Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

Data from a large French registry on a multicenter experience with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy for aggressive lymphoma suggests that the favorable outcomes seen in clinical trials can be replicated in the real world.

Among 481 patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with either of two commercially available CAR T products – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) or axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – the duration of responses, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 6 months mirror those seen in clinical trials, reported Steven LeGouill, MD, PhD, from the University of Nantes (France), on behalf of colleagues in the DESCAR-T (Dispositive d’Evaluation et de Suivi des CAR-T) registry.

“CAR T has now become a standard of care in a lot of French centers, with more than 640 patients treated with CAR T in less than 2 years. The DESCAR-T real-life experience mimics the experience that had been previously by other real-life registries but also in clinical trials. We didn’t see new emerging toxicity signals in real life,” he said in an oral abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress (Abstract S216).

“I am convinced that a population registry about CAR T–treated patients is needed,” commented Pieter Sonneveld, MD, from Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who was not involved in the study.

“Selection criteria for CAR T trials have been incredibly restrictive, and academic trials have not gained ground yet. It is important to collect and analyze more data, include non-trial patients and analyze long-term follow-up in order to determine the real effects of this innovative treatment in lymphoma and other diseases,” he said.

Dr. Sonneveld, EHA past president, was the moderator a briefing where Dr. LeGouill presented the DESCAR-T study findings.

Natalie Sophia Grover, MD, a leukemia and lymphoma specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted in an interview that “there have been several publications recently that have shown that these promising outcomes for these really refractory, high-risk patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma seem to be similar with what we’ve seen in trials, which is definitely exciting.”

She noted that the median time from CAR T order to treatment in the study, 50 days, was longer than in her experience.

“Generally, from collection to treatment is less than a month. Looking at that, I would have expected more patients not to make it CAR T, but nearly 90% of patients who had collections got treatment, which is pretty good. Those patients that didn’t make it to treatment had really poor outcomes,” she said.

Dr. Grover was not involved in the study.
 

More data, s’il vous plait

The DESCAR-T registry was created in response to a request from French health authorities for data beyond that provided in the EBMT patient registry. The health authorities asked for characterization of the CAR T–eligible population in an intention to treat, 15-year follow-up of both CAR T recipients and candidates who were not treated for whatever reasons, and a full accounting of previous lines of therapy.

Dr. LeGouill presented the first analysis of data from the registry involving 19 enrolling site and 647 patients with DLBCL for whom CAR T cells were ordered from January 2018 to March 2021.

Of the 647 candidates, 10 did not have CAR T ordered for reasons that included patient deaths or disease progression, infection, and patient refusal. An additional 30 patients either had leukapheresis performed or pending, and 607 had CAR T ordered.

Of the 607 patients, 53 did not receive CAR T infusions because of disease progression, death before product administration, manufacturing or leukapheresis failures, uncontrolled infections, patient choice, or progression of other malignancies.

That left 550 patients (85%) who received a CAR T product, either tisagenlecleucel (200 patients) or axicabtagene ciloleucel (350 patients).

Among all patients, the median age at CAR T order was 63 for patients who received tisagenlecleucel, and 65 for patients receiving axicabtagene ciloleucel. Patients 65 and older comprised 44% and 51% of the population, respectively.

Patients treated with each CAR T product had a median of three prior lines of therapy.
 

Manageable toxicities

Toxicities within 10 days of CAR T infusion included 418 cases among 515 patients (81.2%) of cytokine release syndrome, with most being grade 1 or 2 in severity; 44 patients had grade 3 or 4 CRS.

Any-grade neurotoxicity was seen in 184 patients (35.7%), primarily grade 1 or 2 in severity; 50 patients had grade 3 or greater neurotoxicity.

Of 427 patients with at least one CAR T–specific toxicity within 10 days, 139 (32.8%) required ICU admission, 325 (76,1%) were treated for CAR T–specific toxicities, 278 (65.1%) received tocilizumab, 13 (3%) received siltuximab, and 176 (41.2%) received corticosteroids.
 

Favorable outcomes

Overall response rates, at 1, 3, and 6 months post infusions were 70.6%, 56.3%, and 60%, respectively, with the majority of response at each time point being complete responses (CR).

The 6-month overall survival (OS) rate among all patients who were treated was 83.7%, compared with 5.5% for patients who did not receive CAR T infusions.

Progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months was 44.5%, and 57.7% of patients had an ongoing response at the same time point.

Among patients who received bridging therapy between leukapheresis and CAR T infusion, the 6-month PFS was 58.4% for patients with either a CR, partial response, or stable disease, compared with 63.3% for patients who did not receive bridging therapy, and 29.8% for those with disease progression.

The respective 6 months OS rates were 87.4%, 82.3%, and 65.5%.

The results showed that patients who do not have at least stable disease at the time of CAR T infusion are at risk for early relapse, but approximately 30% of these patients still had long-term disease control, Dr. LeGouill said.

He acknowledged that longer follow-up will be need to see whether the plateaus in the PFS and OS curves the investigators observed can be maintained over time. Questions that still need to be answered include the impact of bridging therapy or disease status at the start of treatment on outcomes, and how to improve CAR T efficacy based on individual patient characteristics.

The registry will be extended to include data on patients treated with CAR T for mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma, investigators announced.

The study is supported by participating centers and Gilead/Kite and Novartis. Dr. LeGouill disclosed advisory board activity and honoraria from the companies and others. Dr. Grover disclosed advisory board participating for Kite and others. Dr. Sonneveld has disclosed research grants and honoraria from several companies, not including Kite or Novartis.

Data from a large French registry on a multicenter experience with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy for aggressive lymphoma suggests that the favorable outcomes seen in clinical trials can be replicated in the real world.

Among 481 patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with either of two commercially available CAR T products – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) or axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – the duration of responses, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 6 months mirror those seen in clinical trials, reported Steven LeGouill, MD, PhD, from the University of Nantes (France), on behalf of colleagues in the DESCAR-T (Dispositive d’Evaluation et de Suivi des CAR-T) registry.

“CAR T has now become a standard of care in a lot of French centers, with more than 640 patients treated with CAR T in less than 2 years. The DESCAR-T real-life experience mimics the experience that had been previously by other real-life registries but also in clinical trials. We didn’t see new emerging toxicity signals in real life,” he said in an oral abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress (Abstract S216).

“I am convinced that a population registry about CAR T–treated patients is needed,” commented Pieter Sonneveld, MD, from Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who was not involved in the study.

“Selection criteria for CAR T trials have been incredibly restrictive, and academic trials have not gained ground yet. It is important to collect and analyze more data, include non-trial patients and analyze long-term follow-up in order to determine the real effects of this innovative treatment in lymphoma and other diseases,” he said.

Dr. Sonneveld, EHA past president, was the moderator a briefing where Dr. LeGouill presented the DESCAR-T study findings.

Natalie Sophia Grover, MD, a leukemia and lymphoma specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted in an interview that “there have been several publications recently that have shown that these promising outcomes for these really refractory, high-risk patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma seem to be similar with what we’ve seen in trials, which is definitely exciting.”

She noted that the median time from CAR T order to treatment in the study, 50 days, was longer than in her experience.

“Generally, from collection to treatment is less than a month. Looking at that, I would have expected more patients not to make it CAR T, but nearly 90% of patients who had collections got treatment, which is pretty good. Those patients that didn’t make it to treatment had really poor outcomes,” she said.

Dr. Grover was not involved in the study.
 

More data, s’il vous plait

The DESCAR-T registry was created in response to a request from French health authorities for data beyond that provided in the EBMT patient registry. The health authorities asked for characterization of the CAR T–eligible population in an intention to treat, 15-year follow-up of both CAR T recipients and candidates who were not treated for whatever reasons, and a full accounting of previous lines of therapy.

Dr. LeGouill presented the first analysis of data from the registry involving 19 enrolling site and 647 patients with DLBCL for whom CAR T cells were ordered from January 2018 to March 2021.

Of the 647 candidates, 10 did not have CAR T ordered for reasons that included patient deaths or disease progression, infection, and patient refusal. An additional 30 patients either had leukapheresis performed or pending, and 607 had CAR T ordered.

Of the 607 patients, 53 did not receive CAR T infusions because of disease progression, death before product administration, manufacturing or leukapheresis failures, uncontrolled infections, patient choice, or progression of other malignancies.

That left 550 patients (85%) who received a CAR T product, either tisagenlecleucel (200 patients) or axicabtagene ciloleucel (350 patients).

Among all patients, the median age at CAR T order was 63 for patients who received tisagenlecleucel, and 65 for patients receiving axicabtagene ciloleucel. Patients 65 and older comprised 44% and 51% of the population, respectively.

Patients treated with each CAR T product had a median of three prior lines of therapy.
 

Manageable toxicities

Toxicities within 10 days of CAR T infusion included 418 cases among 515 patients (81.2%) of cytokine release syndrome, with most being grade 1 or 2 in severity; 44 patients had grade 3 or 4 CRS.

Any-grade neurotoxicity was seen in 184 patients (35.7%), primarily grade 1 or 2 in severity; 50 patients had grade 3 or greater neurotoxicity.

Of 427 patients with at least one CAR T–specific toxicity within 10 days, 139 (32.8%) required ICU admission, 325 (76,1%) were treated for CAR T–specific toxicities, 278 (65.1%) received tocilizumab, 13 (3%) received siltuximab, and 176 (41.2%) received corticosteroids.
 

Favorable outcomes

Overall response rates, at 1, 3, and 6 months post infusions were 70.6%, 56.3%, and 60%, respectively, with the majority of response at each time point being complete responses (CR).

The 6-month overall survival (OS) rate among all patients who were treated was 83.7%, compared with 5.5% for patients who did not receive CAR T infusions.

Progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months was 44.5%, and 57.7% of patients had an ongoing response at the same time point.

Among patients who received bridging therapy between leukapheresis and CAR T infusion, the 6-month PFS was 58.4% for patients with either a CR, partial response, or stable disease, compared with 63.3% for patients who did not receive bridging therapy, and 29.8% for those with disease progression.

The respective 6 months OS rates were 87.4%, 82.3%, and 65.5%.

The results showed that patients who do not have at least stable disease at the time of CAR T infusion are at risk for early relapse, but approximately 30% of these patients still had long-term disease control, Dr. LeGouill said.

