Multiple Myeloma

The risk of progression or death for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma was nearly halved with the addition of isatuximab to carfilzomib and dexamethasone, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 IKEMA trial (NCT03275285).

After a median follow-up of 20.7 months, the median progression-free survival had not been reached for 179 patients treated with isatuximab (Sarclisa), carfilzomib (Kyprolis), and dexamethasone (together, known as Isa-Kd), compared with 19.5 months for 123 patients treated with carfilzomib and dexamethasone alone (Kd). The hazard ratio for progression free survival with the triple combination was 0.531 (P = .0007), reported coprincipal investigator Phillipe Moreau, MD, from the University Hospital Hôtel-Dieu in Nantes, France.

“The benefit of the triplet combination was observed across subgroups, including patients difficult to treat, such as [those with] high-risk cytogenetics or elderly patients,” he said in a late-breaking abstract presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Isatuximab is an immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting a CD38 transmembrane glycoprotein on multiple myeloma cells, with a mechanism of action similar to that of another anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex). Isatuximab is approved in the United States and Europe in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after at least two prior lines of therapy.
 

A ‘me too’ agent?

It’s unclear, however, whether isatuximab offers any additional benefit over daratumumab, an agent approved for use both in front line therapy combinations and for patients with relapsed/refractory disease, said Brea C. Lipe, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Wilmot Cancer Institute, who was not involved in the study.

“Every time we get a new drug it’s nice to have another option, but it doesn’t really add anything different from daratumumab at this point,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Lipe noted the IKEMA results are similar to those seen in the phase 3 CANDOR trial, comparing carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab to carfilzomib/dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. In addition, it’s unknown whether patients with disease that is refractory to daratumumab could benefit from isatuximab, she said.

Although isatuximab has been touted as offering more rapid and more convenient dosing than daratumumab, the introduction of rapid infusion and subcutaneous administration of daratumumab has negated any theoretical advantage of the newcomer, Dr. Lipe added.
 

Study details

In the IKEMA trial, 302 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who’d received one to three prior lines of therapy were stratified by the number of prior lines and by revised Multiple Myeloma International Staging System (R-ISS) and were then randomized on a 3:2 basis to treatment with carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1 and 56 mg/m² on the corresponding days of each subsequent cycle plus dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 of each cycle, with or without isatuximab. The antibody was dosed 10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in cycle 1 then every 2 weeks thereafter.

Treatments were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice intervened.

At a prespecified interim analysis, the trial met its primary endpoint of a minimum 41% risk reduction in the hazard rate for progression free survival (PFS), with an actual risk reduction of 47%.

An analysis of PFS by subgroup showed significant benefits with the triple combination for patients aged 65 years and older, those with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rates below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², those with more than one prior line of therapy, those who had not previously received a proteasome inhibitor (e.g., bortezomib) or immunomodulatory agent (e.g., lenalidomide), those with high-risk cytogenetic status, and those with R-ISS stage II at study entry.

Overall response rates were similar between the study arms, at 86.6% with Isa-Kd and 82.9% with Kd, but the rate of very good partial responses or better was significantly higher with the triplet, at 72.6% versus 56.1% (P = .0011). The rate of minimal residual disease negativity was also significantly lower with Isa-Kd in the intent-to-treat population, at 29.6% versus 13%, respectively (P = .0004).

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff and will be reported later, Dr. Moreau said.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 76.8% of patients on the triplet and 67.2% of those on Kd. The incidences of death, serious TEAEs, or adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy did not differ markedly between the treatment arms, however. Grade 3 or greater cardiac failure occurred in seven patients treated with the triplet (4%) and five treated with Kd (4.1%); respective rates of grade 3 or greater hematologic abnormalities included anemia in 22% and 19.7%, neutropenia in 19.2% and 7.4%, and thrombocytopenia in 29.9% and 23.8%.

The primary completion date for the trial is estimated to occur in November 2020, with final results in November 2023.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Moreau disclosed honoraria and a consulting or advisory role with several companies, not including Sanofi. Dr. Lipe disclosed impending advisory board activity for Janssen.

SOURCE: Moreau P et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2603.

The risk of progression or death for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma was nearly halved with the addition of isatuximab to carfilzomib and dexamethasone, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 IKEMA trial (NCT03275285).

After a median follow-up of 20.7 months, the median progression-free survival had not been reached for 179 patients treated with isatuximab (Sarclisa), carfilzomib (Kyprolis), and dexamethasone (together, known as Isa-Kd), compared with 19.5 months for 123 patients treated with carfilzomib and dexamethasone alone (Kd). The hazard ratio for progression free survival with the triple combination was 0.531 (P = .0007), reported coprincipal investigator Phillipe Moreau, MD, from the University Hospital Hôtel-Dieu in Nantes, France.

