Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

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.

The Food and Drug Administration granted an accelerated approval April 24, 2021, for a new drug for use in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) who have tried at least two prior systemic therapies.

The new product, loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl (Zynlonta, ADC Therapeutics), is the first and only CD19-targeted antibody-drug conjugate approved for this disease.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, but the indication also includes DLBCL not otherwise specified, DLBCL arising from low grade lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

“There is a significant unmet need for treatment options for patients with [relapsed or refractory] DLBCL, including those who have been heavily pretreated and have difficult-to-treat disease,” Paolo F. Caimi, MD, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in a company press release.

The company also cited data from previous clinical trials showing that more than 40% of first-line DLBCL treatments fail, and that these patients have a poor prognosis, worsening with each line of therapy that is tried.
 

Accelerated approval based on ORR

The accelerated approval was based on overall response rate data from the single-arm LOTIS-2 trial. All patients received the new drug, administered as a 30-minute infusion once every 3 weeks for 1 year.

The trial was conducted in 145 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who had already tried at least two lines of systemic therapy. Dr. Caimi noted that this included patients who had been heavily pretreated, as the population included patients who previously received stem cell transplant or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

The ORR was 48.3% (70/145 patients), which included a complete response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients) and a partial response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients).

Patients had a median time to response of 1.3 months and the median duration of response for the 70 responders was 10.3 months.

“Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial,” the company noted.

A phase 3 confirmatory is underway: the LOTIS 5 trial (NCT04384484) compares the combination of loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab versus chemoimmunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The company also noted that in a pooled safety population the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were thrombocytopenia, an increase in levels of the liver enzyme gamma-glutamyltransferase, neutropenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, transaminase elevation, fatigue, hypoalbuminemia, rash, edema, nausea, and musculoskeletal pain.

In the LOTIS-2 trial, the most common (≥10%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (26.2%), thrombocytopenia (17.9%), GGT increase (17.2%) and anemia (10.3%).

Permanent treatment discontinuation as the result of an adverse reaction occurred in 19% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, edema, and effusion.

Dose reductions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients, and most were the result of a GGT increase. Dosage interruptions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 49% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and edema.
 

Warnings on effusions, infections, and skin reactions

The product carries a warning that serious effusion and edema has been reported. Grade 3 edema occurred in 3% (primarily peripheral edema or ascites), grade 3 pleural effusion occurred in 3%, and grade 3 or 4 pericardial effusion occurred in 1%.

Prescribers are recommended to monitor patients for new or worsening edema or effusions, and to consider diagnostic imaging in patients who develop symptoms of pleural effusion or pericardial effusion, such as new or worsened dyspnea, chest pain, and/or ascites such as swelling in the abdomen and bloating.

The product also carries a warning about fatal and serious infections, including opportunistic infections, and serious cutaneous reactions, including photosensitivity reaction, rash (including exfoliative and maculopapular), and erythema.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted an accelerated approval April 24, 2021, for a new drug for use in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) who have tried at least two prior systemic therapies.

The new product, loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl (Zynlonta, ADC Therapeutics), is the first and only CD19-targeted antibody-drug conjugate approved for this disease.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, but the indication also includes DLBCL not otherwise specified, DLBCL arising from low grade lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

“There is a significant unmet need for treatment options for patients with [relapsed or refractory] DLBCL, including those who have been heavily pretreated and have difficult-to-treat disease,” Paolo F. Caimi, MD, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in a company press release.

The company also cited data from previous clinical trials showing that more than 40% of first-line DLBCL treatments fail, and that these patients have a poor prognosis, worsening with each line of therapy that is tried.
 

Accelerated approval based on ORR

The accelerated approval was based on overall response rate data from the single-arm LOTIS-2 trial. All patients received the new drug, administered as a 30-minute infusion once every 3 weeks for 1 year.

The trial was conducted in 145 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who had already tried at least two lines of systemic therapy. Dr. Caimi noted that this included patients who had been heavily pretreated, as the population included patients who previously received stem cell transplant or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

The ORR was 48.3% (70/145 patients), which included a complete response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients) and a partial response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients).

Patients had a median time to response of 1.3 months and the median duration of response for the 70 responders was 10.3 months.

“Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial,” the company noted.