He acknowledged that longer follow-up will be need to see whether the plateaus in the PFS and OS curves the investigators observed can be maintained over time. Questions that still need to be answered include the impact of bridging therapy or disease status at the start of treatment on outcomes, and how to improve CAR T efficacy based on individual patient characteristics.

The registry will be extended to include data on patients treated with CAR T for mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma, investigators announced.

The study is supported by participating centers and Gilead/Kite and Novartis. Dr. LeGouill disclosed advisory board activity and honoraria from the companies and others. Dr. Grover disclosed advisory board participating for Kite and others. Dr. Sonneveld has disclosed research grants and honoraria from several companies, not including Kite or Novartis.

Data from a large French registry on a multicenter experience with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy for aggressive lymphoma suggests that the favorable outcomes seen in clinical trials can be replicated in the real world.

Among 481 patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with either of two commercially available CAR T products – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) or axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – the duration of responses, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 6 months mirror those seen in clinical trials, reported Steven LeGouill, MD, PhD, from the University of Nantes (France), on behalf of colleagues in the DESCAR-T (Dispositive d’Evaluation et de Suivi des CAR-T) registry.

“CAR T has now become a standard of care in a lot of French centers, with more than 640 patients treated with CAR T in less than 2 years. The DESCAR-T real-life experience mimics the experience that had been previously by other real-life registries but also in clinical trials. We didn’t see new emerging toxicity signals in real life,” he said in an oral abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress (Abstract S216).

“I am convinced that a population registry about CAR T–treated patients is needed,” commented Pieter Sonneveld, MD, from Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who was not involved in the study.

“Selection criteria for CAR T trials have been incredibly restrictive, and academic trials have not gained ground yet. It is important to collect and analyze more data, include non-trial patients and analyze long-term follow-up in order to determine the real effects of this innovative treatment in lymphoma and other diseases,” he said.

Dr. Sonneveld, EHA past president, was the moderator a briefing where Dr. LeGouill presented the DESCAR-T study findings.

Natalie Sophia Grover, MD, a leukemia and lymphoma specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted in an interview that “there have been several publications recently that have shown that these promising outcomes for these really refractory, high-risk patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma seem to be similar with what we’ve seen in trials, which is definitely exciting.”

She noted that the median time from CAR T order to treatment in the study, 50 days, was longer than in her experience.

“Generally, from collection to treatment is less than a month. Looking at that, I would have expected more patients not to make it CAR T, but nearly 90% of patients who had collections got treatment, which is pretty good. Those patients that didn’t make it to treatment had really poor outcomes,” she said.

Dr. Grover was not involved in the study.
 

More data, s’il vous plait

The DESCAR-T registry was created in response to a request from French health authorities for data beyond that provided in the EBMT patient registry. The health authorities asked for characterization of the CAR T–eligible population in an intention to treat, 15-year follow-up of both CAR T recipients and candidates who were not treated for whatever reasons, and a full accounting of previous lines of therapy.

Dr. LeGouill presented the first analysis of data from the registry involving 19 enrolling site and 647 patients with DLBCL for whom CAR T cells were ordered from January 2018 to March 2021.

Of the 647 candidates, 10 did not have CAR T ordered for reasons that included patient deaths or disease progression, infection, and patient refusal. An additional 30 patients either had leukapheresis performed or pending, and 607 had CAR T ordered.

Of the 607 patients, 53 did not receive CAR T infusions because of disease progression, death before product administration, manufacturing or leukapheresis failures, uncontrolled infections, patient choice, or progression of other malignancies.

That left 550 patients (85%) who received a CAR T product, either tisagenlecleucel (200 patients) or axicabtagene ciloleucel (350 patients).

Among all patients, the median age at CAR T order was 63 for patients who received tisagenlecleucel, and 65 for patients receiving axicabtagene ciloleucel. Patients 65 and older comprised 44% and 51% of the population, respectively.

Patients treated with each CAR T product had a median of three prior lines of therapy.
 

Manageable toxicities

Toxicities within 10 days of CAR T infusion included 418 cases among 515 patients (81.2%) of cytokine release syndrome, with most being grade 1 or 2 in severity; 44 patients had grade 3 or 4 CRS.

Any-grade neurotoxicity was seen in 184 patients (35.7%), primarily grade 1 or 2 in severity; 50 patients had grade 3 or greater neurotoxicity.

Of 427 patients with at least one CAR T–specific toxicity within 10 days, 139 (32.8%) required ICU admission, 325 (76,1%) were treated for CAR T–specific toxicities, 278 (65.1%) received tocilizumab, 13 (3%) received siltuximab, and 176 (41.2%) received corticosteroids.
 

Favorable outcomes

Overall response rates, at 1, 3, and 6 months post infusions were 70.6%, 56.3%, and 60%, respectively, with the majority of response at each time point being complete responses (CR).

The 6-month overall survival (OS) rate among all patients who were treated was 83.7%, compared with 5.5% for patients who did not receive CAR T infusions.

Progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months was 44.5%, and 57.7% of patients had an ongoing response at the same time point.

Among patients who received bridging therapy between leukapheresis and CAR T infusion, the 6-month PFS was 58.4% for patients with either a CR, partial response, or stable disease, compared with 63.3% for patients who did not receive bridging therapy, and 29.8% for those with disease progression.

The respective 6 months OS rates were 87.4%, 82.3%, and 65.5%.

The results showed that patients who do not have at least stable disease at the time of CAR T infusion are at risk for early relapse, but approximately 30% of these patients still had long-term disease control, Dr. LeGouill said.

He acknowledged that longer follow-up will be need to see whether the plateaus in the PFS and OS curves the investigators observed can be maintained over time. Questions that still need to be answered include the impact of bridging therapy or disease status at the start of treatment on outcomes, and how to improve CAR T efficacy based on individual patient characteristics.

The registry will be extended to include data on patients treated with CAR T for mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma, investigators announced.

The study is supported by participating centers and Gilead/Kite and Novartis. Dr. LeGouill disclosed advisory board activity and honoraria from the companies and others. Dr. Grover disclosed advisory board participating for Kite and others. Dr. Sonneveld has disclosed research grants and honoraria from several companies, not including Kite or Novartis.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas who are not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant have a generally poor prognosis and few treatment options, but an experimental combination of the antibody-drug conjugate naratuximab with rituximab showed promising efficacy and acceptable safety in these patients in a phase 2 trial.

Among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) the combination was associated with a 44.7% overall response rate, including 31.6% complete responses, and two-thirds of patients had responses lasting more than 12 months, reported Moshe Yair Levy, MD, from Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas.

“This is, in my viewpoint, very exciting therapy,” he said in a question-and-answer session following his presentation of the data in a late-breaking abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress. (Abstract LB1903).

Naratuximab emtansine is an investigational antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of a humanized monoclonal antibody against CD37, a surface marker on B lymphocytes that is highly expressed in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), conjugated to a cytotoxic derivative of maitansine.

CD37 is also an internalizable cell-surface antigen, making it an attractive candidate for an ADC approach.

In a phase 1 trial, naratuximab monotherapy showed a good safety profile and a 22% overall response rate, Dr. Levy noted.

“What they found is that, if you coadminister this ADC with rituximab, you’re actually going to get more internalization of the CD37 monoclonal, therefore more payload delivered to your target cells,” he said.

He reported results of a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 study of the combination in patients with DLBCL and other relapsed/refractory NHL.
 

DLBCL and others

The trial was divided into two parts, with the first consisting of a safety run-in phase with expansion in patients with confirmed diagnoses of relapsed/refractory NHL, including DLBCL, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma.

Patients with double- or triple-hit disease (with translocations in MYC plus either BCL2 and/or BCL6), bulky disease, or transformed lymphoma were eligible.

The second part consisted of two cohorts of patients with DLBCL treated with naratuximab and rituximab either weekly or every 3 weeks.

All patients in the study had received one to six prior lines of therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients with CNS lymphomas or prior anti-CD37 targeting therapy were excluded.

The safety population included 50 patients with DLBCL assigned to therapy every 3 weeks, 30 assigned to weekly therapy, and 20 patients with other NHL.
 

DLBCL efficacy

A total of 76 patients with DLBCL were evaluable for efficacy.

The ORR was 44% for patients in both the weekly and every 3 week cohorts, with 31.6% having complete responses.

Among 61 patients with nonbulky disease (longest diameter 7.5 cm or less), the ORR was 50.8%, and among 28 patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy the ORR was 46.4%, with 32.1% having a complete response.

Among responders followed for a median of 15 months, the median duration of response was not reached, and 66% had responses lasting beyond 12 months.

In the weekly dosing DLBCL cohort, 53.3% of patients discontinued treatment of both study drugs because of disease progression, as did 58% of those in the every 3 week cohort, and 30% of patients with other lymphomas. Only eight patients discontinued the combination because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Six patients had treatment-emergent adverse events leading to naratuximab dose reduction.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia and thrombocytopenias. Dr. Levy commented that the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, which was not mandatory in the study, would likely have lowered the incidence of cytopenias.

There were 10 deaths during the study, 2 of which were considered to be treatment related, occurring in 1 patient each in the DLBCL dosing cohorts; 1 of the patients died from pneumonitis, and the other from left ventricular heart failure.

Other patients deaths were attributed to non–treatment-related cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, respiratory failure, multiorgan failure, lung infection, or colon adenocarcinoma.
 

Q 3 weeks suffices

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Kenny Lei, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong asked Dr. Levy what the half-life of naratuximab is, and what was the investigator’s rationale for testing a weekly dosing schedule.

“I think the reason they checked the two different regimens, the Q week and the Q 3-week group, is that they noted that [naratuximab] was cleared relatively quickly, and they wanted to see whether or not, by giving Q weekly, when you get a continuous CD37 site occupancy if they would have a better outcome. But as you saw, in the groups there was really no clinically relevant difference in outcome,” Dr. Levy said.

Andrew Davies, MD, PhD, from the University of Southampton (England), asked whether the neutropenia seen in the study was related to myeloid expression of the target of from the off-target deconjugated payload.

“I don’t know that I necessarily have the answer to that,” Dr. Levy replied. “Remember there is the CD20 monoclonal rituximab which we know can cause neutropenia, as well as the CD37 and the target payload. I don’t know if we have enough information to attribute it to one specific component of the therapy,” he said.

