS, but both resolved.

Now, the FDA has lifted the hold on the trials because Cellectis, the company developing UCART123, agreed to implement the following main revisions to phase 1 UCART123 protocols:

• Decrease the cohort dose level to 6.25 x 10⁴ UCART123 cells/kg
• Decrease the cyclophosphamide dose of the lymphodepleting regimen to 750 mg/m²/day over 3 days, with a maximum daily dose of 1.33 grams
• Include specific criteria at Day 0, the day of UCART123 infusion, such as no new uncontrolled infection after receipt of lymphodepletion, afebrile, off all but replacement dose of corticosteroids, and no organ dysfunction since eligibility screening
• Ensure the next 3 patients to be treated in each protocol will be under the age of 65
• Ensure that enrollment will be staggered across the UCART123 protocols; at least 28 days should elapse between the enrollments of 2 patients across the 2 studies.

Cellectis is currently working with investigators and clinical sites to obtain internal review board approval on the revised protocols and resume patient enrollment.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

NEW YORK, NY—The 4-year follow-up of the RESONATE trial suggests ibrutinib may provide long-term efficacy in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

The median progression-free survival (PFS) has not yet been reached in this trial, regardless of high-risk cytogenetics, according to Jennifer Brown, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

She presented the update at Lymphoma & Myeloma 2017. The follow-up study was awarded the best clinical CLL abstract of the meeting.

In the phase 3 RESONATE study, investigators compared ibrutinib—the first-in-class, once-daily, oral inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase—to ofatumumab in previously treated CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The primary analysis showed ibrutinib significantly improved survival, with a 78% reduction in the risk of progression and a 57% reduction in the risk of death.

The phase 3 trial randomized 195 CLL/SLL patients to oral ibrutinib at 420 mg once daily and 196 patients to intravenous ofatumumab at an initial dose of 300 mg followed by 2000 mg for 11 doses over 24 weeks.

One hundred thirty-three patients progressed on ofatumumab and crossed over to receive once-daily ibrutinib.

Patient characteristics

In each arm, the median patient age was 67, more than half of patients had an ECOG status of 1, and more than half had advanced-stage disease.

High-risk genetic abnormalities were common, Dr Brown said, with deletion 11q in a third of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 31% in the ofatumumab arm. Another third in each arm had deletion 17p, while 51% in the ibrutinib arm and 46% in the ofatumumab arm had TP53 mutation.

About a quarter of the patients in each arm had complex karyotype, and 73% and 63% in the ibrutinib and ofatumumab arms, respectively, were IGHV-unmutated.

Survival

Ibrutinib significantly extended PFS compared with ofatumumab. At a median follow-up for ibrutinib of 44 months (range, 0.33 – 53), ibrutinib led to an 87% reduction in the risk of progression or death. The 3-year PFS rate was 59% with ibrutinib and 3% with ofatumumab.

Ibrutinib conferred a benefit in PFS across all baseline patient characteristics.

Among ibrutinib-treated patients, the 3-year PFS was 53% for patients with deletion 17p, 66% for those with deletion 11q but not deletion 17p, and 58% for those with neither abnormality.

Dr Brown noted how closely complex karyotype associates with high-risk cytogenetics. Forty-two percent of patients with 17p deletion had a complex karyotype, as did 23% of patients with 11q deletion and 15% of patients with neither 17p nor 11q deletion.

For IGHV-mutation status, Dr Brown said there is no difference in PFS with this degree of follow-up.

In terms of TP53 mutation status, Dr Brown pointed out a trend toward a worse PFS in those patients with the mutation.

“We actually looked by individual p53 mutation versus 17p deletion, versus both, versus neither, in the 2-year follow-up paper and found that p53 with 17p, both abnormalities, did have worse PFS than neither,” she said.

“This may require further follow-up because we do know that most 17p patients also have a p53 mutation, particularly in the relapsed setting.”

As expected, Dr Brown said, those patients with more than 2 prior therapies had a worse PFS compared to patients with 2 or fewer prior therapies.

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that more than 2 prior lines of therapy or an elevated ß2 microglobulin were associated with decreased PFS with ibrutinib.

When the investigators adjusted the overall survival data for cross-over, ibrutinib was projected to continue the overall survival benefit compared with ofatumumab, with a hazard ratio of 0.37.

Response rates

Dr Brown noted that, early on, there’s quite a significant rate of partial response with lymphocytosis observed in patients on ibrutinib.

This “diminishes dramatically,” she said, but about 5% of patients at 3 and 4 years still have ongoing lymphocytosis.

“Similarly, initially, there’s a very low rate of complete remission, which has risen steadily to 9% at this follow-up,” she said.

And the overall response rate is 91%.

Treatment exposure and toxicity

The median duration of ibrutinib treatment is 41 months, and 46% of patients continue on treatment. Twenty-seven percent of patients discontinued due to progression, and 12% because of adverse events (AEs).

Of the 53 patients who discontinued therapy, 14 had transformation as their primary reason, 9 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 3 with Hodgkin disease, and 2 with prolymphocytic lymphoma.

The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation included pneumonia (n=3), anemia (n=2), thrombocytopenia (n=2), diarrhea (n=2), and anal incontinence (n=2).

AEs leading to discontinuation decreased over time—6% in year 0 to 1 and 4% in years 2 to 3.

“The most frequent cumulative AEs are similar to what we’ve seen in most prior studies,” Dr Brown said, including diarrhea, fatigue, and cough.

In terms of grade 3 or higher AEs, about a quarter of patients had neutropenia, 17% had pneumonia, and 8% had hypertension.

Six percent of patients had major hemorrhage, and all-grade atrial fibrillation occurred in 11% of patients.

“Now, many of the grade 3 and higher AEs did decline over time during the study,” Dr Brown noted. “You can see this is quite evident for neutropenia as well as pneumonia, and all infections declined from year 1 to subsequent years.”

Hypertension, in contrast, has been fairly steady over the later years, she said, and atrial fibrillation is highest in the first 6 months but then continues at a low rate thereafter.

The investigators believe these long-term results demonstrate that ibrutinib is tolerable and continues to show sustained efficacy in previously treated and high-genomic-risk patients with CLL. In addition, no long-term safety signals have emerged.

This study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie company.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

NEW YORK, NY—The 4-year follow-up of the RESONATE trial suggests ibrutinib may provide long-term efficacy in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

The median progression-free survival (PFS) has not yet been reached in this trial, regardless of high-risk cytogenetics, according to Jennifer Brown, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

She presented the update at Lymphoma & Myeloma 2017. The follow-up study was awarded the best clinical CLL abstract of the meeting.