“The benefit of the triplet combination was observed across subgroups, including patients difficult to treat, such as [those with] high-risk cytogenetics or elderly patients,” he said in a late-breaking abstract presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Isatuximab is an immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting a CD38 transmembrane glycoprotein on multiple myeloma cells, with a mechanism of action similar to that of another anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex). Isatuximab is approved in the United States and Europe in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after at least two prior lines of therapy.
 

A ‘me too’ agent?

It’s unclear, however, whether isatuximab offers any additional benefit over daratumumab, an agent approved for use both in front line therapy combinations and for patients with relapsed/refractory disease, said Brea C. Lipe, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Wilmot Cancer Institute, who was not involved in the study.

“Every time we get a new drug it’s nice to have another option, but it doesn’t really add anything different from daratumumab at this point,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Lipe noted the IKEMA results are similar to those seen in the phase 3 CANDOR trial, comparing carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab to carfilzomib/dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. In addition, it’s unknown whether patients with disease that is refractory to daratumumab could benefit from isatuximab, she said.

Although isatuximab has been touted as offering more rapid and more convenient dosing than daratumumab, the introduction of rapid infusion and subcutaneous administration of daratumumab has negated any theoretical advantage of the newcomer, Dr. Lipe added.
 

Study details

In the IKEMA trial, 302 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who’d received one to three prior lines of therapy were stratified by the number of prior lines and by revised Multiple Myeloma International Staging System (R-ISS) and were then randomized on a 3:2 basis to treatment with carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1 and 56 mg/m² on the corresponding days of each subsequent cycle plus dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 of each cycle, with or without isatuximab. The antibody was dosed 10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in cycle 1 then every 2 weeks thereafter.

Treatments were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice intervened.

At a prespecified interim analysis, the trial met its primary endpoint of a minimum 41% risk reduction in the hazard rate for progression free survival (PFS), with an actual risk reduction of 47%.

An analysis of PFS by subgroup showed significant benefits with the triple combination for patients aged 65 years and older, those with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rates below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², those with more than one prior line of therapy, those who had not previously received a proteasome inhibitor (e.g., bortezomib) or immunomodulatory agent (e.g., lenalidomide), those with high-risk cytogenetic status, and those with R-ISS stage II at study entry.

Overall response rates were similar between the study arms, at 86.6% with Isa-Kd and 82.9% with Kd, but the rate of very good partial responses or better was significantly higher with the triplet, at 72.6% versus 56.1% (P = .0011). The rate of minimal residual disease negativity was also significantly lower with Isa-Kd in the intent-to-treat population, at 29.6% versus 13%, respectively (P = .0004).

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff and will be reported later, Dr. Moreau said.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 76.8% of patients on the triplet and 67.2% of those on Kd. The incidences of death, serious TEAEs, or adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy did not differ markedly between the treatment arms, however. Grade 3 or greater cardiac failure occurred in seven patients treated with the triplet (4%) and five treated with Kd (4.1%); respective rates of grade 3 or greater hematologic abnormalities included anemia in 22% and 19.7%, neutropenia in 19.2% and 7.4%, and thrombocytopenia in 29.9% and 23.8%.

The primary completion date for the trial is estimated to occur in November 2020, with final results in November 2023.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Moreau disclosed honoraria and a consulting or advisory role with several companies, not including Sanofi. Dr. Lipe disclosed impending advisory board activity for Janssen.

SOURCE: Moreau P et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2603.

The risk of progression or death for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma was nearly halved with the addition of isatuximab to carfilzomib and dexamethasone, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 IKEMA trial (NCT03275285).

After a median follow-up of 20.7 months, the median progression-free survival had not been reached for 179 patients treated with isatuximab (Sarclisa), carfilzomib (Kyprolis), and dexamethasone (together, known as Isa-Kd), compared with 19.5 months for 123 patients treated with carfilzomib and dexamethasone alone (Kd). The hazard ratio for progression free survival with the triple combination was 0.531 (P = .0007), reported coprincipal investigator Phillipe Moreau, MD, from the University Hospital Hôtel-Dieu in Nantes, France.

“The benefit of the triplet combination was observed across subgroups, including patients difficult to treat, such as [those with] high-risk cytogenetics or elderly patients,” he said in a late-breaking abstract presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Isatuximab is an immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting a CD38 transmembrane glycoprotein on multiple myeloma cells, with a mechanism of action similar to that of another anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex). Isatuximab is approved in the United States and Europe in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after at least two prior lines of therapy.
 

A ‘me too’ agent?

It’s unclear, however, whether isatuximab offers any additional benefit over daratumumab, an agent approved for use both in front line therapy combinations and for patients with relapsed/refractory disease, said Brea C. Lipe, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Wilmot Cancer Institute, who was not involved in the study.