The study was funded by Debiopharm International. Dr. Levy disclosed speaker activities for multiple companies, not including Debiopharm. Dr. Lei and Dr. Davies had no disclosures relevant to the study.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas who are not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant have a generally poor prognosis and few treatment options, but an experimental combination of the antibody-drug conjugate naratuximab with rituximab showed promising efficacy and acceptable safety in these patients in a phase 2 trial.

Among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) the combination was associated with a 44.7% overall response rate, including 31.6% complete responses, and two-thirds of patients had responses lasting more than 12 months, reported Moshe Yair Levy, MD, from Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas.

“This is, in my viewpoint, very exciting therapy,” he said in a question-and-answer session following his presentation of the data in a late-breaking abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress. (Abstract LB1903).

Naratuximab emtansine is an investigational antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of a humanized monoclonal antibody against CD37, a surface marker on B lymphocytes that is highly expressed in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), conjugated to a cytotoxic derivative of maitansine.

CD37 is also an internalizable cell-surface antigen, making it an attractive candidate for an ADC approach.

In a phase 1 trial, naratuximab monotherapy showed a good safety profile and a 22% overall response rate, Dr. Levy noted.

“What they found is that, if you coadminister this ADC with rituximab, you’re actually going to get more internalization of the CD37 monoclonal, therefore more payload delivered to your target cells,” he said.

He reported results of a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 study of the combination in patients with DLBCL and other relapsed/refractory NHL.
 

DLBCL and others

The trial was divided into two parts, with the first consisting of a safety run-in phase with expansion in patients with confirmed diagnoses of relapsed/refractory NHL, including DLBCL, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma.

Patients with double- or triple-hit disease (with translocations in MYC plus either BCL2 and/or BCL6), bulky disease, or transformed lymphoma were eligible.

The second part consisted of two cohorts of patients with DLBCL treated with naratuximab and rituximab either weekly or every 3 weeks.

All patients in the study had received one to six prior lines of therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients with CNS lymphomas or prior anti-CD37 targeting therapy were excluded.

The safety population included 50 patients with DLBCL assigned to therapy every 3 weeks, 30 assigned to weekly therapy, and 20 patients with other NHL.
 

DLBCL efficacy

A total of 76 patients with DLBCL were evaluable for efficacy.

The ORR was 44% for patients in both the weekly and every 3 week cohorts, with 31.6% having complete responses.

Among 61 patients with nonbulky disease (longest diameter 7.5 cm or less), the ORR was 50.8%, and among 28 patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy the ORR was 46.4%, with 32.1% having a complete response.

Among responders followed for a median of 15 months, the median duration of response was not reached, and 66% had responses lasting beyond 12 months.

In the weekly dosing DLBCL cohort, 53.3% of patients discontinued treatment of both study drugs because of disease progression, as did 58% of those in the every 3 week cohort, and 30% of patients with other lymphomas. Only eight patients discontinued the combination because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Six patients had treatment-emergent adverse events leading to naratuximab dose reduction.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia and thrombocytopenias. Dr. Levy commented that the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, which was not mandatory in the study, would likely have lowered the incidence of cytopenias.

There were 10 deaths during the study, 2 of which were considered to be treatment related, occurring in 1 patient each in the DLBCL dosing cohorts; 1 of the patients died from pneumonitis, and the other from left ventricular heart failure.

Other patients deaths were attributed to non–treatment-related cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, respiratory failure, multiorgan failure, lung infection, or colon adenocarcinoma.
 

Q 3 weeks suffices

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Kenny Lei, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong asked Dr. Levy what the half-life of naratuximab is, and what was the investigator’s rationale for testing a weekly dosing schedule.

“I think the reason they checked the two different regimens, the Q week and the Q 3-week group, is that they noted that [naratuximab] was cleared relatively quickly, and they wanted to see whether or not, by giving Q weekly, when you get a continuous CD37 site occupancy if they would have a better outcome. But as you saw, in the groups there was really no clinically relevant difference in outcome,” Dr. Levy said.

Andrew Davies, MD, PhD, from the University of Southampton (England), asked whether the neutropenia seen in the study was related to myeloid expression of the target of from the off-target deconjugated payload.

“I don’t know that I necessarily have the answer to that,” Dr. Levy replied. “Remember there is the CD20 monoclonal rituximab which we know can cause neutropenia, as well as the CD37 and the target payload. I don’t know if we have enough information to attribute it to one specific component of the therapy,” he said.

The study was funded by Debiopharm International. Dr. Levy disclosed speaker activities for multiple companies, not including Debiopharm. Dr. Lei and Dr. Davies had no disclosures relevant to the study.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas who are not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant have a generally poor prognosis and few treatment options, but an experimental combination of the antibody-drug conjugate naratuximab with rituximab showed promising efficacy and acceptable safety in these patients in a phase 2 trial.

Among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) the combination was associated with a 44.7% overall response rate, including 31.6% complete responses, and two-thirds of patients had responses lasting more than 12 months, reported Moshe Yair Levy, MD, from Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas.

“This is, in my viewpoint, very exciting therapy,” he said in a question-and-answer session following his presentation of the data in a late-breaking abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress. (Abstract LB1903).

Naratuximab emtansine is an investigational antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of a humanized monoclonal antibody against CD37, a surface marker on B lymphocytes that is highly expressed in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), conjugated to a cytotoxic derivative of maitansine.

CD37 is also an internalizable cell-surface antigen, making it an attractive candidate for an ADC approach.

In a phase 1 trial, naratuximab monotherapy showed a good safety profile and a 22% overall response rate, Dr. Levy noted.

“What they found is that, if you coadminister this ADC with rituximab, you’re actually going to get more internalization of the CD37 monoclonal, therefore more payload delivered to your target cells,” he said.

He reported results of a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 study of the combination in patients with DLBCL and other relapsed/refractory NHL.
 

DLBCL and others

The trial was divided into two parts, with the first consisting of a safety run-in phase with expansion in patients with confirmed diagnoses of relapsed/refractory NHL, including DLBCL, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma.

Patients with double- or triple-hit disease (with translocations in MYC plus either BCL2 and/or BCL6), bulky disease, or transformed lymphoma were eligible.

The second part consisted of two cohorts of patients with DLBCL treated with naratuximab and rituximab either weekly or every 3 weeks.

All patients in the study had received one to six prior lines of therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients with CNS lymphomas or prior anti-CD37 targeting therapy were excluded.

The safety population included 50 patients with DLBCL assigned to therapy every 3 weeks, 30 assigned to weekly therapy, and 20 patients with other NHL.
 

DLBCL efficacy

A total of 76 patients with DLBCL were evaluable for efficacy.

The ORR was 44% for patients in both the weekly and every 3 week cohorts, with 31.6% having complete responses.

Among 61 patients with nonbulky disease (longest diameter 7.5 cm or less), the ORR was 50.8%, and among 28 patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy the ORR was 46.4%, with 32.1% having a complete response.

Among responders followed for a median of 15 months, the median duration of response was not reached, and 66% had responses lasting beyond 12 months.

In the weekly dosing DLBCL cohort, 53.3% of patients discontinued treatment of both study drugs because of disease progression, as did 58% of those in the every 3 week cohort, and 30% of patients with other lymphomas. Only eight patients discontinued the combination because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Six patients had treatment-emergent adverse events leading to naratuximab dose reduction.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia and thrombocytopenias. Dr. Levy commented that the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, which was not mandatory in the study, would likely have lowered the incidence of cytopenias.

There were 10 deaths during the study, 2 of which were considered to be treatment related, occurring in 1 patient each in the DLBCL dosing cohorts; 1 of the patients died from pneumonitis, and the other from left ventricular heart failure.

Other patients deaths were attributed to non–treatment-related cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, respiratory failure, multiorgan failure, lung infection, or colon adenocarcinoma.
 

Q 3 weeks suffices

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Kenny Lei, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong asked Dr. Levy what the half-life of naratuximab is, and what was the investigator’s rationale for testing a weekly dosing schedule.

“I think the reason they checked the two different regimens, the Q week and the Q 3-week group, is that they noted that [naratuximab] was cleared relatively quickly, and they wanted to see whether or not, by giving Q weekly, when you get a continuous CD37 site occupancy if they would have a better outcome. But as you saw, in the groups there was really no clinically relevant difference in outcome,” Dr. Levy said.

Andrew Davies, MD, PhD, from the University of Southampton (England), asked whether the neutropenia seen in the study was related to myeloid expression of the target of from the off-target deconjugated payload.

“I don’t know that I necessarily have the answer to that,” Dr. Levy replied. “Remember there is the CD20 monoclonal rituximab which we know can cause neutropenia, as well as the CD37 and the target payload. I don’t know if we have enough information to attribute it to one specific component of the therapy,” he said.

The study was funded by Debiopharm International. Dr. Levy disclosed speaker activities for multiple companies, not including Debiopharm. Dr. Lei and Dr. Davies had no disclosures relevant to the study.

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have a greater than 10% risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse, and the use of prophylactic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) has been proposed as a preventative measure.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

However, the use of prophylactic HD-MTX did not improve CNS or survival outcomes of patients with high-risk DLBCL, but instead was associated with increased toxicities, according to the results of a retrospective study by Hyehyun Jeong, MD, of University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues.

The researchers evaluated the effects of prophylactic HD-MTX on CNS relapse and survival outcomes in newly diagnosed R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)–treated patients with high-risk DLBCL. The assessment was based on the initial treatment intent (ITT) of the physician on the use of prophylactic HD-MTX.

A total of 5,130 patients were classified into an ITT HD-MTX group and an equal number into a non-ITT HD-MTX group, according to the report, published online in Blood Advances.

Equivalent results

The study showed that the CNS relapse rate was not significantly different between the two groups, with 2-year CNS relapse rates of 12.4% and 13.9%, respectively (P = .96). Three-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates in the ITT HD-MTX and non-ITT HD-MTX groups were 62.4% vs. 64.5% (P = .94) and 71.7% vs. 71.4% (P = .7), respectively. In addition, the propensity score–matched analyses showed no significant differences in the time-to-CNS relapse, progression-free survival, or overall survival, according to the researchers.

One key concern, however, was the increase in toxicity seen in the HD-MTX group. In this study, the ITT HD-MTX group had a statistically higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, a marker for liver damage. In addition, the ITT HD-MTX group tended to have a higher incidence of elevated creatinine levels during treatment compared with the non-ITT HD-MTX group.