In the phase 3 RESONATE study, investigators compared ibrutinib—the first-in-class, once-daily, oral inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase—to ofatumumab in previously treated CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The primary analysis showed ibrutinib significantly improved survival, with a 78% reduction in the risk of progression and a 57% reduction in the risk of death.

The phase 3 trial randomized 195 CLL/SLL patients to oral ibrutinib at 420 mg once daily and 196 patients to intravenous ofatumumab at an initial dose of 300 mg followed by 2000 mg for 11 doses over 24 weeks.

One hundred thirty-three patients progressed on ofatumumab and crossed over to receive once-daily ibrutinib.

Patient characteristics

In each arm, the median patient age was 67, more than half of patients had an ECOG status of 1, and more than half had advanced-stage disease.

High-risk genetic abnormalities were common, Dr Brown said, with deletion 11q in a third of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 31% in the ofatumumab arm. Another third in each arm had deletion 17p, while 51% in the ibrutinib arm and 46% in the ofatumumab arm had TP53 mutation.

About a quarter of the patients in each arm had complex karyotype, and 73% and 63% in the ibrutinib and ofatumumab arms, respectively, were IGHV-unmutated.

Survival

Ibrutinib significantly extended PFS compared with ofatumumab. At a median follow-up for ibrutinib of 44 months (range, 0.33 – 53), ibrutinib led to an 87% reduction in the risk of progression or death. The 3-year PFS rate was 59% with ibrutinib and 3% with ofatumumab.

Ibrutinib conferred a benefit in PFS across all baseline patient characteristics.

Among ibrutinib-treated patients, the 3-year PFS was 53% for patients with deletion 17p, 66% for those with deletion 11q but not deletion 17p, and 58% for those with neither abnormality.

Dr Brown noted how closely complex karyotype associates with high-risk cytogenetics. Forty-two percent of patients with 17p deletion had a complex karyotype, as did 23% of patients with 11q deletion and 15% of patients with neither 17p nor 11q deletion.

For IGHV-mutation status, Dr Brown said there is no difference in PFS with this degree of follow-up.

In terms of TP53 mutation status, Dr Brown pointed out a trend toward a worse PFS in those patients with the mutation.

“We actually looked by individual p53 mutation versus 17p deletion, versus both, versus neither, in the 2-year follow-up paper and found that p53 with 17p, both abnormalities, did have worse PFS than neither,” she said.

“This may require further follow-up because we do know that most 17p patients also have a p53 mutation, particularly in the relapsed setting.”

As expected, Dr Brown said, those patients with more than 2 prior therapies had a worse PFS compared to patients with 2 or fewer prior therapies.

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that more than 2 prior lines of therapy or an elevated ß2 microglobulin were associated with decreased PFS with ibrutinib.

When the investigators adjusted the overall survival data for cross-over, ibrutinib was projected to continue the overall survival benefit compared with ofatumumab, with a hazard ratio of 0.37.

Response rates

Dr Brown noted that, early on, there’s quite a significant rate of partial response with lymphocytosis observed in patients on ibrutinib.

This “diminishes dramatically,” she said, but about 5% of patients at 3 and 4 years still have ongoing lymphocytosis.

“Similarly, initially, there’s a very low rate of complete remission, which has risen steadily to 9% at this follow-up,” she said.

And the overall response rate is 91%.

Treatment exposure and toxicity

The median duration of ibrutinib treatment is 41 months, and 46% of patients continue on treatment. Twenty-seven percent of patients discontinued due to progression, and 12% because of adverse events (AEs).

Of the 53 patients who discontinued therapy, 14 had transformation as their primary reason, 9 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 3 with Hodgkin disease, and 2 with prolymphocytic lymphoma.

The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation included pneumonia (n=3), anemia (n=2), thrombocytopenia (n=2), diarrhea (n=2), and anal incontinence (n=2).

AEs leading to discontinuation decreased over time—6% in year 0 to 1 and 4% in years 2 to 3.

“The most frequent cumulative AEs are similar to what we’ve seen in most prior studies,” Dr Brown said, including diarrhea, fatigue, and cough.

In terms of grade 3 or higher AEs, about a quarter of patients had neutropenia, 17% had pneumonia, and 8% had hypertension.

Six percent of patients had major hemorrhage, and all-grade atrial fibrillation occurred in 11% of patients.

“Now, many of the grade 3 and higher AEs did decline over time during the study,” Dr Brown noted. “You can see this is quite evident for neutropenia as well as pneumonia, and all infections declined from year 1 to subsequent years.”

Hypertension, in contrast, has been fairly steady over the later years, she said, and atrial fibrillation is highest in the first 6 months but then continues at a low rate thereafter.

The investigators believe these long-term results demonstrate that ibrutinib is tolerable and continues to show sustained efficacy in previously treated and high-genomic-risk patients with CLL. In addition, no long-term safety signals have emerged.

This study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie company.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

NEW YORK, NY—The 4-year follow-up of the RESONATE trial suggests ibrutinib may provide long-term efficacy in previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

The median progression-free survival (PFS) has not yet been reached in this trial, regardless of high-risk cytogenetics, according to Jennifer Brown, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

She presented the update at Lymphoma & Myeloma 2017. The follow-up study was awarded the best clinical CLL abstract of the meeting.

In the phase 3 RESONATE study, investigators compared ibrutinib—the first-in-class, once-daily, oral inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase—to ofatumumab in previously treated CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The primary analysis showed ibrutinib significantly improved survival, with a 78% reduction in the risk of progression and a 57% reduction in the risk of death.

The phase 3 trial randomized 195 CLL/SLL patients to oral ibrutinib at 420 mg once daily and 196 patients to intravenous ofatumumab at an initial dose of 300 mg followed by 2000 mg for 11 doses over 24 weeks.

One hundred thirty-three patients progressed on ofatumumab and crossed over to receive once-daily ibrutinib.

Patient characteristics

In each arm, the median patient age was 67, more than half of patients had an ECOG status of 1, and more than half had advanced-stage disease.

High-risk genetic abnormalities were common, Dr Brown said, with deletion 11q in a third of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 31% in the ofatumumab arm. Another third in each arm had deletion 17p, while 51% in the ibrutinib arm and 46% in the ofatumumab arm had TP53 mutation.

About a quarter of the patients in each arm had complex karyotype, and 73% and 63% in the ibrutinib and ofatumumab arms, respectively, were IGHV-unmutated.