“Every time we get a new drug it’s nice to have another option, but it doesn’t really add anything different from daratumumab at this point,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Lipe noted the IKEMA results are similar to those seen in the phase 3 CANDOR trial, comparing carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab to carfilzomib/dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. In addition, it’s unknown whether patients with disease that is refractory to daratumumab could benefit from isatuximab, she said.

Although isatuximab has been touted as offering more rapid and more convenient dosing than daratumumab, the introduction of rapid infusion and subcutaneous administration of daratumumab has negated any theoretical advantage of the newcomer, Dr. Lipe added.
 

Study details

In the IKEMA trial, 302 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who’d received one to three prior lines of therapy were stratified by the number of prior lines and by revised Multiple Myeloma International Staging System (R-ISS) and were then randomized on a 3:2 basis to treatment with carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1 and 56 mg/m² on the corresponding days of each subsequent cycle plus dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 of each cycle, with or without isatuximab. The antibody was dosed 10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in cycle 1 then every 2 weeks thereafter.

Treatments were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice intervened.

At a prespecified interim analysis, the trial met its primary endpoint of a minimum 41% risk reduction in the hazard rate for progression free survival (PFS), with an actual risk reduction of 47%.

An analysis of PFS by subgroup showed significant benefits with the triple combination for patients aged 65 years and older, those with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rates below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², those with more than one prior line of therapy, those who had not previously received a proteasome inhibitor (e.g., bortezomib) or immunomodulatory agent (e.g., lenalidomide), those with high-risk cytogenetic status, and those with R-ISS stage II at study entry.

Overall response rates were similar between the study arms, at 86.6% with Isa-Kd and 82.9% with Kd, but the rate of very good partial responses or better was significantly higher with the triplet, at 72.6% versus 56.1% (P = .0011). The rate of minimal residual disease negativity was also significantly lower with Isa-Kd in the intent-to-treat population, at 29.6% versus 13%, respectively (P = .0004).

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff and will be reported later, Dr. Moreau said.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 76.8% of patients on the triplet and 67.2% of those on Kd. The incidences of death, serious TEAEs, or adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy did not differ markedly between the treatment arms, however. Grade 3 or greater cardiac failure occurred in seven patients treated with the triplet (4%) and five treated with Kd (4.1%); respective rates of grade 3 or greater hematologic abnormalities included anemia in 22% and 19.7%, neutropenia in 19.2% and 7.4%, and thrombocytopenia in 29.9% and 23.8%.

The primary completion date for the trial is estimated to occur in November 2020, with final results in November 2023.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Moreau disclosed honoraria and a consulting or advisory role with several companies, not including Sanofi. Dr. Lipe disclosed impending advisory board activity for Janssen.

SOURCE: Moreau P et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2603.

Tandem autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) could extend progression-free survival (PFS) for some patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, based on long-term data from the phase 3 STaMINA trial.

While the intent-to-treat analysis showed no difference in 6-year PFS rate between single versus tandem HSCT, the as-treated analysis showed that patients who received two transplants had a 6-year PFS rate that was approximately 10% higher than those who received just one transplant, reported lead author Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The STaMINA trial, also known as BMT CTN 0702, involved 758 patients who were randomized to receive one of three treatment regimens followed by 3 years of maintenance lenalidomide: tandem HSCT (auto/auto), single HSCT plus consolidation with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (auto/RVD), and single HSCT (auto/len).

“At the time, we intended the study to stop approximately 38 months from randomization, allowing for the time for transplant, and then 3 years of maintenance,” Dr. Hari said. However, as the results of lenalidomide maintenance in CALGB 00104 study were reported, they allowed for a follow-on protocol, which provided patients who are progression-free at the completion of the original STaMINA trial to go on to a second follow-on trial, which allowed lenalidomide maintenance on an indefinite basis, he added.

The present analysis looked at the long-term results of this follow-on trial, including the impact of discontinuing lenalidomide.

Aligning with the original study, the present intent-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between treatment arms for 6-year PFS rate or overall survival. Respectively, PFS rates for auto/auto, auto/RVD, and auto/len were 43.9%, 39.7%, and 40.9% (P = .6).

But 32% of patients in the tandem group never underwent second HSCT, Dr. Hari noted, prompting the as-treated analysis. Although overall survival remained similar between groups, the 6-year PFS was significantly higher for patients who underwent tandem HSCT, at 49.4%, compared with 39.7% for auto/RVD and 38.6% for auto/len (P = .03).

Subgroup analysis showed the statistical benefit of tandem HSCT was driven by high-risk patients, who had a significantly better PFS after tandem transplant, compared with standard-risk patients, who showed no significant benefit.

Dr. Hari called the findings “provocative.”