A phase 3 confirmatory is underway: the LOTIS 5 trial (NCT04384484) compares the combination of loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab versus chemoimmunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The company also noted that in a pooled safety population the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were thrombocytopenia, an increase in levels of the liver enzyme gamma-glutamyltransferase, neutropenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, transaminase elevation, fatigue, hypoalbuminemia, rash, edema, nausea, and musculoskeletal pain.

In the LOTIS-2 trial, the most common (≥10%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (26.2%), thrombocytopenia (17.9%), GGT increase (17.2%) and anemia (10.3%).

Permanent treatment discontinuation as the result of an adverse reaction occurred in 19% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, edema, and effusion.

Dose reductions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients, and most were the result of a GGT increase. Dosage interruptions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 49% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and edema.
 

Warnings on effusions, infections, and skin reactions

The product carries a warning that serious effusion and edema has been reported. Grade 3 edema occurred in 3% (primarily peripheral edema or ascites), grade 3 pleural effusion occurred in 3%, and grade 3 or 4 pericardial effusion occurred in 1%.

Prescribers are recommended to monitor patients for new or worsening edema or effusions, and to consider diagnostic imaging in patients who develop symptoms of pleural effusion or pericardial effusion, such as new or worsened dyspnea, chest pain, and/or ascites such as swelling in the abdomen and bloating.

The product also carries a warning about fatal and serious infections, including opportunistic infections, and serious cutaneous reactions, including photosensitivity reaction, rash (including exfoliative and maculopapular), and erythema.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted an accelerated approval April 24, 2021, for a new drug for use in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) who have tried at least two prior systemic therapies.

The new product, loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl (Zynlonta, ADC Therapeutics), is the first and only CD19-targeted antibody-drug conjugate approved for this disease.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, but the indication also includes DLBCL not otherwise specified, DLBCL arising from low grade lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

“There is a significant unmet need for treatment options for patients with [relapsed or refractory] DLBCL, including those who have been heavily pretreated and have difficult-to-treat disease,” Paolo F. Caimi, MD, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in a company press release.

The company also cited data from previous clinical trials showing that more than 40% of first-line DLBCL treatments fail, and that these patients have a poor prognosis, worsening with each line of therapy that is tried.
 

Accelerated approval based on ORR

The accelerated approval was based on overall response rate data from the single-arm LOTIS-2 trial. All patients received the new drug, administered as a 30-minute infusion once every 3 weeks for 1 year.

The trial was conducted in 145 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who had already tried at least two lines of systemic therapy. Dr. Caimi noted that this included patients who had been heavily pretreated, as the population included patients who previously received stem cell transplant or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

The ORR was 48.3% (70/145 patients), which included a complete response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients) and a partial response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients).

Patients had a median time to response of 1.3 months and the median duration of response for the 70 responders was 10.3 months.

“Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial,” the company noted.

A phase 3 confirmatory is underway: the LOTIS 5 trial (NCT04384484) compares the combination of loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab versus chemoimmunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The company also noted that in a pooled safety population the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were thrombocytopenia, an increase in levels of the liver enzyme gamma-glutamyltransferase, neutropenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, transaminase elevation, fatigue, hypoalbuminemia, rash, edema, nausea, and musculoskeletal pain.

In the LOTIS-2 trial, the most common (≥10%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (26.2%), thrombocytopenia (17.9%), GGT increase (17.2%) and anemia (10.3%).

Permanent treatment discontinuation as the result of an adverse reaction occurred in 19% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, edema, and effusion.

Dose reductions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients, and most were the result of a GGT increase. Dosage interruptions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 49% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and edema.
 

Warnings on effusions, infections, and skin reactions

The product carries a warning that serious effusion and edema has been reported. Grade 3 edema occurred in 3% (primarily peripheral edema or ascites), grade 3 pleural effusion occurred in 3%, and grade 3 or 4 pericardial effusion occurred in 1%.

Prescribers are recommended to monitor patients for new or worsening edema or effusions, and to consider diagnostic imaging in patients who develop symptoms of pleural effusion or pericardial effusion, such as new or worsened dyspnea, chest pain, and/or ascites such as swelling in the abdomen and bloating.

The product also carries a warning about fatal and serious infections, including opportunistic infections, and serious cutaneous reactions, including photosensitivity reaction, rash (including exfoliative and maculopapular), and erythema.