Survival

Ibrutinib significantly extended PFS compared with ofatumumab. At a median follow-up for ibrutinib of 44 months (range, 0.33 – 53), ibrutinib led to an 87% reduction in the risk of progression or death. The 3-year PFS rate was 59% with ibrutinib and 3% with ofatumumab.

Ibrutinib conferred a benefit in PFS across all baseline patient characteristics.

Among ibrutinib-treated patients, the 3-year PFS was 53% for patients with deletion 17p, 66% for those with deletion 11q but not deletion 17p, and 58% for those with neither abnormality.

Dr Brown noted how closely complex karyotype associates with high-risk cytogenetics. Forty-two percent of patients with 17p deletion had a complex karyotype, as did 23% of patients with 11q deletion and 15% of patients with neither 17p nor 11q deletion.

For IGHV-mutation status, Dr Brown said there is no difference in PFS with this degree of follow-up.

In terms of TP53 mutation status, Dr Brown pointed out a trend toward a worse PFS in those patients with the mutation.

“We actually looked by individual p53 mutation versus 17p deletion, versus both, versus neither, in the 2-year follow-up paper and found that p53 with 17p, both abnormalities, did have worse PFS than neither,” she said.

“This may require further follow-up because we do know that most 17p patients also have a p53 mutation, particularly in the relapsed setting.”

As expected, Dr Brown said, those patients with more than 2 prior therapies had a worse PFS compared to patients with 2 or fewer prior therapies.

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that more than 2 prior lines of therapy or an elevated ß2 microglobulin were associated with decreased PFS with ibrutinib.

When the investigators adjusted the overall survival data for cross-over, ibrutinib was projected to continue the overall survival benefit compared with ofatumumab, with a hazard ratio of 0.37.

Response rates

Dr Brown noted that, early on, there’s quite a significant rate of partial response with lymphocytosis observed in patients on ibrutinib.

This “diminishes dramatically,” she said, but about 5% of patients at 3 and 4 years still have ongoing lymphocytosis.

“Similarly, initially, there’s a very low rate of complete remission, which has risen steadily to 9% at this follow-up,” she said.

And the overall response rate is 91%.

Treatment exposure and toxicity

The median duration of ibrutinib treatment is 41 months, and 46% of patients continue on treatment. Twenty-seven percent of patients discontinued due to progression, and 12% because of adverse events (AEs).

Of the 53 patients who discontinued therapy, 14 had transformation as their primary reason, 9 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 3 with Hodgkin disease, and 2 with prolymphocytic lymphoma.

The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation included pneumonia (n=3), anemia (n=2), thrombocytopenia (n=2), diarrhea (n=2), and anal incontinence (n=2).

AEs leading to discontinuation decreased over time—6% in year 0 to 1 and 4% in years 2 to 3.

“The most frequent cumulative AEs are similar to what we’ve seen in most prior studies,” Dr Brown said, including diarrhea, fatigue, and cough.

In terms of grade 3 or higher AEs, about a quarter of patients had neutropenia, 17% had pneumonia, and 8% had hypertension.

Six percent of patients had major hemorrhage, and all-grade atrial fibrillation occurred in 11% of patients.

“Now, many of the grade 3 and higher AEs did decline over time during the study,” Dr Brown noted. “You can see this is quite evident for neutropenia as well as pneumonia, and all infections declined from year 1 to subsequent years.”

Hypertension, in contrast, has been fairly steady over the later years, she said, and atrial fibrillation is highest in the first 6 months but then continues at a low rate thereafter.

The investigators believe these long-term results demonstrate that ibrutinib is tolerable and continues to show sustained efficacy in previously treated and high-genomic-risk patients with CLL. In addition, no long-term safety signals have emerged.

This study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie company.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests an intervention can improve psychosocial health in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) living with cancer.

The intervention, Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM), is designed to help patients manage stress, set goals, and change their perspective.

Overall, PRISM improved resilience, enhanced quality of life, increased hope, and lowered distress and depression in the patients studied.

Abby R. Rosenberg, MD, of Seattle Children’s Research Institute in Seattle, Washington, presented these results at the 2017 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium (abstract 176*).

“The experience of cancer is stressful in all realms, but we tend to focus more on physical symptoms than the equally important social and emotional challenges,” Dr Rosenberg said.

“This is particularly true for adolescents and young adults who already struggle with normal developmental changes. When you throw cancer into the mix, it can become much harder.”

With this in mind, Dr Rosenberg and her colleagues tested PRISM in AYAs with cancer. The trial included 99 English-speaking patients, ages 12 to 25, who were diagnosed with new or newly recurrent cancer.

The patients were randomized to receive PRISM (n=49) plus standard psychosocial supportive care or standard care alone (n=50). Standard care at Seattle Children’s Research Institute includes a dedicated social worker and access to psychologists, child-life specialists, and other experts in AYA oncology care, as needed.

PRISM targets 4 topics:

• Managing stress with skills based on mindfulness and relaxation
• Setting goals that are specific and realistic, as well as planning for roadblocks
• Positive reframing, or recognizing and replacing negative self-talk
• Making meaning, or identifying benefits, gratitude, purpose, and legacy.

Each of the 4 topics were discussed with patients in separate, one-on-one sessions with a trained research associate. The sessions lasted 30 minutes to an hour. Patients also received boosters and worksheets for practicing the skills discussed in the meetings.

After all 4 sessions had been completed, patients could participate in an optional family meeting. During this meeting, patients could discuss with their family members which aspects of PRISM worked.

Results

Patients completed surveys at study enrollment, 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months. There were 74 participants who were still alive and well enough to complete the 6-month survey—36 in the PRISM group and 38 in the control group.

At the 6-month mark, PRISM was associated with (sometimes significant) improvements in resilience (P=0.02), generic quality of life (P=0.08), cancer-specific quality of life (P=0.01), hope (P=0.34), and distress (P=0.03). (P values are for absolute difference from baseline to 6 months.)

In addition, the incidence of depression at 6 months was lower in the PRISM group than the control group—6% and 21%, respectively (odds ratio=0.09, 95% CI 0.01, 1.09).

All but 4 of the PRISM recipients chose to participate in the family meeting following their one-on-one sessions.

“We included the family meeting because teens told us they wanted to share with their parents, and parents told us they wanted to know what their children had learned,” Dr Rosenberg said. “While the specific impact of this meeting is yet to be determined, we hope it will guide families so that there is continued support of teen or young adult patients.”

Now, Dr Rosenberg and her colleagues would like to test PRISM in other patient populations.