The HD-MTX group also showed a more common treatment delay or a dose reduction in R-CHOP, which might be attributable to toxicities related to intercalated HD-MTX treatments between R-CHOP cycles, the researchers suggested, potentially resulting in a reduced dose intensity of R-CHOP that could play a role in the lack of an observed survival benefit with additional HD-MTX.

“Another vital issue to consider is that HD-MTX treatment requires hospitalization because intensive hydration and leucovorin rescue is needed, which increases the medical costs,” the authors added.

“This real-world experience, which is unique in its scope and analytical methods, should provide insightful information on the role of HD-MTX prophylaxis to help guide current practice, given the lack of prospective clinical evidence in this patient population,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

Patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have a greater than 10% risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse, and the use of prophylactic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) has been proposed as a preventative measure.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

However, the use of prophylactic HD-MTX did not improve CNS or survival outcomes of patients with high-risk DLBCL, but instead was associated with increased toxicities, according to the results of a retrospective study by Hyehyun Jeong, MD, of University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues.

The researchers evaluated the effects of prophylactic HD-MTX on CNS relapse and survival outcomes in newly diagnosed R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)–treated patients with high-risk DLBCL. The assessment was based on the initial treatment intent (ITT) of the physician on the use of prophylactic HD-MTX.

A total of 5,130 patients were classified into an ITT HD-MTX group and an equal number into a non-ITT HD-MTX group, according to the report, published online in Blood Advances.

Equivalent results

The study showed that the CNS relapse rate was not significantly different between the two groups, with 2-year CNS relapse rates of 12.4% and 13.9%, respectively (P = .96). Three-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates in the ITT HD-MTX and non-ITT HD-MTX groups were 62.4% vs. 64.5% (P = .94) and 71.7% vs. 71.4% (P = .7), respectively. In addition, the propensity score–matched analyses showed no significant differences in the time-to-CNS relapse, progression-free survival, or overall survival, according to the researchers.

One key concern, however, was the increase in toxicity seen in the HD-MTX group. In this study, the ITT HD-MTX group had a statistically higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, a marker for liver damage. In addition, the ITT HD-MTX group tended to have a higher incidence of elevated creatinine levels during treatment compared with the non-ITT HD-MTX group.

The HD-MTX group also showed a more common treatment delay or a dose reduction in R-CHOP, which might be attributable to toxicities related to intercalated HD-MTX treatments between R-CHOP cycles, the researchers suggested, potentially resulting in a reduced dose intensity of R-CHOP that could play a role in the lack of an observed survival benefit with additional HD-MTX.

“Another vital issue to consider is that HD-MTX treatment requires hospitalization because intensive hydration and leucovorin rescue is needed, which increases the medical costs,” the authors added.

“This real-world experience, which is unique in its scope and analytical methods, should provide insightful information on the role of HD-MTX prophylaxis to help guide current practice, given the lack of prospective clinical evidence in this patient population,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

Patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have a greater than 10% risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse, and the use of prophylactic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) has been proposed as a preventative measure.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

However, the use of prophylactic HD-MTX did not improve CNS or survival outcomes of patients with high-risk DLBCL, but instead was associated with increased toxicities, according to the results of a retrospective study by Hyehyun Jeong, MD, of University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues.

The researchers evaluated the effects of prophylactic HD-MTX on CNS relapse and survival outcomes in newly diagnosed R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)–treated patients with high-risk DLBCL. The assessment was based on the initial treatment intent (ITT) of the physician on the use of prophylactic HD-MTX.

A total of 5,130 patients were classified into an ITT HD-MTX group and an equal number into a non-ITT HD-MTX group, according to the report, published online in Blood Advances.

Equivalent results

The study showed that the CNS relapse rate was not significantly different between the two groups, with 2-year CNS relapse rates of 12.4% and 13.9%, respectively (P = .96). Three-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates in the ITT HD-MTX and non-ITT HD-MTX groups were 62.4% vs. 64.5% (P = .94) and 71.7% vs. 71.4% (P = .7), respectively. In addition, the propensity score–matched analyses showed no significant differences in the time-to-CNS relapse, progression-free survival, or overall survival, according to the researchers.

One key concern, however, was the increase in toxicity seen in the HD-MTX group. In this study, the ITT HD-MTX group had a statistically higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, a marker for liver damage. In addition, the ITT HD-MTX group tended to have a higher incidence of elevated creatinine levels during treatment compared with the non-ITT HD-MTX group.

The HD-MTX group also showed a more common treatment delay or a dose reduction in R-CHOP, which might be attributable to toxicities related to intercalated HD-MTX treatments between R-CHOP cycles, the researchers suggested, potentially resulting in a reduced dose intensity of R-CHOP that could play a role in the lack of an observed survival benefit with additional HD-MTX.

“Another vital issue to consider is that HD-MTX treatment requires hospitalization because intensive hydration and leucovorin rescue is needed, which increases the medical costs,” the authors added.

“This real-world experience, which is unique in its scope and analytical methods, should provide insightful information on the role of HD-MTX prophylaxis to help guide current practice, given the lack of prospective clinical evidence in this patient population,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

Adding ibrutinib to chemotherapy did not improve outcomes for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL), an interim analysis of the SPARKLE trial showed.

Among 51 patients aged 1-30 years with mature B-NHL that had been diagnosed before age 18, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of event-free survival (EFS) between patients assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus one of two chemotherapy regimens or to chemotherapy alone. In fact, EFS was shorter among patients assigned to ibrutinib, although a larger proportion of these patients had previously received rituximab, a known factor for poor prognosis, reported Amos Burke, MD, from Cambridge (England) University.

The trial was stopped for futility in May 2020, after a median follow-up of 17.97 months.

“Further studies are required to determine the optimal therapy for patients with relapsed, mature B-NHL, especially those who have received prior rituximab,” he said in an audio walk-through of a scientific poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a very challenging patient population because they historically have had a very poor survival rate,” commented Paul J. Galardy, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study.

“The field has struggled to improve outcomes for these patients in part because there are relatively few patients per year with relapsed refractory mature B-cell lymphoma due to the very effective nature of the up-front therapy. This makes new clinical trials difficult to perform,” he said.
 

Poor prognosis

Ibrutinib, an inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, is approved in the United States for treatment of marginal zone lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, as well as other indications, all in adults only. It has also been shown to have activity against B-NHL in preclinical and early human trials, Dr. Burke said.

Given the poor prognosis of children and young adults with relapsed/refractory mature B-NHL – a 2-year overall survival (OS) of 30% or less with chemoimmunotherapy – the investigators tested whether adding ibrutinib to the standard of care could improve outcomes.

They enrolled patients with relapsed/refractory B-NHL in first relapse or primarily refractory to conventional therapy, with measurable disease (greater than 1 cm) by CT, bone marrow involvement, or cerebrospinal fluid with blasts. The patients were required to have Karnofsky-Lansky performance scores of 50 or greater.

The histologies included Burkitt lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Burkitt-like lymphoma, Burkitt leukemia, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and other unspecified types.

Dr. Burke reported results on 48 patients included in the May 2020 analysis, plus 3 additional patients who were enrolled between the data cutoff for the first analysis and the meeting of the independent data monitoring committee where the decision was made to stop the trial.

A total of 35 patients were randomized to receive ibrutinib with either the RICE (rituximab plus ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) or RVICI (rituximab plus vincristine, ifosfamide, carboplatin, idarubicin, and dexamethasone) regimen. All of these patients received treatment on study.

Of the 18 patients randomized to receive either RICE or RVICI alone, 1 did not receive any cycles of chemoimmunotherapy.

At the data cutoff for the updated analysis in November 2020, 14 patients assigned to ibrutinib and 4 assigned to chemoimmunotherapy alone remained on study; no patients in either arm were still receiving therapy.

A total of 17 patients assigned to the combination arm died and 4 withdrew consent. In the chemoimmunotherapy-alone arm, 10 died and 2 withdrew consent.

In both arms, patients were treated until either completing three cycles of therapy, start of conditioning treatment prior to stem cell transplantation, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity.

In the ibrutinib arm, the median EFS was 5.36 months, compared with 6.97 months with chemoimmunotherapy alone, translating into a hazard ratio for EFS with ibrutinib of 1.078 (nonsignificant).

The respective median overall survival was 13.44 versus 11.07 months,

Subgroup analysis showed that EFS and OS did not differ significantly by age, histology, background regimen, or central nervous system or bone marrow involvement. ­

Overall response rates were 68.6% in the ibrutinib arm, and 81.3% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm. The respective complete response rates were 8.6% and 18.8%, and partial response rates were 60% and 62.5%.

The overall treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) profile was similar between the treatment arms, although six patients in the ibrutinib arm versus one in the chemoimmunotherapy arm experienced a major hemorrhage. One patients in the ibrutinib arm died from pulmonary hemorrhage.

Dr. Burke noted that, although the numbers were small, the failure to see a difference in efficacy between study arms may have been caused in part by a greater number of patients assigned to ibrutinib who had received prior treatment with rituximab (85.7% vs. 56.3%).
 

Not the right partner?

“The results of this study would suggest that ibrutinib is not the right agent. This is not altogether unexpected,” Dr. Galardy said. “The benefit of ibrutinib in adults with mature B-cell lymphoma is primarily based on biological characteristics of lymphomas that develop in older individuals.”

He noted that mature B-cell lymphoma in older adults is often of the activated B-cell subtype, which frequently has mutations that make it sensitive to ibrutinib. In contrast, children, adolescents, and young adults more commonly have the germinal center B-cell subtype that doesn’t have similarly targetable mutations.

He added that, although the reasons for poor prognosis in patients with prior rituximab exposure are unclear, “it is likely that patients who have recurrent or refractory disease after therapy that included rituximab may have developed resistance to this drug. Since both arms of this study included rituximab as a component of the therapy, the patients with prior exposure to this drug may have had reduced benefit of the additional rituximab, compared with those who had not received the drug before.”

The SPARKLE trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Burke disclosed consultancy fees from Janssen and others. Dr. Galardy is an equity holder in Abbott and AbbVie.

Adding ibrutinib to chemotherapy did not improve outcomes for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL), an interim analysis of the SPARKLE trial showed.