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

A frontline treatment regimen including brentuximab vedotin (Bv) was well tolerated, was highly effective, and significantly reduced radiation exposure in pediatric patients with high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma, according to the results of an open-label, phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

Of 77 patients enrolled in the investigator-initiated, single-arm, multicenter trial, 27 (35%) achieved complete remission (CR) without radiation at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy, reported Monika L. Metzger, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn. and colleagues. The report was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The addition of Bv also resulted in superior event-free survival (97.4%) and overall survival (98.7%) at median follow-up of 3.4 years, compared with previously published pediatric trials, such as the HOD99 trial (EFS and OS of 80.8% and 96.5%, respectively), the authors noted.

Bv chemotherapy

Bv, a targeted anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, received expanded Food and Drug Administration approval in March 2018 for frontline use in combination with chemotherapy in adults with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The current study is the first to include Bv as part of a chemotherapy regimen in the frontline setting for pediatric classical HL, the authors noted, adding that their primary aim was to reduce prescribed radiation thereby limiting late toxicities associated with radiation in this population.

Patients enrolled were children and adolescents aged 18 years and under with stage IIB, IIIB, or IV classical HL. Bv was used in place of vincristine in the standard OEPA/COPDac (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and dacarbazine) frontline regimen for pediatric HL.

The Bv-based chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and mostly limited to low-grade nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and the most common adverse events were hematologic events occurring mainly during the first two cycles of chemotherapy.

“Notably, we observed a very low incidence of neuropathy (4%) by both clinician and patient report, and no participants required Bv dose reduction or discontinuation,” they wrote, explaining that neuropathy is more common with vincristine.

Radiation exposure

Residual node radiotherapy (RNRT) was delivered at a prescribed dose of 25.5 Gy in 17 fractions of 1.5 Gy, 2-4 weeks after completion of chemotherapy only to nodal sites that did not achieve a CR at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy.

“Patients treated with RNRT had significantly lower integral radiation dose compared with patients treated on HOD99 with [involved-field radiation therapy] (78.1 J vs. 249.6 J),” the authors wrote. “Doses to specific organs were also compared ... [t]he mean heart dose was reduced to 5.29 Gy from 16.9 Gy, and the mean thyroid dose was reduced to 4.46 Gy from 25.9 Gy.”

Women also had significantly less breast radiation exposure (mean of 3.21 Gy vs. 6.85 Gy in HOD99).

One irradiated patient experienced disease progression at the end of therapy, but remained disease free more than 6 years following salvage therapy, and one unexpected death occurred, the authors said.

“We have already reduced the use of radiation for low-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients. In this study we’ve shown that it is also possible to either omit or reduce the extent of radiation for high-risk patients, using highly focal methods such as proton beam radiation or intensity modulated radiation,” co–senior author Matthew Krasin, MD, of St. Jude’s department of radiation oncology, stated in a press release.
 

Next steps

Co–senior author Melissa Hudson, MD, the St. Jude cancer survivorship division director, added that “[b]eing able to offer Hodgkin lymphoma patients a targeted therapy in the frontline setting is an exciting development.

“The favorable safety and toxicity profile of Bv in combination with chemotherapy for high-risk pediatric patients supports its prospective evaluation in a randomized trial,” the authors concluded, noting that “[l]onger follow-up is required to establish if this approach reduces risk of late-occurring toxicities such as second malignant neoplasms in this cohort of minimally irradiated patients.”

The study was sponsored by Seattle Genetics. The research at St. Jude was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC (American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities), St. Jude’s fundraising and awareness organization. Dr. Metzger reported research funding from Seattle Genetics. Dr. Krasin reported a consulting or advisory role for Debiopharm Group. Dr. Hudson reported a consulting or advisory role for Oncology Research Information Exchange Network, Princess Máxima Center.

[email protected]

A frontline treatment regimen including brentuximab vedotin (Bv) was well tolerated, was highly effective, and significantly reduced radiation exposure in pediatric patients with high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma, according to the results of an open-label, phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

Of 77 patients enrolled in the investigator-initiated, single-arm, multicenter trial, 27 (35%) achieved complete remission (CR) without radiation at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy, reported Monika L. Metzger, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn. and colleagues. The report was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The addition of Bv also resulted in superior event-free survival (97.4%) and overall survival (98.7%) at median follow-up of 3.4 years, compared with previously published pediatric trials, such as the HOD99 trial (EFS and OS of 80.8% and 96.5%, respectively), the authors noted.