“The tandem auto approach may still be relevant in high-risk multiple myeloma patients,” he said.

Dr. Hari and his colleagues also found that patients who stayed on maintenance lenalidomide after 38 months had a better 5-year PFS rate than those who discontinued maintenance therapy (79.5% vs. 61%; P = .0004). Subgroup analysis showed this benefit was statistically significant among patients with standard-risk disease (86.3% vs. 66%; P less than .001) but not among those in the high-risk subgroup (86.7% vs. 67.8%; P = .2).

However, Dr. Hari suggested that, based on the similarity of proportions between subgroups, the lack of significance in the high-risk subgroup was likely because of small sample size, suggesting the benefit of maintenance was actually shared across risk strata.

“Lenalidomide maintenance becomes a significant factor for preventing patients from progression,” Dr. Hari said, noting that the tandem transplant approach requires further study, and that he and his colleagues would soon publish minimal residual disease data.

He finished his presentation with a clear clinical recommendation. “Preplanned lenalidomide discontinuation at 3 years is not recommended based on inferior progression-free survival among those who stopped such therapy,” he said.

Invited discussant Joshua R. Richter, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the findings encourage high-dose maintenance therapy, and for some, tandem HSCT.

“The STaMINA study presented today supports the notion that some patients with high-risk disease still may benefit and have further tumor burden reduction with the second transplant that leads to deeper remissions and hopefully abrogates diminished outcomes,” Dr. Richter said during a virtual presentation.

But improvements are needed to better identify such patients, Dr. Richter added. He highlighted a lack of standardization in risk modeling, with various factors currently employed, such as patient characteristics and genomic markers, among several others.

“Better definitions will allow us to cross compare and make true analyses about how to manage these patients,” Dr. Richter said. “Despite the improvements across the board that we’ve seen in myeloma patients, high-risk disease continues to represent a more complicated arena. And patients continue to suffer from worse outcomes, despite all of the other advances.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, and others. Dr. Richter disclosed affiliations with Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, and others.
 

SOURCE: Hari et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract 8506.

Tandem autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) could extend progression-free survival (PFS) for some patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, based on long-term data from the phase 3 STaMINA trial.

While the intent-to-treat analysis showed no difference in 6-year PFS rate between single versus tandem HSCT, the as-treated analysis showed that patients who received two transplants had a 6-year PFS rate that was approximately 10% higher than those who received just one transplant, reported lead author Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The STaMINA trial, also known as BMT CTN 0702, involved 758 patients who were randomized to receive one of three treatment regimens followed by 3 years of maintenance lenalidomide: tandem HSCT (auto/auto), single HSCT plus consolidation with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (auto/RVD), and single HSCT (auto/len).

“At the time, we intended the study to stop approximately 38 months from randomization, allowing for the time for transplant, and then 3 years of maintenance,” Dr. Hari said. However, as the results of lenalidomide maintenance in CALGB 00104 study were reported, they allowed for a follow-on protocol, which provided patients who are progression-free at the completion of the original STaMINA trial to go on to a second follow-on trial, which allowed lenalidomide maintenance on an indefinite basis, he added.

The present analysis looked at the long-term results of this follow-on trial, including the impact of discontinuing lenalidomide.

Aligning with the original study, the present intent-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between treatment arms for 6-year PFS rate or overall survival. Respectively, PFS rates for auto/auto, auto/RVD, and auto/len were 43.9%, 39.7%, and 40.9% (P = .6).

But 32% of patients in the tandem group never underwent second HSCT, Dr. Hari noted, prompting the as-treated analysis. Although overall survival remained similar between groups, the 6-year PFS was significantly higher for patients who underwent tandem HSCT, at 49.4%, compared with 39.7% for auto/RVD and 38.6% for auto/len (P = .03).

Subgroup analysis showed the statistical benefit of tandem HSCT was driven by high-risk patients, who had a significantly better PFS after tandem transplant, compared with standard-risk patients, who showed no significant benefit.

Dr. Hari called the findings “provocative.”

“The tandem auto approach may still be relevant in high-risk multiple myeloma patients,” he said.

Dr. Hari and his colleagues also found that patients who stayed on maintenance lenalidomide after 38 months had a better 5-year PFS rate than those who discontinued maintenance therapy (79.5% vs. 61%; P = .0004). Subgroup analysis showed this benefit was statistically significant among patients with standard-risk disease (86.3% vs. 66%; P less than .001) but not among those in the high-risk subgroup (86.7% vs. 67.8%; P = .2).

However, Dr. Hari suggested that, based on the similarity of proportions between subgroups, the lack of significance in the high-risk subgroup was likely because of small sample size, suggesting the benefit of maintenance was actually shared across risk strata.