Among 51 patients aged 1-30 years with mature B-NHL that had been diagnosed before age 18, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of event-free survival (EFS) between patients assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus one of two chemotherapy regimens or to chemotherapy alone. In fact, EFS was shorter among patients assigned to ibrutinib, although a larger proportion of these patients had previously received rituximab, a known factor for poor prognosis, reported Amos Burke, MD, from Cambridge (England) University.

The trial was stopped for futility in May 2020, after a median follow-up of 17.97 months.

“Further studies are required to determine the optimal therapy for patients with relapsed, mature B-NHL, especially those who have received prior rituximab,” he said in an audio walk-through of a scientific poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a very challenging patient population because they historically have had a very poor survival rate,” commented Paul J. Galardy, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study.

“The field has struggled to improve outcomes for these patients in part because there are relatively few patients per year with relapsed refractory mature B-cell lymphoma due to the very effective nature of the up-front therapy. This makes new clinical trials difficult to perform,” he said.
 

Poor prognosis

Ibrutinib, an inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, is approved in the United States for treatment of marginal zone lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, as well as other indications, all in adults only. It has also been shown to have activity against B-NHL in preclinical and early human trials, Dr. Burke said.

Given the poor prognosis of children and young adults with relapsed/refractory mature B-NHL – a 2-year overall survival (OS) of 30% or less with chemoimmunotherapy – the investigators tested whether adding ibrutinib to the standard of care could improve outcomes.

They enrolled patients with relapsed/refractory B-NHL in first relapse or primarily refractory to conventional therapy, with measurable disease (greater than 1 cm) by CT, bone marrow involvement, or cerebrospinal fluid with blasts. The patients were required to have Karnofsky-Lansky performance scores of 50 or greater.

The histologies included Burkitt lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Burkitt-like lymphoma, Burkitt leukemia, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and other unspecified types.

Dr. Burke reported results on 48 patients included in the May 2020 analysis, plus 3 additional patients who were enrolled between the data cutoff for the first analysis and the meeting of the independent data monitoring committee where the decision was made to stop the trial.

A total of 35 patients were randomized to receive ibrutinib with either the RICE (rituximab plus ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) or RVICI (rituximab plus vincristine, ifosfamide, carboplatin, idarubicin, and dexamethasone) regimen. All of these patients received treatment on study.

Of the 18 patients randomized to receive either RICE or RVICI alone, 1 did not receive any cycles of chemoimmunotherapy.

At the data cutoff for the updated analysis in November 2020, 14 patients assigned to ibrutinib and 4 assigned to chemoimmunotherapy alone remained on study; no patients in either arm were still receiving therapy.

A total of 17 patients assigned to the combination arm died and 4 withdrew consent. In the chemoimmunotherapy-alone arm, 10 died and 2 withdrew consent.

In both arms, patients were treated until either completing three cycles of therapy, start of conditioning treatment prior to stem cell transplantation, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity.

In the ibrutinib arm, the median EFS was 5.36 months, compared with 6.97 months with chemoimmunotherapy alone, translating into a hazard ratio for EFS with ibrutinib of 1.078 (nonsignificant).

The respective median overall survival was 13.44 versus 11.07 months,

Subgroup analysis showed that EFS and OS did not differ significantly by age, histology, background regimen, or central nervous system or bone marrow involvement. ­

Overall response rates were 68.6% in the ibrutinib arm, and 81.3% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm. The respective complete response rates were 8.6% and 18.8%, and partial response rates were 60% and 62.5%.

The overall treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) profile was similar between the treatment arms, although six patients in the ibrutinib arm versus one in the chemoimmunotherapy arm experienced a major hemorrhage. One patients in the ibrutinib arm died from pulmonary hemorrhage.

Dr. Burke noted that, although the numbers were small, the failure to see a difference in efficacy between study arms may have been caused in part by a greater number of patients assigned to ibrutinib who had received prior treatment with rituximab (85.7% vs. 56.3%).
 

Not the right partner?

“The results of this study would suggest that ibrutinib is not the right agent. This is not altogether unexpected,” Dr. Galardy said. “The benefit of ibrutinib in adults with mature B-cell lymphoma is primarily based on biological characteristics of lymphomas that develop in older individuals.”

He noted that mature B-cell lymphoma in older adults is often of the activated B-cell subtype, which frequently has mutations that make it sensitive to ibrutinib. In contrast, children, adolescents, and young adults more commonly have the germinal center B-cell subtype that doesn’t have similarly targetable mutations.

He added that, although the reasons for poor prognosis in patients with prior rituximab exposure are unclear, “it is likely that patients who have recurrent or refractory disease after therapy that included rituximab may have developed resistance to this drug. Since both arms of this study included rituximab as a component of the therapy, the patients with prior exposure to this drug may have had reduced benefit of the additional rituximab, compared with those who had not received the drug before.”

The SPARKLE trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Burke disclosed consultancy fees from Janssen and others. Dr. Galardy is an equity holder in Abbott and AbbVie.

Adding ibrutinib to chemotherapy did not improve outcomes for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL), an interim analysis of the SPARKLE trial showed.

Among 51 patients aged 1-30 years with mature B-NHL that had been diagnosed before age 18, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of event-free survival (EFS) between patients assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus one of two chemotherapy regimens or to chemotherapy alone. In fact, EFS was shorter among patients assigned to ibrutinib, although a larger proportion of these patients had previously received rituximab, a known factor for poor prognosis, reported Amos Burke, MD, from Cambridge (England) University.

The trial was stopped for futility in May 2020, after a median follow-up of 17.97 months.

“Further studies are required to determine the optimal therapy for patients with relapsed, mature B-NHL, especially those who have received prior rituximab,” he said in an audio walk-through of a scientific poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a very challenging patient population because they historically have had a very poor survival rate,” commented Paul J. Galardy, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study.

“The field has struggled to improve outcomes for these patients in part because there are relatively few patients per year with relapsed refractory mature B-cell lymphoma due to the very effective nature of the up-front therapy. This makes new clinical trials difficult to perform,” he said.
 

Poor prognosis

Ibrutinib, an inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, is approved in the United States for treatment of marginal zone lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, as well as other indications, all in adults only. It has also been shown to have activity against B-NHL in preclinical and early human trials, Dr. Burke said.

Given the poor prognosis of children and young adults with relapsed/refractory mature B-NHL – a 2-year overall survival (OS) of 30% or less with chemoimmunotherapy – the investigators tested whether adding ibrutinib to the standard of care could improve outcomes.

They enrolled patients with relapsed/refractory B-NHL in first relapse or primarily refractory to conventional therapy, with measurable disease (greater than 1 cm) by CT, bone marrow involvement, or cerebrospinal fluid with blasts. The patients were required to have Karnofsky-Lansky performance scores of 50 or greater.

The histologies included Burkitt lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Burkitt-like lymphoma, Burkitt leukemia, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and other unspecified types.

Dr. Burke reported results on 48 patients included in the May 2020 analysis, plus 3 additional patients who were enrolled between the data cutoff for the first analysis and the meeting of the independent data monitoring committee where the decision was made to stop the trial.

A total of 35 patients were randomized to receive ibrutinib with either the RICE (rituximab plus ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) or RVICI (rituximab plus vincristine, ifosfamide, carboplatin, idarubicin, and dexamethasone) regimen. All of these patients received treatment on study.

Of the 18 patients randomized to receive either RICE or RVICI alone, 1 did not receive any cycles of chemoimmunotherapy.

At the data cutoff for the updated analysis in November 2020, 14 patients assigned to ibrutinib and 4 assigned to chemoimmunotherapy alone remained on study; no patients in either arm were still receiving therapy.

A total of 17 patients assigned to the combination arm died and 4 withdrew consent. In the chemoimmunotherapy-alone arm, 10 died and 2 withdrew consent.

In both arms, patients were treated until either completing three cycles of therapy, start of conditioning treatment prior to stem cell transplantation, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity.

In the ibrutinib arm, the median EFS was 5.36 months, compared with 6.97 months with chemoimmunotherapy alone, translating into a hazard ratio for EFS with ibrutinib of 1.078 (nonsignificant).

The respective median overall survival was 13.44 versus 11.07 months,

Subgroup analysis showed that EFS and OS did not differ significantly by age, histology, background regimen, or central nervous system or bone marrow involvement. ­

Overall response rates were 68.6% in the ibrutinib arm, and 81.3% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm. The respective complete response rates were 8.6% and 18.8%, and partial response rates were 60% and 62.5%.

The overall treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) profile was similar between the treatment arms, although six patients in the ibrutinib arm versus one in the chemoimmunotherapy arm experienced a major hemorrhage. One patients in the ibrutinib arm died from pulmonary hemorrhage.

Dr. Burke noted that, although the numbers were small, the failure to see a difference in efficacy between study arms may have been caused in part by a greater number of patients assigned to ibrutinib who had received prior treatment with rituximab (85.7% vs. 56.3%).
 

Not the right partner?

“The results of this study would suggest that ibrutinib is not the right agent. This is not altogether unexpected,” Dr. Galardy said. “The benefit of ibrutinib in adults with mature B-cell lymphoma is primarily based on biological characteristics of lymphomas that develop in older individuals.”

He noted that mature B-cell lymphoma in older adults is often of the activated B-cell subtype, which frequently has mutations that make it sensitive to ibrutinib. In contrast, children, adolescents, and young adults more commonly have the germinal center B-cell subtype that doesn’t have similarly targetable mutations.

He added that, although the reasons for poor prognosis in patients with prior rituximab exposure are unclear, “it is likely that patients who have recurrent or refractory disease after therapy that included rituximab may have developed resistance to this drug. Since both arms of this study included rituximab as a component of the therapy, the patients with prior exposure to this drug may have had reduced benefit of the additional rituximab, compared with those who had not received the drug before.”

The SPARKLE trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Burke disclosed consultancy fees from Janssen and others. Dr. Galardy is an equity holder in Abbott and AbbVie.

Sharing their personal experiences on social media can emphasize oncologists’ humanity and have substantive, beneficial effects on patient care, according to a presentation at the Collaboration for Outcomes using Social Media in Oncology (COSMO) inaugural meeting.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.

Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.

Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.

In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).

Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.

Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”

Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
 

Dispelling myths and creating community via social media

A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.

Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.

Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.

With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.

His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.

Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
 

Social media for professional development and patient care

The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.

Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).

Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.

Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
 

Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise

The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.

As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).