“We need to include a much larger cultural demographic in future studies,” Dr Rosenberg noted. “Beyond that, we also need to determine if this type of intervention could translate to other centers where usual care may not be as comprehensive as what we have here.”

*Some data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests an intervention can improve psychosocial health in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) living with cancer.

The intervention, Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM), is designed to help patients manage stress, set goals, and change their perspective.

Overall, PRISM improved resilience, enhanced quality of life, increased hope, and lowered distress and depression in the patients studied.

Abby R. Rosenberg, MD, of Seattle Children’s Research Institute in Seattle, Washington, presented these results at the 2017 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium (abstract 176*).

“The experience of cancer is stressful in all realms, but we tend to focus more on physical symptoms than the equally important social and emotional challenges,” Dr Rosenberg said.

“This is particularly true for adolescents and young adults who already struggle with normal developmental changes. When you throw cancer into the mix, it can become much harder.”

With this in mind, Dr Rosenberg and her colleagues tested PRISM in AYAs with cancer. The trial included 99 English-speaking patients, ages 12 to 25, who were diagnosed with new or newly recurrent cancer.

The patients were randomized to receive PRISM (n=49) plus standard psychosocial supportive care or standard care alone (n=50). Standard care at Seattle Children’s Research Institute includes a dedicated social worker and access to psychologists, child-life specialists, and other experts in AYA oncology care, as needed.

PRISM targets 4 topics:

• Managing stress with skills based on mindfulness and relaxation
• Setting goals that are specific and realistic, as well as planning for roadblocks
• Positive reframing, or recognizing and replacing negative self-talk
• Making meaning, or identifying benefits, gratitude, purpose, and legacy.

Each of the 4 topics were discussed with patients in separate, one-on-one sessions with a trained research associate. The sessions lasted 30 minutes to an hour. Patients also received boosters and worksheets for practicing the skills discussed in the meetings.

After all 4 sessions had been completed, patients could participate in an optional family meeting. During this meeting, patients could discuss with their family members which aspects of PRISM worked.

Results

Patients completed surveys at study enrollment, 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months. There were 74 participants who were still alive and well enough to complete the 6-month survey—36 in the PRISM group and 38 in the control group.

At the 6-month mark, PRISM was associated with (sometimes significant) improvements in resilience (P=0.02), generic quality of life (P=0.08), cancer-specific quality of life (P=0.01), hope (P=0.34), and distress (P=0.03). (P values are for absolute difference from baseline to 6 months.)

In addition, the incidence of depression at 6 months was lower in the PRISM group than the control group—6% and 21%, respectively (odds ratio=0.09, 95% CI 0.01, 1.09).

All but 4 of the PRISM recipients chose to participate in the family meeting following their one-on-one sessions.

“We included the family meeting because teens told us they wanted to share with their parents, and parents told us they wanted to know what their children had learned,” Dr Rosenberg said. “While the specific impact of this meeting is yet to be determined, we hope it will guide families so that there is continued support of teen or young adult patients.”

Now, Dr Rosenberg and her colleagues would like to test PRISM in other patient populations.

“We need to include a much larger cultural demographic in future studies,” Dr Rosenberg noted. “Beyond that, we also need to determine if this type of intervention could translate to other centers where usual care may not be as comprehensive as what we have here.”

*Some data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests an intervention can improve psychosocial health in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) living with cancer.

The intervention, Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM), is designed to help patients manage stress, set goals, and change their perspective.

Overall, PRISM improved resilience, enhanced quality of life, increased hope, and lowered distress and depression in the patients studied.

Abby R. Rosenberg, MD, of Seattle Children’s Research Institute in Seattle, Washington, presented these results at the 2017 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium (abstract 176*).

“The experience of cancer is stressful in all realms, but we tend to focus more on physical symptoms than the equally important social and emotional challenges,” Dr Rosenberg said.

“This is particularly true for adolescents and young adults who already struggle with normal developmental changes. When you throw cancer into the mix, it can become much harder.”

With this in mind, Dr Rosenberg and her colleagues tested PRISM in AYAs with cancer. The trial included 99 English-speaking patients, ages 12 to 25, who were diagnosed with new or newly recurrent cancer.

The patients were randomized to receive PRISM (n=49) plus standard psychosocial supportive care or standard care alone (n=50). Standard care at Seattle Children’s Research Institute includes a dedicated social worker and access to psychologists, child-life specialists, and other experts in AYA oncology care, as needed.

PRISM targets 4 topics:

• Managing stress with skills based on mindfulness and relaxation
• Setting goals that are specific and realistic, as well as planning for roadblocks
• Positive reframing, or recognizing and replacing negative self-talk
• Making meaning, or identifying benefits, gratitude, purpose, and legacy.

Each of the 4 topics were discussed with patients in separate, one-on-one sessions with a trained research associate. The sessions lasted 30 minutes to an hour. Patients also received boosters and worksheets for practicing the skills discussed in the meetings.

After all 4 sessions had been completed, patients could participate in an optional family meeting. During this meeting, patients could discuss with their family members which aspects of PRISM worked.

Results

Patients completed surveys at study enrollment, 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months. There were 74 participants who were still alive and well enough to complete the 6-month survey—36 in the PRISM group and 38 in the control group.

At the 6-month mark, PRISM was associated with (sometimes significant) improvements in resilience (P=0.02), generic quality of life (P=0.08), cancer-specific quality of life (P=0.01), hope (P=0.34), and distress (P=0.03). (P values are for absolute difference from baseline to 6 months.)

In addition, the incidence of depression at 6 months was lower in the PRISM group than the control group—6% and 21%, respectively (odds ratio=0.09, 95% CI 0.01, 1.09).

All but 4 of the PRISM recipients chose to participate in the family meeting following their one-on-one sessions.

“We included the family meeting because teens told us they wanted to share with their parents, and parents told us they wanted to know what their children had learned,” Dr Rosenberg said. “While the specific impact of this meeting is yet to be determined, we hope it will guide families so that there is continued support of teen or young adult patients.”

Now, Dr Rosenberg and her colleagues would like to test PRISM in other patient populations.

“We need to include a much larger cultural demographic in future studies,” Dr Rosenberg noted. “Beyond that, we also need to determine if this type of intervention could translate to other centers where usual care may not be as comprehensive as what we have here.”

*Some data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved vemurafenib for adults with Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) with the BRAF V600 mutation.

The kinase inhibitor – marketed as Zelboraf – was approved on Nov. 6. It is the first approved treatment for ECD and is already on the market as a treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation.

The FDA expedited approval of the drug under the Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy programs. The drug also received an orphan status designation, which makes the sponsor eligible for incentives such as tax credits for clinical testing.