“Lenalidomide maintenance becomes a significant factor for preventing patients from progression,” Dr. Hari said, noting that the tandem transplant approach requires further study, and that he and his colleagues would soon publish minimal residual disease data.

He finished his presentation with a clear clinical recommendation. “Preplanned lenalidomide discontinuation at 3 years is not recommended based on inferior progression-free survival among those who stopped such therapy,” he said.

Invited discussant Joshua R. Richter, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the findings encourage high-dose maintenance therapy, and for some, tandem HSCT.

“The STaMINA study presented today supports the notion that some patients with high-risk disease still may benefit and have further tumor burden reduction with the second transplant that leads to deeper remissions and hopefully abrogates diminished outcomes,” Dr. Richter said during a virtual presentation.

But improvements are needed to better identify such patients, Dr. Richter added. He highlighted a lack of standardization in risk modeling, with various factors currently employed, such as patient characteristics and genomic markers, among several others.

“Better definitions will allow us to cross compare and make true analyses about how to manage these patients,” Dr. Richter said. “Despite the improvements across the board that we’ve seen in myeloma patients, high-risk disease continues to represent a more complicated arena. And patients continue to suffer from worse outcomes, despite all of the other advances.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, and others. Dr. Richter disclosed affiliations with Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, and others.
 

SOURCE: Hari et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract 8506.

Tandem autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) could extend progression-free survival (PFS) for some patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, based on long-term data from the phase 3 STaMINA trial.

While the intent-to-treat analysis showed no difference in 6-year PFS rate between single versus tandem HSCT, the as-treated analysis showed that patients who received two transplants had a 6-year PFS rate that was approximately 10% higher than those who received just one transplant, reported lead author Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The STaMINA trial, also known as BMT CTN 0702, involved 758 patients who were randomized to receive one of three treatment regimens followed by 3 years of maintenance lenalidomide: tandem HSCT (auto/auto), single HSCT plus consolidation with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (auto/RVD), and single HSCT (auto/len).

“At the time, we intended the study to stop approximately 38 months from randomization, allowing for the time for transplant, and then 3 years of maintenance,” Dr. Hari said. However, as the results of lenalidomide maintenance in CALGB 00104 study were reported, they allowed for a follow-on protocol, which provided patients who are progression-free at the completion of the original STaMINA trial to go on to a second follow-on trial, which allowed lenalidomide maintenance on an indefinite basis, he added.

The present analysis looked at the long-term results of this follow-on trial, including the impact of discontinuing lenalidomide.

Aligning with the original study, the present intent-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between treatment arms for 6-year PFS rate or overall survival. Respectively, PFS rates for auto/auto, auto/RVD, and auto/len were 43.9%, 39.7%, and 40.9% (P = .6).

But 32% of patients in the tandem group never underwent second HSCT, Dr. Hari noted, prompting the as-treated analysis. Although overall survival remained similar between groups, the 6-year PFS was significantly higher for patients who underwent tandem HSCT, at 49.4%, compared with 39.7% for auto/RVD and 38.6% for auto/len (P = .03).

Subgroup analysis showed the statistical benefit of tandem HSCT was driven by high-risk patients, who had a significantly better PFS after tandem transplant, compared with standard-risk patients, who showed no significant benefit.

Dr. Hari called the findings “provocative.”

“The tandem auto approach may still be relevant in high-risk multiple myeloma patients,” he said.

Dr. Hari and his colleagues also found that patients who stayed on maintenance lenalidomide after 38 months had a better 5-year PFS rate than those who discontinued maintenance therapy (79.5% vs. 61%; P = .0004). Subgroup analysis showed this benefit was statistically significant among patients with standard-risk disease (86.3% vs. 66%; P less than .001) but not among those in the high-risk subgroup (86.7% vs. 67.8%; P = .2).

However, Dr. Hari suggested that, based on the similarity of proportions between subgroups, the lack of significance in the high-risk subgroup was likely because of small sample size, suggesting the benefit of maintenance was actually shared across risk strata.

“Lenalidomide maintenance becomes a significant factor for preventing patients from progression,” Dr. Hari said, noting that the tandem transplant approach requires further study, and that he and his colleagues would soon publish minimal residual disease data.

He finished his presentation with a clear clinical recommendation. “Preplanned lenalidomide discontinuation at 3 years is not recommended based on inferior progression-free survival among those who stopped such therapy,” he said.

Invited discussant Joshua R. Richter, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the findings encourage high-dose maintenance therapy, and for some, tandem HSCT.

“The STaMINA study presented today supports the notion that some patients with high-risk disease still may benefit and have further tumor burden reduction with the second transplant that leads to deeper remissions and hopefully abrogates diminished outcomes,” Dr. Richter said during a virtual presentation.