At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:

• The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
• The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
• The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
• A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.

An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.

In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.

Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Sharing their personal experiences on social media can emphasize oncologists’ humanity and have substantive, beneficial effects on patient care, according to a presentation at the Collaboration for Outcomes using Social Media in Oncology (COSMO) inaugural meeting.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.

Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.

Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.

In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).

Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.

Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”

Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
 

Dispelling myths and creating community via social media

A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.

Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.

Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.

With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.

His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.

Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
 

Social media for professional development and patient care

The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.

Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).

Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.

Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
 

Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise

The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.

As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).

At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:

• The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
• The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
• The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
• A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.

An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.

In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.

Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Sharing their personal experiences on social media can emphasize oncologists’ humanity and have substantive, beneficial effects on patient care, according to a presentation at the Collaboration for Outcomes using Social Media in Oncology (COSMO) inaugural meeting.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.

Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.

Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.

In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).

Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.

Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”

Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
 

Dispelling myths and creating community via social media

A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.

Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.

Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.

With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.

His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.

Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
 

Social media for professional development and patient care

The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.

Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).

Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.

Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
 

Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise

The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.

As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).

At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:

• The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
• The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
• The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
• A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.

An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.

In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.

Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia diagnosed in developed countries, with an estimated 21,040 new diagnoses of CLL expected in the US in 2020. ^1-3 CLL is an indolent cancer characterized by the accumulation of B-lymphocytes in the blood, marrow, and lymphoid tissues. ⁴ It has a heterogeneous clinical course; the majority of patients are observed or receive delayed treatment following diagnosis, while a minority of patients require immediate treatment. After first-line treatment, some patients experience prolonged remissions while others require retreatment within 1 or 2 years. Fortunately, advances in cancer biology and therapeutics in the last decade have increased the number of treatment options available for patients with CLL.

Until recently, most CLL treatments relied on a chemotherapy or a chemoimmunotherapy backbone; however, the last few years have seen novel therapies introduced, such as small molecule inhibitors to target molecular pathways that promote the normal development, expansion, and survival of B-cells.⁵ One such therapy is ibrutinib, a targeted Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2014 for patients with CLL who received at least 1 prior therapy. The FDA later expanded this approval to include use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL with relapsed or refractory disease, with or without chromosome 17p deletion. In 2016, based on data from the RESONATE-17 study, the FDA approved ibrutinib for first-line therapy in patients with CLL.⁶

Ibrutinib’s efficacy, ease of administration and dosing (all doses are oral and fixed, rather than based on weight or body surface area), and relatively favorable safety profile have resulted in a rapid growth in its adoption.⁷ Since its adverse event (AE) profile is generally more tolerable than that of a typical chemoimmunotherapy, its use in older patients with CLL and patients with significant comorbidities is particularly appealing.⁸

However, the results of some clinical trials suggest an association between treatment with ibrutinib and an increased risk of bleeding-related events of any grade (44%) and major bleeding events (4%).^7,8 The incidence of major bleeding events was reported to be higher (9%) in one clinical trial and at 5-year follow-up, although this trial did not exclude patients receiving concomitant oral anticoagulation with warfarin.^6,9

Heterogeneity in clinical trials’ definitions of major bleeding confounded the ability to calculate bleeding risk in patients treated with ibrutinib in a systematic review and meta-analysis that called for more data.¹⁰ Additionally, patients with factors that might increase the risk of major bleeding with ibrutinib treatment were likely underrepresented in clinical trials, given the carefully selected nature of clinical trial subjects. These factors include renal or hepatic disease, gastrointestinal disease, and use of a number of concomitant medications such as antiplatelets or anticoagulant medications. Accounting for use of the latter is particularly important because patients who develop atrial fibrillation (Afib), one of the recognized AEs of treatment with ibrutinib, often are treated with anticoagulant medications in order to decrease the risk of stroke or other thromboembolic complications.

Methods

The VHA maintains the centralized US Department of Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry System (VACRS), with electronic medical record data and other sources captured in its Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VHA CDW is a national repository comprising data from several VHA clinical and administrative systems. The CDW includes patient identifiers; demographics; vital status; lab information; administrative information (such as diagnostic International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems [ICD-9] codes); medication dispensation tables (such as outpatient fill); IV package information; and notes from radiology, pathology, outpatient and inpatient admission, discharge, and daily progress.

Registrars abstract all cancer cases within the VHA system (or diagnosed outside the VHA, if patients subsequently receive treatment in the VHA). It is estimated that VACRS captures 3% of cancer cases in the US.¹² Like most registries, VACRS captures data such as diagnosis, age, gender, race, and vital status.

Study Definitions

Prevalence of comorbidities that could increase bleeding risk was determined using administrative ICD-9-CM codes. Liver disease was identified by presence of cirrhosis, hepatitis C virus, or alcoholic liver disease using administrative codes validated by Kramer and colleagues, who reported positive and negative predictive values of 90% and 87% for cirrhosis, 93% and 92% for hepatitis C virus, and 71% and 98% for alcoholic liver disease.¹³ Similarly, end-stage liver disease was identified using a validated coding algorithm developed by Goldberg and colleagues, with a positive predictive value of 89.3%.¹⁴ The presence of controlled or uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM) was identified using the procedure described by Guzman and colleagues.¹⁵ Quan’s algorithm was used to calculate Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) based on ICD-9-CM codes for inpatient and outpatient visits within a 6-month lookback period prior to treatment initiation.¹⁶

A major bleeding event was defined as a hospitalization with an ICD-9-CM code suggestive of major bleeding as the primary reason, as defined by Lane and colleagues in their study of major bleeding related to warfarin in a cohort of patients treated within the VHA.¹⁷ Incidence rates of major bleeding events were identified during the first 6 months of treatment. Incidence of Afib—defined as an inpatient or outpatient encounter with the 427.31 ICD-9-CM code—also was examined within the first 6 months after starting treatment. The period of 6 months was chosen because bendamustine must be discontinued after 6 months.

Study Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment history from initial CLL diagnosis through end of study observation period. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and accompanying proportions, while a mean and standard deviation were used to summarize continuous variables. For the means of continuous variables and of categorical data, 95% CIs were used. Proportions and accompanying 95% CIs characterized treatment patterns, including line of therapy, comorbidities, and bleeding events. Treatment duration was described using mean and accompanying 95% CI. Statistical tests were not conducted for comparisons among treatment groups. Patients were censored at the end of follow-up, defined as the earliest of the following scenarios: (1) end of study observation period (December 31, 2016); (2) development of a secondary cancer; or (3) last day of contact given absence of care within the VHA for ≥ 18 months (with care defined as oncology and/or oncology/hematology visit with an associated note). Analysis was performed using R 3.4.0.

Results

Between 2010 and 2014, 2,796 patients were diagnosed and received care for CLL within the VHA. Overall, all 172 patients who were treated with ibrutinib during our inclusion period were selected. These patients were treated between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, following ibrutinib’s approval in early 2014. An additional 291 patients were selected who received BR (Table). Reflecting the predominantly male population of the VHA, 282 (97%) BR patients and 167 (97%) ibrutinib patients were male. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years for BR patients and 69 years for ibrutinib patients. About 76% of patients who received ibrutinib and 82% of patients who received BR were non-Hispanic white; 17% and 14% were African American, respectively.

Less than 10% of patients receiving either ibrutinib or BR had liver disease per criteria used by Kramer and colleagues, or end-stage liver disease using criteria developed by Goldberg and colleagues.^12,13 About 5% of patients had a history of previous bleeding in the 6-month period prior to initiating either therapy. Mean CCI (excluding malignancy) score was 1.5 (range, 0-11) for the ibrutinib group, and 2.1 (range, 0-9) for the BR group. About 16% of the ibrutinib group had controlled DM and fewer than 10% had uncontrolled DM, while 4% of patients in the BR group met the criteria for controlled DM and another 4% met the criteria for uncontrolled DM.

There was very low utilization of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication prior to initiation of ibrutinib (2.9% and 2.3%, respectively) or BR (< 1% each). In the first 6 months after treatment initiation, about 8% of patients in both ibrutinib and BR cohorts received anticoagulant medication while antiplatelet utilization was < 5% in either group.

In the BR group, 8 patients (2.7%) experienced a major bleeding event, while 14 patients (8.1%) in the ibrutinib group experienced a bleeding event (P = .008). While these numbers were too low to perform a formal statistical analysis of the association between clinical covariates and bleeding in either group, there did not seem to be an association between bleeding and liver disease or DM. Of patients who experienced a bleeding event, about 1 in 4 patients had had a prior bleeding event in both the ibrutinib and the BR groups. Interestingly, while none of the patients who experienced a bleeding event while receiving BR were taking concomitant anticoagulant medication, 3 of the 14 patients who experienced a bleeding event in the ibrutinib group showed evidence of anticoagulant utilization. Finally, the incidence of Afib (defined as patients with no evidence of Afib in the 6 months prior to treatment but with evidence of Afib in the 6 months following treatment initiation) was 4% in the BR group, and about 8% in the ibrutinib group (P = .003).

Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the real-world incidence of bleeding and Afib in veterans who received ibrutinib for CLL in the first year of its availability. The study found minimal use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet agents prior to receiving first-line ibrutinib or BR, and very low use of these agents in the first 6 months following the initiation of first-line treatment. This finding suggests a high awareness among VA providers of potential adverse effects (AEs) of ibrutinib and chemotherapy, and a careful selection of patients that lack risk factors for AEs.

In patients treated with first-line ibrutinib when compared with patients treated with first-line BR, moderate increases in bleeding (2.7% vs 8.1%, P = .008) and Afib (10.5% vs 3%, P = .003) also were observed. These results are concordant with previous findings examining the use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL.^18-20

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted with caution, as some limitations must be considered. The study was conducted in the early days of ibrutinib adoption. Since then, more patients have been treated with ibrutinib and for longer durations. As clinicians gain more familiarity and with ibrutinib, and as additional novel therapeutics emerge, it is possible that the initial awareness about risks for possible AEs may diminish; patients with high comorbidity burdens and concomitant medications would be especially vulnerable in cases of reduced physician vigilance.

Another limitation of this study stems from the potential for dual system use among patients treated in the VHA. Concurrent or alternating use of multiple health care systems (use of VHA and private-sector facilities) may present gaps in the reconstruction of patient histories, resulting in missing data as patients transition between commercial, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and VHA care. As a result, the results presented here do not reflect instances where a patient experienced a bleeding event treated outside the VA.