The agency based its approval on results from 22 patients with BRAF-V600-mutation positive ECD. Half of the patients (11) experienced a partial reduction in tumor size and 1 patient experienced a complete response, according to the FDA. Initial results from the phase 2, open-label VE-BASKET study were published in 2015 (N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 20;373[8]:726-36).

Common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgias, maculopapular rash, alopecia, fatigue, prolonged QT interval, and papilloma. Severe side effects include development of new cancers, growth of tumors in patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma, anaphylaxis and DRESS syndrome, severe skin reactions, heart abnormalities, hepatotoxicity, photosensitivity, uveitis, radiation sensitization and radiation recall, and Dupuytren’s contracture and plantar fascial fibromatosis. The drug is also considered teratogenic and women should be advised to use contraception while taking it, according to the FDA.

The full prescribing information is available at zelboraf.com.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

The Food and Drug Administration has approved vemurafenib for adults with Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) with the BRAF V600 mutation.

The kinase inhibitor – marketed as Zelboraf – was approved on Nov. 6. It is the first approved treatment for ECD and is already on the market as a treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation.

The FDA expedited approval of the drug under the Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy programs. The drug also received an orphan status designation, which makes the sponsor eligible for incentives such as tax credits for clinical testing.

The agency based its approval on results from 22 patients with BRAF-V600-mutation positive ECD. Half of the patients (11) experienced a partial reduction in tumor size and 1 patient experienced a complete response, according to the FDA. Initial results from the phase 2, open-label VE-BASKET study were published in 2015 (N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 20;373[8]:726-36).

Common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgias, maculopapular rash, alopecia, fatigue, prolonged QT interval, and papilloma. Severe side effects include development of new cancers, growth of tumors in patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma, anaphylaxis and DRESS syndrome, severe skin reactions, heart abnormalities, hepatotoxicity, photosensitivity, uveitis, radiation sensitization and radiation recall, and Dupuytren’s contracture and plantar fascial fibromatosis. The drug is also considered teratogenic and women should be advised to use contraception while taking it, according to the FDA.

The full prescribing information is available at zelboraf.com.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

The Food and Drug Administration has approved vemurafenib for adults with Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) with the BRAF V600 mutation.

The kinase inhibitor – marketed as Zelboraf – was approved on Nov. 6. It is the first approved treatment for ECD and is already on the market as a treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation.

The FDA expedited approval of the drug under the Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy programs. The drug also received an orphan status designation, which makes the sponsor eligible for incentives such as tax credits for clinical testing.

The agency based its approval on results from 22 patients with BRAF-V600-mutation positive ECD. Half of the patients (11) experienced a partial reduction in tumor size and 1 patient experienced a complete response, according to the FDA. Initial results from the phase 2, open-label VE-BASKET study were published in 2015 (N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 20;373[8]:726-36).

Common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgias, maculopapular rash, alopecia, fatigue, prolonged QT interval, and papilloma. Severe side effects include development of new cancers, growth of tumors in patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma, anaphylaxis and DRESS syndrome, severe skin reactions, heart abnormalities, hepatotoxicity, photosensitivity, uveitis, radiation sensitization and radiation recall, and Dupuytren’s contracture and plantar fascial fibromatosis. The drug is also considered teratogenic and women should be advised to use contraception while taking it, according to the FDA.

The full prescribing information is available at zelboraf.com.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

Photo by Bill Branson

Cancer drug costs in the US increase substantially after launch, regardless of competition, according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.*

Researchers studied 24 cancer drugs approved over the last 20 years and found a mean cumulative cost increase of about 37%, or 19% when adjusted for inflation.

Among drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies, the greatest inflation-adjusted price increases were for arsenic trioxide (57%), nelarabine (55%), and rituximab (49%).

The lowest inflation-adjusted price increases were for ofatumumab (8%), clofarabine (8%), and liposomal vincristine (18%).

For this study, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues measured the monthly price trajectories of 24 cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. This included 10 drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies between 1997 and 2011.

To account for discounts and rebates, the researchers used the average sales prices published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and adjusted to general and health-related inflation rates. For each drug, the researchers calculated the cumulative and annual drug cost changes.

Results

The mean follow-up was 8 years. The mean cumulative cost increase for all 24 drugs was +36.5% (95% CI, 24.7% to 48.3%).

The general inflation-adjusted increase was +19.1% (95% CI, 11.0% to 27.2%), and the health-related inflation-adjusted increase was +8.4% (95% CI, 1.4% to 15.4%).

Only 1 of the 24 drugs studied had a price decrease over time. That drug is ziv-aflibercept, which was approved to treat metastatic colorectal cancer in 2012.

Ziv-aflibercept was launched with an annual price exceeding $110,000. After public outcry, the drug’s manufacturer, Sanofi, cut the price in half. By the end of the study’s follow-up period in 2017, the cost of ziv-aflibercept had decreased 13% (inflation-adjusted decrease of 15%, health-related inflation-adjusted decrease of 20%).

Cost changes for the drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies are listed in the following table.

Abbreviations: ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; APL, acute promyelocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; MM, multiple myeloma; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; SD, standard deviation.

The researchers noted that there was a steady increase in drug costs over the study period, regardless of whether a drug was granted a new supplemental indication, the drug had a new off-label indication, or a competitor drug was approved.

The only variable that was significantly associated with price change was the amount of time that had elapsed from a drug’s launch.

This association was significant in models in which the researchers used prices adjusted to inflation (P=0.002) and health-related inflation (P=0.023). However, it was not significant when the researchers used the actual drug price (P=0.085).

*Data in the abstract differ from data in the body of the JCO paper. This article includes data from the body of the JCO paper.

Photo by Bill Branson

Cancer drug costs in the US increase substantially after launch, regardless of competition, according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.*

Researchers studied 24 cancer drugs approved over the last 20 years and found a mean cumulative cost increase of about 37%, or 19% when adjusted for inflation.

Among drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies, the greatest inflation-adjusted price increases were for arsenic trioxide (57%), nelarabine (55%), and rituximab (49%).

The lowest inflation-adjusted price increases were for ofatumumab (8%), clofarabine (8%), and liposomal vincristine (18%).

For this study, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues measured the monthly price trajectories of 24 cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. This included 10 drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies between 1997 and 2011.

To account for discounts and rebates, the researchers used the average sales prices published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and adjusted to general and health-related inflation rates. For each drug, the researchers calculated the cumulative and annual drug cost changes.