Bv chemotherapy

Bv, a targeted anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, received expanded Food and Drug Administration approval in March 2018 for frontline use in combination with chemotherapy in adults with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The current study is the first to include Bv as part of a chemotherapy regimen in the frontline setting for pediatric classical HL, the authors noted, adding that their primary aim was to reduce prescribed radiation thereby limiting late toxicities associated with radiation in this population.

Patients enrolled were children and adolescents aged 18 years and under with stage IIB, IIIB, or IV classical HL. Bv was used in place of vincristine in the standard OEPA/COPDac (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and dacarbazine) frontline regimen for pediatric HL.

The Bv-based chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and mostly limited to low-grade nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and the most common adverse events were hematologic events occurring mainly during the first two cycles of chemotherapy.

“Notably, we observed a very low incidence of neuropathy (4%) by both clinician and patient report, and no participants required Bv dose reduction or discontinuation,” they wrote, explaining that neuropathy is more common with vincristine.

Radiation exposure

Residual node radiotherapy (RNRT) was delivered at a prescribed dose of 25.5 Gy in 17 fractions of 1.5 Gy, 2-4 weeks after completion of chemotherapy only to nodal sites that did not achieve a CR at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy.

“Patients treated with RNRT had significantly lower integral radiation dose compared with patients treated on HOD99 with [involved-field radiation therapy] (78.1 J vs. 249.6 J),” the authors wrote. “Doses to specific organs were also compared ... [t]he mean heart dose was reduced to 5.29 Gy from 16.9 Gy, and the mean thyroid dose was reduced to 4.46 Gy from 25.9 Gy.”

Women also had significantly less breast radiation exposure (mean of 3.21 Gy vs. 6.85 Gy in HOD99).

One irradiated patient experienced disease progression at the end of therapy, but remained disease free more than 6 years following salvage therapy, and one unexpected death occurred, the authors said.

“We have already reduced the use of radiation for low-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients. In this study we’ve shown that it is also possible to either omit or reduce the extent of radiation for high-risk patients, using highly focal methods such as proton beam radiation or intensity modulated radiation,” co–senior author Matthew Krasin, MD, of St. Jude’s department of radiation oncology, stated in a press release.
 

Next steps

Co–senior author Melissa Hudson, MD, the St. Jude cancer survivorship division director, added that “[b]eing able to offer Hodgkin lymphoma patients a targeted therapy in the frontline setting is an exciting development.

“The favorable safety and toxicity profile of Bv in combination with chemotherapy for high-risk pediatric patients supports its prospective evaluation in a randomized trial,” the authors concluded, noting that “[l]onger follow-up is required to establish if this approach reduces risk of late-occurring toxicities such as second malignant neoplasms in this cohort of minimally irradiated patients.”

The study was sponsored by Seattle Genetics. The research at St. Jude was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC (American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities), St. Jude’s fundraising and awareness organization. Dr. Metzger reported research funding from Seattle Genetics. Dr. Krasin reported a consulting or advisory role for Debiopharm Group. Dr. Hudson reported a consulting or advisory role for Oncology Research Information Exchange Network, Princess Máxima Center.

[email protected]

A frontline treatment regimen including brentuximab vedotin (Bv) was well tolerated, was highly effective, and significantly reduced radiation exposure in pediatric patients with high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma, according to the results of an open-label, phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

Of 77 patients enrolled in the investigator-initiated, single-arm, multicenter trial, 27 (35%) achieved complete remission (CR) without radiation at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy, reported Monika L. Metzger, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn. and colleagues. The report was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The addition of Bv also resulted in superior event-free survival (97.4%) and overall survival (98.7%) at median follow-up of 3.4 years, compared with previously published pediatric trials, such as the HOD99 trial (EFS and OS of 80.8% and 96.5%, respectively), the authors noted.

Bv chemotherapy

Bv, a targeted anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, received expanded Food and Drug Administration approval in March 2018 for frontline use in combination with chemotherapy in adults with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The current study is the first to include Bv as part of a chemotherapy regimen in the frontline setting for pediatric classical HL, the authors noted, adding that their primary aim was to reduce prescribed radiation thereby limiting late toxicities associated with radiation in this population.