Problems with missing data also may occur due to incomplete extraction from the electronic health record; these issues were addressed by leveraging an understanding of the multiple data marts within the CDW environment to harmonize missing and/or erroneous information through use of other data marts when possible. Lastly, this research represents a population-level study of the VHA, thus all findings are directly relevant to the VHA. The generalizability of the findings outside the VHA would depend on the characteristics of the external population.

Conclusion

Real-world evidence from a nationwide cohort of veteran patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib suggest that, while there is an association of increased bleeding-related events and Afib, the risk is comparable to those reported in previous studies.^18-20 These findings suggest that patients in real-world clinical care settings with higher levels of comorbidities may be at a slight increased risk for bleeding events and Afib.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia diagnosed in developed countries, with an estimated 21,040 new diagnoses of CLL expected in the US in 2020. ^1-3 CLL is an indolent cancer characterized by the accumulation of B-lymphocytes in the blood, marrow, and lymphoid tissues. ⁴ It has a heterogeneous clinical course; the majority of patients are observed or receive delayed treatment following diagnosis, while a minority of patients require immediate treatment. After first-line treatment, some patients experience prolonged remissions while others require retreatment within 1 or 2 years. Fortunately, advances in cancer biology and therapeutics in the last decade have increased the number of treatment options available for patients with CLL.

Until recently, most CLL treatments relied on a chemotherapy or a chemoimmunotherapy backbone; however, the last few years have seen novel therapies introduced, such as small molecule inhibitors to target molecular pathways that promote the normal development, expansion, and survival of B-cells.⁵ One such therapy is ibrutinib, a targeted Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2014 for patients with CLL who received at least 1 prior therapy. The FDA later expanded this approval to include use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL with relapsed or refractory disease, with or without chromosome 17p deletion. In 2016, based on data from the RESONATE-17 study, the FDA approved ibrutinib for first-line therapy in patients with CLL.⁶

Ibrutinib’s efficacy, ease of administration and dosing (all doses are oral and fixed, rather than based on weight or body surface area), and relatively favorable safety profile have resulted in a rapid growth in its adoption.⁷ Since its adverse event (AE) profile is generally more tolerable than that of a typical chemoimmunotherapy, its use in older patients with CLL and patients with significant comorbidities is particularly appealing.⁸

However, the results of some clinical trials suggest an association between treatment with ibrutinib and an increased risk of bleeding-related events of any grade (44%) and major bleeding events (4%).^7,8 The incidence of major bleeding events was reported to be higher (9%) in one clinical trial and at 5-year follow-up, although this trial did not exclude patients receiving concomitant oral anticoagulation with warfarin.^6,9

Heterogeneity in clinical trials’ definitions of major bleeding confounded the ability to calculate bleeding risk in patients treated with ibrutinib in a systematic review and meta-analysis that called for more data.¹⁰ Additionally, patients with factors that might increase the risk of major bleeding with ibrutinib treatment were likely underrepresented in clinical trials, given the carefully selected nature of clinical trial subjects. These factors include renal or hepatic disease, gastrointestinal disease, and use of a number of concomitant medications such as antiplatelets or anticoagulant medications. Accounting for use of the latter is particularly important because patients who develop atrial fibrillation (Afib), one of the recognized AEs of treatment with ibrutinib, often are treated with anticoagulant medications in order to decrease the risk of stroke or other thromboembolic complications.

Methods

The VHA maintains the centralized US Department of Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry System (VACRS), with electronic medical record data and other sources captured in its Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VHA CDW is a national repository comprising data from several VHA clinical and administrative systems. The CDW includes patient identifiers; demographics; vital status; lab information; administrative information (such as diagnostic International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems [ICD-9] codes); medication dispensation tables (such as outpatient fill); IV package information; and notes from radiology, pathology, outpatient and inpatient admission, discharge, and daily progress.

Registrars abstract all cancer cases within the VHA system (or diagnosed outside the VHA, if patients subsequently receive treatment in the VHA). It is estimated that VACRS captures 3% of cancer cases in the US.¹² Like most registries, VACRS captures data such as diagnosis, age, gender, race, and vital status.

Study Definitions

Prevalence of comorbidities that could increase bleeding risk was determined using administrative ICD-9-CM codes. Liver disease was identified by presence of cirrhosis, hepatitis C virus, or alcoholic liver disease using administrative codes validated by Kramer and colleagues, who reported positive and negative predictive values of 90% and 87% for cirrhosis, 93% and 92% for hepatitis C virus, and 71% and 98% for alcoholic liver disease.¹³ Similarly, end-stage liver disease was identified using a validated coding algorithm developed by Goldberg and colleagues, with a positive predictive value of 89.3%.¹⁴ The presence of controlled or uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM) was identified using the procedure described by Guzman and colleagues.¹⁵ Quan’s algorithm was used to calculate Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) based on ICD-9-CM codes for inpatient and outpatient visits within a 6-month lookback period prior to treatment initiation.¹⁶

A major bleeding event was defined as a hospitalization with an ICD-9-CM code suggestive of major bleeding as the primary reason, as defined by Lane and colleagues in their study of major bleeding related to warfarin in a cohort of patients treated within the VHA.¹⁷ Incidence rates of major bleeding events were identified during the first 6 months of treatment. Incidence of Afib—defined as an inpatient or outpatient encounter with the 427.31 ICD-9-CM code—also was examined within the first 6 months after starting treatment. The period of 6 months was chosen because bendamustine must be discontinued after 6 months.

Study Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment history from initial CLL diagnosis through end of study observation period. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and accompanying proportions, while a mean and standard deviation were used to summarize continuous variables. For the means of continuous variables and of categorical data, 95% CIs were used. Proportions and accompanying 95% CIs characterized treatment patterns, including line of therapy, comorbidities, and bleeding events. Treatment duration was described using mean and accompanying 95% CI. Statistical tests were not conducted for comparisons among treatment groups. Patients were censored at the end of follow-up, defined as the earliest of the following scenarios: (1) end of study observation period (December 31, 2016); (2) development of a secondary cancer; or (3) last day of contact given absence of care within the VHA for ≥ 18 months (with care defined as oncology and/or oncology/hematology visit with an associated note). Analysis was performed using R 3.4.0.

Results

Between 2010 and 2014, 2,796 patients were diagnosed and received care for CLL within the VHA. Overall, all 172 patients who were treated with ibrutinib during our inclusion period were selected. These patients were treated between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, following ibrutinib’s approval in early 2014. An additional 291 patients were selected who received BR (Table). Reflecting the predominantly male population of the VHA, 282 (97%) BR patients and 167 (97%) ibrutinib patients were male. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years for BR patients and 69 years for ibrutinib patients. About 76% of patients who received ibrutinib and 82% of patients who received BR were non-Hispanic white; 17% and 14% were African American, respectively.

Less than 10% of patients receiving either ibrutinib or BR had liver disease per criteria used by Kramer and colleagues, or end-stage liver disease using criteria developed by Goldberg and colleagues.^12,13 About 5% of patients had a history of previous bleeding in the 6-month period prior to initiating either therapy. Mean CCI (excluding malignancy) score was 1.5 (range, 0-11) for the ibrutinib group, and 2.1 (range, 0-9) for the BR group. About 16% of the ibrutinib group had controlled DM and fewer than 10% had uncontrolled DM, while 4% of patients in the BR group met the criteria for controlled DM and another 4% met the criteria for uncontrolled DM.

There was very low utilization of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication prior to initiation of ibrutinib (2.9% and 2.3%, respectively) or BR (< 1% each). In the first 6 months after treatment initiation, about 8% of patients in both ibrutinib and BR cohorts received anticoagulant medication while antiplatelet utilization was < 5% in either group.

In the BR group, 8 patients (2.7%) experienced a major bleeding event, while 14 patients (8.1%) in the ibrutinib group experienced a bleeding event (P = .008). While these numbers were too low to perform a formal statistical analysis of the association between clinical covariates and bleeding in either group, there did not seem to be an association between bleeding and liver disease or DM. Of patients who experienced a bleeding event, about 1 in 4 patients had had a prior bleeding event in both the ibrutinib and the BR groups. Interestingly, while none of the patients who experienced a bleeding event while receiving BR were taking concomitant anticoagulant medication, 3 of the 14 patients who experienced a bleeding event in the ibrutinib group showed evidence of anticoagulant utilization. Finally, the incidence of Afib (defined as patients with no evidence of Afib in the 6 months prior to treatment but with evidence of Afib in the 6 months following treatment initiation) was 4% in the BR group, and about 8% in the ibrutinib group (P = .003).

Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the real-world incidence of bleeding and Afib in veterans who received ibrutinib for CLL in the first year of its availability. The study found minimal use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet agents prior to receiving first-line ibrutinib or BR, and very low use of these agents in the first 6 months following the initiation of first-line treatment. This finding suggests a high awareness among VA providers of potential adverse effects (AEs) of ibrutinib and chemotherapy, and a careful selection of patients that lack risk factors for AEs.

In patients treated with first-line ibrutinib when compared with patients treated with first-line BR, moderate increases in bleeding (2.7% vs 8.1%, P = .008) and Afib (10.5% vs 3%, P = .003) also were observed. These results are concordant with previous findings examining the use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL.^18-20

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted with caution, as some limitations must be considered. The study was conducted in the early days of ibrutinib adoption. Since then, more patients have been treated with ibrutinib and for longer durations. As clinicians gain more familiarity and with ibrutinib, and as additional novel therapeutics emerge, it is possible that the initial awareness about risks for possible AEs may diminish; patients with high comorbidity burdens and concomitant medications would be especially vulnerable in cases of reduced physician vigilance.

Another limitation of this study stems from the potential for dual system use among patients treated in the VHA. Concurrent or alternating use of multiple health care systems (use of VHA and private-sector facilities) may present gaps in the reconstruction of patient histories, resulting in missing data as patients transition between commercial, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and VHA care. As a result, the results presented here do not reflect instances where a patient experienced a bleeding event treated outside the VA.

Problems with missing data also may occur due to incomplete extraction from the electronic health record; these issues were addressed by leveraging an understanding of the multiple data marts within the CDW environment to harmonize missing and/or erroneous information through use of other data marts when possible. Lastly, this research represents a population-level study of the VHA, thus all findings are directly relevant to the VHA. The generalizability of the findings outside the VHA would depend on the characteristics of the external population.