Results

The mean follow-up was 8 years. The mean cumulative cost increase for all 24 drugs was +36.5% (95% CI, 24.7% to 48.3%).

The general inflation-adjusted increase was +19.1% (95% CI, 11.0% to 27.2%), and the health-related inflation-adjusted increase was +8.4% (95% CI, 1.4% to 15.4%).

Only 1 of the 24 drugs studied had a price decrease over time. That drug is ziv-aflibercept, which was approved to treat metastatic colorectal cancer in 2012.

Ziv-aflibercept was launched with an annual price exceeding $110,000. After public outcry, the drug’s manufacturer, Sanofi, cut the price in half. By the end of the study’s follow-up period in 2017, the cost of ziv-aflibercept had decreased 13% (inflation-adjusted decrease of 15%, health-related inflation-adjusted decrease of 20%).

Cost changes for the drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies are listed in the following table.

Abbreviations: ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; APL, acute promyelocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; MM, multiple myeloma; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; SD, standard deviation.

The researchers noted that there was a steady increase in drug costs over the study period, regardless of whether a drug was granted a new supplemental indication, the drug had a new off-label indication, or a competitor drug was approved.

The only variable that was significantly associated with price change was the amount of time that had elapsed from a drug’s launch.

This association was significant in models in which the researchers used prices adjusted to inflation (P=0.002) and health-related inflation (P=0.023). However, it was not significant when the researchers used the actual drug price (P=0.085).

*Data in the abstract differ from data in the body of the JCO paper. This article includes data from the body of the JCO paper.

Photo by Bill Branson

Cancer drug costs in the US increase substantially after launch, regardless of competition, according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.*

Researchers studied 24 cancer drugs approved over the last 20 years and found a mean cumulative cost increase of about 37%, or 19% when adjusted for inflation.

Among drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies, the greatest inflation-adjusted price increases were for arsenic trioxide (57%), nelarabine (55%), and rituximab (49%).

The lowest inflation-adjusted price increases were for ofatumumab (8%), clofarabine (8%), and liposomal vincristine (18%).

For this study, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues measured the monthly price trajectories of 24 cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. This included 10 drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies between 1997 and 2011.

To account for discounts and rebates, the researchers used the average sales prices published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and adjusted to general and health-related inflation rates. For each drug, the researchers calculated the cumulative and annual drug cost changes.

Results

The mean follow-up was 8 years. The mean cumulative cost increase for all 24 drugs was +36.5% (95% CI, 24.7% to 48.3%).

The general inflation-adjusted increase was +19.1% (95% CI, 11.0% to 27.2%), and the health-related inflation-adjusted increase was +8.4% (95% CI, 1.4% to 15.4%).

Only 1 of the 24 drugs studied had a price decrease over time. That drug is ziv-aflibercept, which was approved to treat metastatic colorectal cancer in 2012.

Ziv-aflibercept was launched with an annual price exceeding $110,000. After public outcry, the drug’s manufacturer, Sanofi, cut the price in half. By the end of the study’s follow-up period in 2017, the cost of ziv-aflibercept had decreased 13% (inflation-adjusted decrease of 15%, health-related inflation-adjusted decrease of 20%).

Cost changes for the drugs approved to treat hematologic malignancies are listed in the following table.

Abbreviations: ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; APL, acute promyelocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; MM, multiple myeloma; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; SD, standard deviation.

The researchers noted that there was a steady increase in drug costs over the study period, regardless of whether a drug was granted a new supplemental indication, the drug had a new off-label indication, or a competitor drug was approved.

The only variable that was significantly associated with price change was the amount of time that had elapsed from a drug’s launch.

This association was significant in models in which the researchers used prices adjusted to inflation (P=0.002) and health-related inflation (P=0.023). However, it was not significant when the researchers used the actual drug price (P=0.085).

*Data in the abstract differ from data in the body of the JCO paper. This article includes data from the body of the JCO paper.

Good nutritional status can extend the lives of patients with acute myeloid leukemia going into induction chemotherapy, according to a retrospective study of 95 adult AML patients.

Those with good nutritional status had significantly shorter hospital stays than did undernourished patients. Furthermore, they had greater 12-month survival, compared with undernourished patients.

“Assessment of nutritional status is essential because undernutrition in this population is common,” Elise Deluche, MD, and her coinvestigators wrote (Nutrition. 2017 Sep;41:120-5). They assessed the nutritional status of 95 consecutive adult AML patients admitted to Limoges (France) University Hospital during 2009-2014 and followed their nutritional status for 12 months.Patients were considered undernourished if they had lost more than 5% of their weight, and had a body mass index (BMI) of under 18.5 kg/m² if less than 70 years of age, or under 21 kg/m² if aged at least 70 years.

Fourteen patients (15%) were undernourished at admission. That proportion grew after chemotherapy induction to 17 patients (18%), but there were no significant differences from admission in BMI, weight, or albumin.

The adequately nourished patients had significantly worse nutritional status at discharge than admission, with a significantly lower median weight (P =.02), BMI (P = .04), and albumin levels (P = .0002), compared with their admission values.

Importantly, the well nourished patients had shorter hospital stays than their undernourished counterparts, at 31 days, compared with 39 days (P = .03). Furthermore, their 12-month survival was greater, at 89.9%, than that of the undernourished patient, at 58.3% (P = .002).

After chemotherapy induction, 64 patients (67%) were in complete remission: 57 (70%) in the adequately nourished and 7 (50%) in the undernourished group, a nonsignificant difference.

This is the first study to look solely at patients with AML, Dr. DeLuche and her coinvestigators said, as previous nutritional studies have also included patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and it “confirmed that the length of hospitalization was shorter for patients without undernutrition.” They added that their study included a more accurate representation of AML patients with a median patient age of 58 years, much older than the range of 28-41 found in other studies. A quarter of the patients in Dr. DeLuche’s study were over age 65.

“[Existing] screening tools should be improved and adapted to the specific situation of induction chemotherapy for monitoring nutritional status during hospitalization,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding, and the investigators had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Good nutritional status can extend the lives of patients with acute myeloid leukemia going into induction chemotherapy, according to a retrospective study of 95 adult AML patients.

Those with good nutritional status had significantly shorter hospital stays than did undernourished patients. Furthermore, they had greater 12-month survival, compared with undernourished patients.

“Assessment of nutritional status is essential because undernutrition in this population is common,” Elise Deluche, MD, and her coinvestigators wrote (Nutrition. 2017 Sep;41:120-5). They assessed the nutritional status of 95 consecutive adult AML patients admitted to Limoges (France) University Hospital during 2009-2014 and followed their nutritional status for 12 months.Patients were considered undernourished if they had lost more than 5% of their weight, and had a body mass index (BMI) of under 18.5 kg/m² if less than 70 years of age, or under 21 kg/m² if aged at least 70 years.