Patients enrolled were children and adolescents aged 18 years and under with stage IIB, IIIB, or IV classical HL. Bv was used in place of vincristine in the standard OEPA/COPDac (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and dacarbazine) frontline regimen for pediatric HL.

The Bv-based chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and mostly limited to low-grade nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and the most common adverse events were hematologic events occurring mainly during the first two cycles of chemotherapy.

“Notably, we observed a very low incidence of neuropathy (4%) by both clinician and patient report, and no participants required Bv dose reduction or discontinuation,” they wrote, explaining that neuropathy is more common with vincristine.

Radiation exposure

Residual node radiotherapy (RNRT) was delivered at a prescribed dose of 25.5 Gy in 17 fractions of 1.5 Gy, 2-4 weeks after completion of chemotherapy only to nodal sites that did not achieve a CR at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy.

“Patients treated with RNRT had significantly lower integral radiation dose compared with patients treated on HOD99 with [involved-field radiation therapy] (78.1 J vs. 249.6 J),” the authors wrote. “Doses to specific organs were also compared ... [t]he mean heart dose was reduced to 5.29 Gy from 16.9 Gy, and the mean thyroid dose was reduced to 4.46 Gy from 25.9 Gy.”

Women also had significantly less breast radiation exposure (mean of 3.21 Gy vs. 6.85 Gy in HOD99).

One irradiated patient experienced disease progression at the end of therapy, but remained disease free more than 6 years following salvage therapy, and one unexpected death occurred, the authors said.

“We have already reduced the use of radiation for low-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients. In this study we’ve shown that it is also possible to either omit or reduce the extent of radiation for high-risk patients, using highly focal methods such as proton beam radiation or intensity modulated radiation,” co–senior author Matthew Krasin, MD, of St. Jude’s department of radiation oncology, stated in a press release.
 

Next steps

Co–senior author Melissa Hudson, MD, the St. Jude cancer survivorship division director, added that “[b]eing able to offer Hodgkin lymphoma patients a targeted therapy in the frontline setting is an exciting development.

“The favorable safety and toxicity profile of Bv in combination with chemotherapy for high-risk pediatric patients supports its prospective evaluation in a randomized trial,” the authors concluded, noting that “[l]onger follow-up is required to establish if this approach reduces risk of late-occurring toxicities such as second malignant neoplasms in this cohort of minimally irradiated patients.”

The study was sponsored by Seattle Genetics. The research at St. Jude was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC (American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities), St. Jude’s fundraising and awareness organization. Dr. Metzger reported research funding from Seattle Genetics. Dr. Krasin reported a consulting or advisory role for Debiopharm Group. Dr. Hudson reported a consulting or advisory role for Oncology Research Information Exchange Network, Princess Máxima Center.

[email protected]

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

A dose-adjusted R-CHOP may be the best treatment for elderly patients with diffuse large beta-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a review of 38 studies that examined this aged population.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In addition, treatment choices based on new tools such as the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment appeared to provide useful guidance based on the comorbidities and frailty index of this group of patients, according to Alda Tavares, MD, of Hospital Pedro Hispano, Matosinhos (Portugal) Local Health Unit, and Ilídia Moreira, MD, of the Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto.
 

Study characteristics

Of the 38 studies assessed, 13 were retrospective and 25 were phase II/III clinical trials. Most of these studies investigated the efficacy of dose-adjusted R-CHOP regimen, according to the review published online in Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology.

Alternative therapeutic drugs as well as the use of geriatric assessment were also investigated.

In terms of the elderly populations assessed, 11 out of 38 studies included at least 30 patients over age 80 years, although 11 other studies did not specify the number of patients older than 80 years. Eight of the studies included exclusively patients aged 80 years and over. Three of these studies were phase II trials.

Only six of the clinical trials required a geriatric assessment tool for inclusion criteria or therapeutic regime choice, using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), the performance in activities of daily living (ADL) and/or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) tools.

Most of the studies investigated the efficacy of R-CHOP regimen at different doses and variations, with 11 studies using alternative anthracycline in place of doxorubicin.
 