But improvements are needed to better identify such patients, Dr. Richter added. He highlighted a lack of standardization in risk modeling, with various factors currently employed, such as patient characteristics and genomic markers, among several others.

“Better definitions will allow us to cross compare and make true analyses about how to manage these patients,” Dr. Richter said. “Despite the improvements across the board that we’ve seen in myeloma patients, high-risk disease continues to represent a more complicated arena. And patients continue to suffer from worse outcomes, despite all of the other advances.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, and others. Dr. Richter disclosed affiliations with Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, and others.
 

SOURCE: Hari et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract 8506.

Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.

The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.

Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).

The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.

“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.

Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.

The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.

Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).

The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.

“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.

Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.

The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.

Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).

The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.

“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.

While upfront autologous transplantation has bested bortezomib-based intensification therapy in a large, randomized multiple myeloma (MM) trial, investigators and observers say more research will be needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy in the era of novel agents.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) extended progression-free survival by almost 15 months compared with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) intensification therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to results of the randomized, phase 3 trial of 1,503 patients enrolled at 172 centers in the European Myeloma Network.

That finding could provide more fodder for the ongoing debate over the role of upfront autologous HSCT as a gold-standard intensification treatment for patients who can tolerate myeloablative doses of chemotherapy in light of the proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and monoclonal antibodies that are now available.

However, the study is not without limitations, including the use of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCD) as induction therapy, according to the investigators, led by Michele Cavo, MD, with the Seràgnoli Institute of Hematology at Bologna (Italy) University.

The VCD regimen was one of the most frequently used induction regimens back when the trial was designed, but now it’s considered “less optimal” versus regimens such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD), according to Dr. Cavo and coinvestigators.

Besides, the field is moving forward based on clinical trials of “highly active” daratumumab-based four-drug regimens, which appear to enhance rates of response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity when given as induction before autologous HSCT and as consolidation afterward, they said.

“Final results from these studies should be awaited before a shift from routine use of upfront autologous HSCT to delayed HSCT or alternative treatment strategies driven by MRD status can be offered to patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are fit for high-dose chemotherapy,” Dr. Cavo and colleagues noted in their report, available in The Lancet Hematology.

The multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study by Dr. Cavo and coinvestigators, known as EMN02/HO95, included patients up to 65 years of age with symptomatic multiple myeloma, measurable disease, and WHO performance of 0 to 2. Patients were treated with VCD induction therapy, followed by randomization to either VMP or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan. In a second randomization, patients were assigned to either VRD consolidation therapy or no consolidation. All patients then received lenalidomide maintenance therapy until progression.

Median progression-free survival was 56.7 months in patients initially randomized to HSCT, compared with 41.9 months for MP (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.85; P = .0001), according to the investigators, who said that finding supports the value of HSCT “even in the era of highly active novel agents.”

Turning to results of the second randomization, Dr. Cavo and colleagues said the VRD consolidation strategy resulted in median progression-free survival that was significantly improved versus no consolidation, at 58.9 months and 45.5 months, respectively (P = .014).

While this is an important study, the added benefit of HSCT intensification therapy is in question given the high rates of MRD being reported for potent, daratumumab-based four-drug combination regimens, according to a related commentary by Omar Nadeem, MD, and Irene M. Ghobrial, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We are entering an era in which novel combinations have shown unprecedented efficacy and future studies with or without HSCT will be needed to answer these key questions,” wrote Dr. Nadeem and Dr. Ghobrial.

Dr. Cavo and colleagues said the estimated 5-year rate of overall survival in EMN02/HO95 was “comparable” between arms, at 75% for the HSCT strategy and 72% for VMP.

“Although this suggests that delaying HSCT to a later time is not harmful, a substantial proportion of patients may become ineligible for high-dose melphalan at first relapse,” they said, noting that 63% of VMP-treated patients went on to receive salvage HSCT.

Further follow-up could demonstrate a survival advantage, as seen in other studies, they added.

Dr. Cavo reported that he has received honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and is a member of speakers bureaus for Janssen and Celgene. Dr. Nadeem and Dr. Ghobrial reported serving on the advisory boards of multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cavo M et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5.

While upfront autologous transplantation has bested bortezomib-based intensification therapy in a large, randomized multiple myeloma (MM) trial, investigators and observers say more research will be needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy in the era of novel agents.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) extended progression-free survival by almost 15 months compared with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) intensification therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to results of the randomized, phase 3 trial of 1,503 patients enrolled at 172 centers in the European Myeloma Network.

That finding could provide more fodder for the ongoing debate over the role of upfront autologous HSCT as a gold-standard intensification treatment for patients who can tolerate myeloablative doses of chemotherapy in light of the proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and monoclonal antibodies that are now available.

However, the study is not without limitations, including the use of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCD) as induction therapy, according to the investigators, led by Michele Cavo, MD, with the Seràgnoli Institute of Hematology at Bologna (Italy) University.