Fourteen patients (15%) were undernourished at admission. That proportion grew after chemotherapy induction to 17 patients (18%), but there were no significant differences from admission in BMI, weight, or albumin.

The adequately nourished patients had significantly worse nutritional status at discharge than admission, with a significantly lower median weight (P =.02), BMI (P = .04), and albumin levels (P = .0002), compared with their admission values.

Importantly, the well nourished patients had shorter hospital stays than their undernourished counterparts, at 31 days, compared with 39 days (P = .03). Furthermore, their 12-month survival was greater, at 89.9%, than that of the undernourished patient, at 58.3% (P = .002).

After chemotherapy induction, 64 patients (67%) were in complete remission: 57 (70%) in the adequately nourished and 7 (50%) in the undernourished group, a nonsignificant difference.

This is the first study to look solely at patients with AML, Dr. DeLuche and her coinvestigators said, as previous nutritional studies have also included patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and it “confirmed that the length of hospitalization was shorter for patients without undernutrition.” They added that their study included a more accurate representation of AML patients with a median patient age of 58 years, much older than the range of 28-41 found in other studies. A quarter of the patients in Dr. DeLuche’s study were over age 65.

“[Existing] screening tools should be improved and adapted to the specific situation of induction chemotherapy for monitoring nutritional status during hospitalization,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding, and the investigators had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Good nutritional status can extend the lives of patients with acute myeloid leukemia going into induction chemotherapy, according to a retrospective study of 95 adult AML patients.

Those with good nutritional status had significantly shorter hospital stays than did undernourished patients. Furthermore, they had greater 12-month survival, compared with undernourished patients.

“Assessment of nutritional status is essential because undernutrition in this population is common,” Elise Deluche, MD, and her coinvestigators wrote (Nutrition. 2017 Sep;41:120-5). They assessed the nutritional status of 95 consecutive adult AML patients admitted to Limoges (France) University Hospital during 2009-2014 and followed their nutritional status for 12 months.Patients were considered undernourished if they had lost more than 5% of their weight, and had a body mass index (BMI) of under 18.5 kg/m² if less than 70 years of age, or under 21 kg/m² if aged at least 70 years.

Fourteen patients (15%) were undernourished at admission. That proportion grew after chemotherapy induction to 17 patients (18%), but there were no significant differences from admission in BMI, weight, or albumin.

The adequately nourished patients had significantly worse nutritional status at discharge than admission, with a significantly lower median weight (P =.02), BMI (P = .04), and albumin levels (P = .0002), compared with their admission values.

Importantly, the well nourished patients had shorter hospital stays than their undernourished counterparts, at 31 days, compared with 39 days (P = .03). Furthermore, their 12-month survival was greater, at 89.9%, than that of the undernourished patient, at 58.3% (P = .002).

After chemotherapy induction, 64 patients (67%) were in complete remission: 57 (70%) in the adequately nourished and 7 (50%) in the undernourished group, a nonsignificant difference.

This is the first study to look solely at patients with AML, Dr. DeLuche and her coinvestigators said, as previous nutritional studies have also included patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and it “confirmed that the length of hospitalization was shorter for patients without undernutrition.” They added that their study included a more accurate representation of AML patients with a median patient age of 58 years, much older than the range of 28-41 found in other studies. A quarter of the patients in Dr. DeLuche’s study were over age 65.

“[Existing] screening tools should be improved and adapted to the specific situation of induction chemotherapy for monitoring nutritional status during hospitalization,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding, and the investigators had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Photo courtesy of NIH

SAN DIEGO—A new study suggests patients with advanced cancer may prefer doctors who do not use a computer while communicating with them.

Most of the 120 patients studied said they preferred face-to-face consultations in which a doctor used a notepad rather than a computer.

Doctors who did not use a computer were perceived as more compassionate, communicative, and professional.

These findings were presented at the 2017 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium (abstract 26*).

“To our knowledge, this is the only study that compares exam room interactions between people with advanced cancer and their physicians, with or without a computer present,” said study investigator Ali Haider, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

For this study, Dr Haider and his colleagues enrolled 120 patients with localized, recurrent, or metastatic disease. The patients’ median ECOG performance status was 2.

All patients were English speakers, they had a median age of 58 (range, 44-66), and 55% were female. Sixty-seven percent of patients were white, 18% were Hispanic, 13% were African American, and 2% were “other.” Forty-one percent of patients had completed college.

According to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, patients’ median pain score was 5 (range, 2-7), and their median fatigue score was 4 (range, 3-7). According to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, patients’ median anxiety score was 6 (range, 4-8), and their median depression score was 6 (range, 4-9).

The intervention

The investigators randomly assigned patients to watch different videos showing doctor-patient interactions with and without computer use. The team had filmed 4 short videos that featured actors playing the parts of doctor and patient.

All study participants were blinded to the hypothesis of the study. The actors were carefully scripted and used the same gestures, expressions, and other nonverbal communication in each video to minimize bias.

Video 1 involved Doctor A in a face-to-face consultation with just a notepad in hand, and Video 2 involved Doctor A in a consultation using a computer.

Video 3 involved Doctor B in a face-to-face consultation with just a notepad in hand, and Video 4 involved Doctor B in a consultation using a computer.

Doctors A and B looked similar, which was intended to minimize bias.

After viewing their first video, patients completed a validated questionnaire rating the doctor’s communication skills, professionalism, and compassion.

Subsequently, each group was assigned to a video topic (face-to-face or computer) they had not viewed previously featuring the doctor they had not viewed in the first video.

A follow-up questionnaire was given after this round of viewing, and the patients were also asked to rate their overall physician preference.

Results

After the first round of viewing, the patients gave better ratings to doctors (A or B) in the face-to-face videos than in the computer videos. Face-to-face doctors were rated significantly higher for compassion (P=0.0003), communication skills (P=0.0012), and professionalism (P=0.0001).

After patients had watched both videos, doctors in the face-to-face videos still had better scores for compassion, communication, and professionalism (P<0.001 for all).

Most patients (72%) said they preferred the face-to-face consultation, while 8% said they preferred the computer consultation, and 20% said they had no preference.

Dr Haider said a possible explanation for these findings is that patients with serious chronic illnesses might value undivided attention from their physicians, and patients might perceive providers using computers as more distracted or multitasking during visits.