MiniCHOP mattered

Elderly patients over 80 years achieved complete response (CR) rates from 37.2% to 66.7% and 2-year overall survival (OS) from 31.9% to 64.7% across the studies reviewed. Overall, for fit patients aged 80 and over, the strongest evidence favored the use of an R-miniCHOP regimen, according to the authors.

In the 25 studies with treatment based on R-CHOP/modified R-CHOP or immunochemotherapy with an alternative anthracycline, the CR rate was below 50% in three studies and over 60% in the majority. Higher CR rates of 71%-88.9% were achieved in eight studies.

For patients over 80 years, the strongest evidence favored rituximab/ofatumumab-miniCHOP, based on two studies. In both studies, patients over 80 years old, without significant comorbidities, received CHOP regime with a dose reduction of about 50% (miniCHOP: cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m², doxorubicin 25 mg/m², and 1 mg vincristine on day 1 of each cycle, and prednisone 40 mg/m² on days 1-5) plus an anti–CD-20 antibody (rituximab 375 mg/m² or ofatumumab 1,000 mg). The first of these studies obtained CR rate of 62% and 2-year OS of 59% with low toxicities. The second study achieved slightly better results, according to the reviewers, who suggested the difference was possibly because of a prephase treatment and/or the use of ofatumumab.

One study group developed a simple prognostic model based on multivariate analysis of 108 patients aged 80 years and older treated in their study with R-CHOP at full (48%) or reduced dose (51%). Patients with at least two out of three risk factors (age > 85 years, revised International Prognostic Index score 3-5 and CIRS > 5) had worse survival than did those with 0-1 risk factors, with a median OS of 12 months vs. 45 months, P = .001, respectively).

“All these studies results favor the tailored treatment approach,” the reviewers stated. “More prospective studies are still needed to demonstrate and validate the adequate tools for the selection of patients and their optimal treatment. They would provide the grounds for clinical therapeutic decision, aiming for tailored treatment and fulfilling best individual expectations and outcome,” they concluded.

The authors reported that they received no research funds for the study and that they had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

A dose-adjusted R-CHOP may be the best treatment for elderly patients with diffuse large beta-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a review of 38 studies that examined this aged population.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In addition, treatment choices based on new tools such as the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment appeared to provide useful guidance based on the comorbidities and frailty index of this group of patients, according to Alda Tavares, MD, of Hospital Pedro Hispano, Matosinhos (Portugal) Local Health Unit, and Ilídia Moreira, MD, of the Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto.
 

Study characteristics

Of the 38 studies assessed, 13 were retrospective and 25 were phase II/III clinical trials. Most of these studies investigated the efficacy of dose-adjusted R-CHOP regimen, according to the review published online in Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology.

Alternative therapeutic drugs as well as the use of geriatric assessment were also investigated.

In terms of the elderly populations assessed, 11 out of 38 studies included at least 30 patients over age 80 years, although 11 other studies did not specify the number of patients older than 80 years. Eight of the studies included exclusively patients aged 80 years and over. Three of these studies were phase II trials.

Only six of the clinical trials required a geriatric assessment tool for inclusion criteria or therapeutic regime choice, using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), the performance in activities of daily living (ADL) and/or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) tools.

Most of the studies investigated the efficacy of R-CHOP regimen at different doses and variations, with 11 studies using alternative anthracycline in place of doxorubicin.
 

MiniCHOP mattered

Elderly patients over 80 years achieved complete response (CR) rates from 37.2% to 66.7% and 2-year overall survival (OS) from 31.9% to 64.7% across the studies reviewed. Overall, for fit patients aged 80 and over, the strongest evidence favored the use of an R-miniCHOP regimen, according to the authors.

In the 25 studies with treatment based on R-CHOP/modified R-CHOP or immunochemotherapy with an alternative anthracycline, the CR rate was below 50% in three studies and over 60% in the majority. Higher CR rates of 71%-88.9% were achieved in eight studies.

For patients over 80 years, the strongest evidence favored rituximab/ofatumumab-miniCHOP, based on two studies. In both studies, patients over 80 years old, without significant comorbidities, received CHOP regime with a dose reduction of about 50% (miniCHOP: cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m², doxorubicin 25 mg/m², and 1 mg vincristine on day 1 of each cycle, and prednisone 40 mg/m² on days 1-5) plus an anti–CD-20 antibody (rituximab 375 mg/m² or ofatumumab 1,000 mg). The first of these studies obtained CR rate of 62% and 2-year OS of 59% with low toxicities. The second study achieved slightly better results, according to the reviewers, who suggested the difference was possibly because of a prephase treatment and/or the use of ofatumumab.