The VCD regimen was one of the most frequently used induction regimens back when the trial was designed, but now it’s considered “less optimal” versus regimens such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD), according to Dr. Cavo and coinvestigators.

Besides, the field is moving forward based on clinical trials of “highly active” daratumumab-based four-drug regimens, which appear to enhance rates of response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity when given as induction before autologous HSCT and as consolidation afterward, they said.

“Final results from these studies should be awaited before a shift from routine use of upfront autologous HSCT to delayed HSCT or alternative treatment strategies driven by MRD status can be offered to patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are fit for high-dose chemotherapy,” Dr. Cavo and colleagues noted in their report, available in The Lancet Hematology.

The multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study by Dr. Cavo and coinvestigators, known as EMN02/HO95, included patients up to 65 years of age with symptomatic multiple myeloma, measurable disease, and WHO performance of 0 to 2. Patients were treated with VCD induction therapy, followed by randomization to either VMP or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan. In a second randomization, patients were assigned to either VRD consolidation therapy or no consolidation. All patients then received lenalidomide maintenance therapy until progression.

Median progression-free survival was 56.7 months in patients initially randomized to HSCT, compared with 41.9 months for MP (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.85; P = .0001), according to the investigators, who said that finding supports the value of HSCT “even in the era of highly active novel agents.”

Turning to results of the second randomization, Dr. Cavo and colleagues said the VRD consolidation strategy resulted in median progression-free survival that was significantly improved versus no consolidation, at 58.9 months and 45.5 months, respectively (P = .014).

While this is an important study, the added benefit of HSCT intensification therapy is in question given the high rates of MRD being reported for potent, daratumumab-based four-drug combination regimens, according to a related commentary by Omar Nadeem, MD, and Irene M. Ghobrial, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We are entering an era in which novel combinations have shown unprecedented efficacy and future studies with or without HSCT will be needed to answer these key questions,” wrote Dr. Nadeem and Dr. Ghobrial.

Dr. Cavo and colleagues said the estimated 5-year rate of overall survival in EMN02/HO95 was “comparable” between arms, at 75% for the HSCT strategy and 72% for VMP.

“Although this suggests that delaying HSCT to a later time is not harmful, a substantial proportion of patients may become ineligible for high-dose melphalan at first relapse,” they said, noting that 63% of VMP-treated patients went on to receive salvage HSCT.

Further follow-up could demonstrate a survival advantage, as seen in other studies, they added.

Dr. Cavo reported that he has received honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and is a member of speakers bureaus for Janssen and Celgene. Dr. Nadeem and Dr. Ghobrial reported serving on the advisory boards of multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cavo M et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5.

While upfront autologous transplantation has bested bortezomib-based intensification therapy in a large, randomized multiple myeloma (MM) trial, investigators and observers say more research will be needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy in the era of novel agents.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) extended progression-free survival by almost 15 months compared with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) intensification therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to results of the randomized, phase 3 trial of 1,503 patients enrolled at 172 centers in the European Myeloma Network.

That finding could provide more fodder for the ongoing debate over the role of upfront autologous HSCT as a gold-standard intensification treatment for patients who can tolerate myeloablative doses of chemotherapy in light of the proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and monoclonal antibodies that are now available.

However, the study is not without limitations, including the use of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCD) as induction therapy, according to the investigators, led by Michele Cavo, MD, with the Seràgnoli Institute of Hematology at Bologna (Italy) University.

The VCD regimen was one of the most frequently used induction regimens back when the trial was designed, but now it’s considered “less optimal” versus regimens such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD), according to Dr. Cavo and coinvestigators.

Besides, the field is moving forward based on clinical trials of “highly active” daratumumab-based four-drug regimens, which appear to enhance rates of response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity when given as induction before autologous HSCT and as consolidation afterward, they said.

“Final results from these studies should be awaited before a shift from routine use of upfront autologous HSCT to delayed HSCT or alternative treatment strategies driven by MRD status can be offered to patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are fit for high-dose chemotherapy,” Dr. Cavo and colleagues noted in their report, available in The Lancet Hematology.

The multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study by Dr. Cavo and coinvestigators, known as EMN02/HO95, included patients up to 65 years of age with symptomatic multiple myeloma, measurable disease, and WHO performance of 0 to 2. Patients were treated with VCD induction therapy, followed by randomization to either VMP or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan. In a second randomization, patients were assigned to either VRD consolidation therapy or no consolidation. All patients then received lenalidomide maintenance therapy until progression.

Median progression-free survival was 56.7 months in patients initially randomized to HSCT, compared with 41.9 months for MP (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.85; P = .0001), according to the investigators, who said that finding supports the value of HSCT “even in the era of highly active novel agents.”