Conclusion

Real-world evidence from a nationwide cohort of veteran patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib suggest that, while there is an association of increased bleeding-related events and Afib, the risk is comparable to those reported in previous studies.^18-20 These findings suggest that patients in real-world clinical care settings with higher levels of comorbidities may be at a slight increased risk for bleeding events and Afib.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia diagnosed in developed countries, with an estimated 21,040 new diagnoses of CLL expected in the US in 2020. ^1-3 CLL is an indolent cancer characterized by the accumulation of B-lymphocytes in the blood, marrow, and lymphoid tissues. ⁴ It has a heterogeneous clinical course; the majority of patients are observed or receive delayed treatment following diagnosis, while a minority of patients require immediate treatment. After first-line treatment, some patients experience prolonged remissions while others require retreatment within 1 or 2 years. Fortunately, advances in cancer biology and therapeutics in the last decade have increased the number of treatment options available for patients with CLL.

Until recently, most CLL treatments relied on a chemotherapy or a chemoimmunotherapy backbone; however, the last few years have seen novel therapies introduced, such as small molecule inhibitors to target molecular pathways that promote the normal development, expansion, and survival of B-cells.⁵ One such therapy is ibrutinib, a targeted Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2014 for patients with CLL who received at least 1 prior therapy. The FDA later expanded this approval to include use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL with relapsed or refractory disease, with or without chromosome 17p deletion. In 2016, based on data from the RESONATE-17 study, the FDA approved ibrutinib for first-line therapy in patients with CLL.⁶

Ibrutinib’s efficacy, ease of administration and dosing (all doses are oral and fixed, rather than based on weight or body surface area), and relatively favorable safety profile have resulted in a rapid growth in its adoption.⁷ Since its adverse event (AE) profile is generally more tolerable than that of a typical chemoimmunotherapy, its use in older patients with CLL and patients with significant comorbidities is particularly appealing.⁸

However, the results of some clinical trials suggest an association between treatment with ibrutinib and an increased risk of bleeding-related events of any grade (44%) and major bleeding events (4%).^7,8 The incidence of major bleeding events was reported to be higher (9%) in one clinical trial and at 5-year follow-up, although this trial did not exclude patients receiving concomitant oral anticoagulation with warfarin.^6,9

Heterogeneity in clinical trials’ definitions of major bleeding confounded the ability to calculate bleeding risk in patients treated with ibrutinib in a systematic review and meta-analysis that called for more data.¹⁰ Additionally, patients with factors that might increase the risk of major bleeding with ibrutinib treatment were likely underrepresented in clinical trials, given the carefully selected nature of clinical trial subjects. These factors include renal or hepatic disease, gastrointestinal disease, and use of a number of concomitant medications such as antiplatelets or anticoagulant medications. Accounting for use of the latter is particularly important because patients who develop atrial fibrillation (Afib), one of the recognized AEs of treatment with ibrutinib, often are treated with anticoagulant medications in order to decrease the risk of stroke or other thromboembolic complications.

Methods

The VHA maintains the centralized US Department of Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry System (VACRS), with electronic medical record data and other sources captured in its Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VHA CDW is a national repository comprising data from several VHA clinical and administrative systems. The CDW includes patient identifiers; demographics; vital status; lab information; administrative information (such as diagnostic International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems [ICD-9] codes); medication dispensation tables (such as outpatient fill); IV package information; and notes from radiology, pathology, outpatient and inpatient admission, discharge, and daily progress.

Registrars abstract all cancer cases within the VHA system (or diagnosed outside the VHA, if patients subsequently receive treatment in the VHA). It is estimated that VACRS captures 3% of cancer cases in the US.¹² Like most registries, VACRS captures data such as diagnosis, age, gender, race, and vital status.

Study Definitions

Prevalence of comorbidities that could increase bleeding risk was determined using administrative ICD-9-CM codes. Liver disease was identified by presence of cirrhosis, hepatitis C virus, or alcoholic liver disease using administrative codes validated by Kramer and colleagues, who reported positive and negative predictive values of 90% and 87% for cirrhosis, 93% and 92% for hepatitis C virus, and 71% and 98% for alcoholic liver disease.¹³ Similarly, end-stage liver disease was identified using a validated coding algorithm developed by Goldberg and colleagues, with a positive predictive value of 89.3%.¹⁴ The presence of controlled or uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM) was identified using the procedure described by Guzman and colleagues.¹⁵ Quan’s algorithm was used to calculate Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) based on ICD-9-CM codes for inpatient and outpatient visits within a 6-month lookback period prior to treatment initiation.¹⁶

A major bleeding event was defined as a hospitalization with an ICD-9-CM code suggestive of major bleeding as the primary reason, as defined by Lane and colleagues in their study of major bleeding related to warfarin in a cohort of patients treated within the VHA.¹⁷ Incidence rates of major bleeding events were identified during the first 6 months of treatment. Incidence of Afib—defined as an inpatient or outpatient encounter with the 427.31 ICD-9-CM code—also was examined within the first 6 months after starting treatment. The period of 6 months was chosen because bendamustine must be discontinued after 6 months.

Study Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment history from initial CLL diagnosis through end of study observation period. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and accompanying proportions, while a mean and standard deviation were used to summarize continuous variables. For the means of continuous variables and of categorical data, 95% CIs were used. Proportions and accompanying 95% CIs characterized treatment patterns, including line of therapy, comorbidities, and bleeding events. Treatment duration was described using mean and accompanying 95% CI. Statistical tests were not conducted for comparisons among treatment groups. Patients were censored at the end of follow-up, defined as the earliest of the following scenarios: (1) end of study observation period (December 31, 2016); (2) development of a secondary cancer; or (3) last day of contact given absence of care within the VHA for ≥ 18 months (with care defined as oncology and/or oncology/hematology visit with an associated note). Analysis was performed using R 3.4.0.

Results

Between 2010 and 2014, 2,796 patients were diagnosed and received care for CLL within the VHA. Overall, all 172 patients who were treated with ibrutinib during our inclusion period were selected. These patients were treated between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, following ibrutinib’s approval in early 2014. An additional 291 patients were selected who received BR (Table). Reflecting the predominantly male population of the VHA, 282 (97%) BR patients and 167 (97%) ibrutinib patients were male. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years for BR patients and 69 years for ibrutinib patients. About 76% of patients who received ibrutinib and 82% of patients who received BR were non-Hispanic white; 17% and 14% were African American, respectively.

Less than 10% of patients receiving either ibrutinib or BR had liver disease per criteria used by Kramer and colleagues, or end-stage liver disease using criteria developed by Goldberg and colleagues.^12,13 About 5% of patients had a history of previous bleeding in the 6-month period prior to initiating either therapy. Mean CCI (excluding malignancy) score was 1.5 (range, 0-11) for the ibrutinib group, and 2.1 (range, 0-9) for the BR group. About 16% of the ibrutinib group had controlled DM and fewer than 10% had uncontrolled DM, while 4% of patients in the BR group met the criteria for controlled DM and another 4% met the criteria for uncontrolled DM.

There was very low utilization of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication prior to initiation of ibrutinib (2.9% and 2.3%, respectively) or BR (< 1% each). In the first 6 months after treatment initiation, about 8% of patients in both ibrutinib and BR cohorts received anticoagulant medication while antiplatelet utilization was < 5% in either group.

In the BR group, 8 patients (2.7%) experienced a major bleeding event, while 14 patients (8.1%) in the ibrutinib group experienced a bleeding event (P = .008). While these numbers were too low to perform a formal statistical analysis of the association between clinical covariates and bleeding in either group, there did not seem to be an association between bleeding and liver disease or DM. Of patients who experienced a bleeding event, about 1 in 4 patients had had a prior bleeding event in both the ibrutinib and the BR groups. Interestingly, while none of the patients who experienced a bleeding event while receiving BR were taking concomitant anticoagulant medication, 3 of the 14 patients who experienced a bleeding event in the ibrutinib group showed evidence of anticoagulant utilization. Finally, the incidence of Afib (defined as patients with no evidence of Afib in the 6 months prior to treatment but with evidence of Afib in the 6 months following treatment initiation) was 4% in the BR group, and about 8% in the ibrutinib group (P = .003).

Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the real-world incidence of bleeding and Afib in veterans who received ibrutinib for CLL in the first year of its availability. The study found minimal use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet agents prior to receiving first-line ibrutinib or BR, and very low use of these agents in the first 6 months following the initiation of first-line treatment. This finding suggests a high awareness among VA providers of potential adverse effects (AEs) of ibrutinib and chemotherapy, and a careful selection of patients that lack risk factors for AEs.

In patients treated with first-line ibrutinib when compared with patients treated with first-line BR, moderate increases in bleeding (2.7% vs 8.1%, P = .008) and Afib (10.5% vs 3%, P = .003) also were observed. These results are concordant with previous findings examining the use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL.^18-20

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted with caution, as some limitations must be considered. The study was conducted in the early days of ibrutinib adoption. Since then, more patients have been treated with ibrutinib and for longer durations. As clinicians gain more familiarity and with ibrutinib, and as additional novel therapeutics emerge, it is possible that the initial awareness about risks for possible AEs may diminish; patients with high comorbidity burdens and concomitant medications would be especially vulnerable in cases of reduced physician vigilance.

Another limitation of this study stems from the potential for dual system use among patients treated in the VHA. Concurrent or alternating use of multiple health care systems (use of VHA and private-sector facilities) may present gaps in the reconstruction of patient histories, resulting in missing data as patients transition between commercial, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and VHA care. As a result, the results presented here do not reflect instances where a patient experienced a bleeding event treated outside the VA.

Problems with missing data also may occur due to incomplete extraction from the electronic health record; these issues were addressed by leveraging an understanding of the multiple data marts within the CDW environment to harmonize missing and/or erroneous information through use of other data marts when possible. Lastly, this research represents a population-level study of the VHA, thus all findings are directly relevant to the VHA. The generalizability of the findings outside the VHA would depend on the characteristics of the external population.

Conclusion

Real-world evidence from a nationwide cohort of veteran patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib suggest that, while there is an association of increased bleeding-related events and Afib, the risk is comparable to those reported in previous studies.^18-20 These findings suggest that patients in real-world clinical care settings with higher levels of comorbidities may be at a slight increased risk for bleeding events and Afib.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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