One study group developed a simple prognostic model based on multivariate analysis of 108 patients aged 80 years and older treated in their study with R-CHOP at full (48%) or reduced dose (51%). Patients with at least two out of three risk factors (age > 85 years, revised International Prognostic Index score 3-5 and CIRS > 5) had worse survival than did those with 0-1 risk factors, with a median OS of 12 months vs. 45 months, P = .001, respectively).

“All these studies results favor the tailored treatment approach,” the reviewers stated. “More prospective studies are still needed to demonstrate and validate the adequate tools for the selection of patients and their optimal treatment. They would provide the grounds for clinical therapeutic decision, aiming for tailored treatment and fulfilling best individual expectations and outcome,” they concluded.

The authors reported that they received no research funds for the study and that they had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

A dose-adjusted R-CHOP may be the best treatment for elderly patients with diffuse large beta-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a review of 38 studies that examined this aged population.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In addition, treatment choices based on new tools such as the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment appeared to provide useful guidance based on the comorbidities and frailty index of this group of patients, according to Alda Tavares, MD, of Hospital Pedro Hispano, Matosinhos (Portugal) Local Health Unit, and Ilídia Moreira, MD, of the Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto.
 

Study characteristics

Of the 38 studies assessed, 13 were retrospective and 25 were phase II/III clinical trials. Most of these studies investigated the efficacy of dose-adjusted R-CHOP regimen, according to the review published online in Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology.

Alternative therapeutic drugs as well as the use of geriatric assessment were also investigated.

In terms of the elderly populations assessed, 11 out of 38 studies included at least 30 patients over age 80 years, although 11 other studies did not specify the number of patients older than 80 years. Eight of the studies included exclusively patients aged 80 years and over. Three of these studies were phase II trials.

Only six of the clinical trials required a geriatric assessment tool for inclusion criteria or therapeutic regime choice, using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), the performance in activities of daily living (ADL) and/or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) tools.

Most of the studies investigated the efficacy of R-CHOP regimen at different doses and variations, with 11 studies using alternative anthracycline in place of doxorubicin.
 

MiniCHOP mattered

Elderly patients over 80 years achieved complete response (CR) rates from 37.2% to 66.7% and 2-year overall survival (OS) from 31.9% to 64.7% across the studies reviewed. Overall, for fit patients aged 80 and over, the strongest evidence favored the use of an R-miniCHOP regimen, according to the authors.

In the 25 studies with treatment based on R-CHOP/modified R-CHOP or immunochemotherapy with an alternative anthracycline, the CR rate was below 50% in three studies and over 60% in the majority. Higher CR rates of 71%-88.9% were achieved in eight studies.

For patients over 80 years, the strongest evidence favored rituximab/ofatumumab-miniCHOP, based on two studies. In both studies, patients over 80 years old, without significant comorbidities, received CHOP regime with a dose reduction of about 50% (miniCHOP: cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m², doxorubicin 25 mg/m², and 1 mg vincristine on day 1 of each cycle, and prednisone 40 mg/m² on days 1-5) plus an anti–CD-20 antibody (rituximab 375 mg/m² or ofatumumab 1,000 mg). The first of these studies obtained CR rate of 62% and 2-year OS of 59% with low toxicities. The second study achieved slightly better results, according to the reviewers, who suggested the difference was possibly because of a prephase treatment and/or the use of ofatumumab.

One study group developed a simple prognostic model based on multivariate analysis of 108 patients aged 80 years and older treated in their study with R-CHOP at full (48%) or reduced dose (51%). Patients with at least two out of three risk factors (age > 85 years, revised International Prognostic Index score 3-5 and CIRS > 5) had worse survival than did those with 0-1 risk factors, with a median OS of 12 months vs. 45 months, P = .001, respectively).

“All these studies results favor the tailored treatment approach,” the reviewers stated. “More prospective studies are still needed to demonstrate and validate the adequate tools for the selection of patients and their optimal treatment. They would provide the grounds for clinical therapeutic decision, aiming for tailored treatment and fulfilling best individual expectations and outcome,” they concluded.

The authors reported that they received no research funds for the study and that they had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]