“We know that having a good rapport with patients can be extremely beneficial for their health,” Dr Haider said. “Patients with advanced disease need the cues that come with direct interaction to help them along with their care.”

However, Dr Haider also noted that additional research is needed to confirm these results. And he said perceptions might be different in a younger population with higher computer literacy.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Photo courtesy of NIH

SAN DIEGO—A new study suggests patients with advanced cancer may prefer doctors who do not use a computer while communicating with them.

Most of the 120 patients studied said they preferred face-to-face consultations in which a doctor used a notepad rather than a computer.

Doctors who did not use a computer were perceived as more compassionate, communicative, and professional.

These findings were presented at the 2017 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium (abstract 26*).

“To our knowledge, this is the only study that compares exam room interactions between people with advanced cancer and their physicians, with or without a computer present,” said study investigator Ali Haider, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

For this study, Dr Haider and his colleagues enrolled 120 patients with localized, recurrent, or metastatic disease. The patients’ median ECOG performance status was 2.

All patients were English speakers, they had a median age of 58 (range, 44-66), and 55% were female. Sixty-seven percent of patients were white, 18% were Hispanic, 13% were African American, and 2% were “other.” Forty-one percent of patients had completed college.

According to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, patients’ median pain score was 5 (range, 2-7), and their median fatigue score was 4 (range, 3-7). According to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, patients’ median anxiety score was 6 (range, 4-8), and their median depression score was 6 (range, 4-9).

The intervention

The investigators randomly assigned patients to watch different videos showing doctor-patient interactions with and without computer use. The team had filmed 4 short videos that featured actors playing the parts of doctor and patient.

All study participants were blinded to the hypothesis of the study. The actors were carefully scripted and used the same gestures, expressions, and other nonverbal communication in each video to minimize bias.

Video 1 involved Doctor A in a face-to-face consultation with just a notepad in hand, and Video 2 involved Doctor A in a consultation using a computer.

Video 3 involved Doctor B in a face-to-face consultation with just a notepad in hand, and Video 4 involved Doctor B in a consultation using a computer.

Doctors A and B looked similar, which was intended to minimize bias.

After viewing their first video, patients completed a validated questionnaire rating the doctor’s communication skills, professionalism, and compassion.

Subsequently, each group was assigned to a video topic (face-to-face or computer) they had not viewed previously featuring the doctor they had not viewed in the first video.

A follow-up questionnaire was given after this round of viewing, and the patients were also asked to rate their overall physician preference.

Results

After the first round of viewing, the patients gave better ratings to doctors (A or B) in the face-to-face videos than in the computer videos. Face-to-face doctors were rated significantly higher for compassion (P=0.0003), communication skills (P=0.0012), and professionalism (P=0.0001).

After patients had watched both videos, doctors in the face-to-face videos still had better scores for compassion, communication, and professionalism (P<0.001 for all).

Most patients (72%) said they preferred the face-to-face consultation, while 8% said they preferred the computer consultation, and 20% said they had no preference.

Dr Haider said a possible explanation for these findings is that patients with serious chronic illnesses might value undivided attention from their physicians, and patients might perceive providers using computers as more distracted or multitasking during visits.

“We know that having a good rapport with patients can be extremely beneficial for their health,” Dr Haider said. “Patients with advanced disease need the cues that come with direct interaction to help them along with their care.”

However, Dr Haider also noted that additional research is needed to confirm these results. And he said perceptions might be different in a younger population with higher computer literacy.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Photo courtesy of NIH

SAN DIEGO—A new study suggests patients with advanced cancer may prefer doctors who do not use a computer while communicating with them.

Most of the 120 patients studied said they preferred face-to-face consultations in which a doctor used a notepad rather than a computer.

Doctors who did not use a computer were perceived as more compassionate, communicative, and professional.

These findings were presented at the 2017 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium (abstract 26*).

“To our knowledge, this is the only study that compares exam room interactions between people with advanced cancer and their physicians, with or without a computer present,” said study investigator Ali Haider, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

For this study, Dr Haider and his colleagues enrolled 120 patients with localized, recurrent, or metastatic disease. The patients’ median ECOG performance status was 2.

All patients were English speakers, they had a median age of 58 (range, 44-66), and 55% were female. Sixty-seven percent of patients were white, 18% were Hispanic, 13% were African American, and 2% were “other.” Forty-one percent of patients had completed college.

According to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, patients’ median pain score was 5 (range, 2-7), and their median fatigue score was 4 (range, 3-7). According to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, patients’ median anxiety score was 6 (range, 4-8), and their median depression score was 6 (range, 4-9).

The intervention

The investigators randomly assigned patients to watch different videos showing doctor-patient interactions with and without computer use. The team had filmed 4 short videos that featured actors playing the parts of doctor and patient.

All study participants were blinded to the hypothesis of the study. The actors were carefully scripted and used the same gestures, expressions, and other nonverbal communication in each video to minimize bias.

Video 1 involved Doctor A in a face-to-face consultation with just a notepad in hand, and Video 2 involved Doctor A in a consultation using a computer.

Video 3 involved Doctor B in a face-to-face consultation with just a notepad in hand, and Video 4 involved Doctor B in a consultation using a computer.

Doctors A and B looked similar, which was intended to minimize bias.

After viewing their first video, patients completed a validated questionnaire rating the doctor’s communication skills, professionalism, and compassion.

Subsequently, each group was assigned to a video topic (face-to-face or computer) they had not viewed previously featuring the doctor they had not viewed in the first video.

A follow-up questionnaire was given after this round of viewing, and the patients were also asked to rate their overall physician preference.

Results

After the first round of viewing, the patients gave better ratings to doctors (A or B) in the face-to-face videos than in the computer videos. Face-to-face doctors were rated significantly higher for compassion (P=0.0003), communication skills (P=0.0012), and professionalism (P=0.0001).

After patients had watched both videos, doctors in the face-to-face videos still had better scores for compassion, communication, and professionalism (P<0.001 for all).

Most patients (72%) said they preferred the face-to-face consultation, while 8% said they preferred the computer consultation, and 20% said they had no preference.

Dr Haider said a possible explanation for these findings is that patients with serious chronic illnesses might value undivided attention from their physicians, and patients might perceive providers using computers as more distracted or multitasking during visits.

“We know that having a good rapport with patients can be extremely beneficial for their health,” Dr Haider said. “Patients with advanced disease need the cues that come with direct interaction to help them along with their care.”

However, Dr Haider also noted that additional research is needed to confirm these results. And he said perceptions might be different in a younger population with higher computer literacy.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.