Turning to results of the second randomization, Dr. Cavo and colleagues said the VRD consolidation strategy resulted in median progression-free survival that was significantly improved versus no consolidation, at 58.9 months and 45.5 months, respectively (P = .014).

While this is an important study, the added benefit of HSCT intensification therapy is in question given the high rates of MRD being reported for potent, daratumumab-based four-drug combination regimens, according to a related commentary by Omar Nadeem, MD, and Irene M. Ghobrial, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We are entering an era in which novel combinations have shown unprecedented efficacy and future studies with or without HSCT will be needed to answer these key questions,” wrote Dr. Nadeem and Dr. Ghobrial.

Dr. Cavo and colleagues said the estimated 5-year rate of overall survival in EMN02/HO95 was “comparable” between arms, at 75% for the HSCT strategy and 72% for VMP.

“Although this suggests that delaying HSCT to a later time is not harmful, a substantial proportion of patients may become ineligible for high-dose melphalan at first relapse,” they said, noting that 63% of VMP-treated patients went on to receive salvage HSCT.

Further follow-up could demonstrate a survival advantage, as seen in other studies, they added.

Dr. Cavo reported that he has received honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and is a member of speakers bureaus for Janssen and Celgene. Dr. Nadeem and Dr. Ghobrial reported serving on the advisory boards of multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cavo M et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5.

Small phase 1 and phase 2 multi-center, open label studies of melflufen toxicity and efficacy in combination with dexamethasone showed significant benefits in overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. A report on these studies was published in Lancet Hematology.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

In phase 2, patients treated with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14/45 patients) and a clinical benefit rate of 49% (22/45 patients). In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (1/13 patients) and the clinical benefit rate was 23% (3/13 patients) before this aspect of the study was discontinued.

In terms of adverse events, among the 45 phase 2 combination–treatment patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were clinically manageable thrombocytopenia (62% of patients) and neutropenia (58%) In addition, 24 serious adverse events were reported in 38% patients, most commonly pneumonia (11%).

Because of the benefits seen and the need for relapsed/refractory MM treatments, further studies on melflufen in combination therapies are ongoing, according to the researchers “with encouraging early results to date”: NCT03151811, NCT02963493, and NCT03481556.

“Melflufen represents a novel treatment concept with a unique mechanism of action that might find future use in combinations with key partners, such as proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB. The authors received funding from a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. Lancet Hematol. 2020; doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30044-2.

Small phase 1 and phase 2 multi-center, open label studies of melflufen toxicity and efficacy in combination with dexamethasone showed significant benefits in overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. A report on these studies was published in Lancet Hematology.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

In phase 2, patients treated with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14/45 patients) and a clinical benefit rate of 49% (22/45 patients). In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (1/13 patients) and the clinical benefit rate was 23% (3/13 patients) before this aspect of the study was discontinued.

In terms of adverse events, among the 45 phase 2 combination–treatment patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were clinically manageable thrombocytopenia (62% of patients) and neutropenia (58%) In addition, 24 serious adverse events were reported in 38% patients, most commonly pneumonia (11%).

Because of the benefits seen and the need for relapsed/refractory MM treatments, further studies on melflufen in combination therapies are ongoing, according to the researchers “with encouraging early results to date”: NCT03151811, NCT02963493, and NCT03481556.

“Melflufen represents a novel treatment concept with a unique mechanism of action that might find future use in combinations with key partners, such as proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB. The authors received funding from a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. Lancet Hematol. 2020; doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30044-2.

Small phase 1 and phase 2 multi-center, open label studies of melflufen toxicity and efficacy in combination with dexamethasone showed significant benefits in overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. A report on these studies was published in Lancet Hematology.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

In phase 2, patients treated with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14/45 patients) and a clinical benefit rate of 49% (22/45 patients). In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (1/13 patients) and the clinical benefit rate was 23% (3/13 patients) before this aspect of the study was discontinued.

In terms of adverse events, among the 45 phase 2 combination–treatment patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were clinically manageable thrombocytopenia (62% of patients) and neutropenia (58%) In addition, 24 serious adverse events were reported in 38% patients, most commonly pneumonia (11%).

Because of the benefits seen and the need for relapsed/refractory MM treatments, further studies on melflufen in combination therapies are ongoing, according to the researchers “with encouraging early results to date”: NCT03151811, NCT02963493, and NCT03481556.

“Melflufen represents a novel treatment concept with a unique mechanism of action that might find future use in combinations with key partners, such as proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB. The authors received funding from a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. Lancet Hematol. 2020; doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30044-2.

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

Despite the perceived benefits of their use in guiding treatment, frailty indexes were not reliable in differentiating elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort of 40 patients studied at a single institution.

©AlexRaths/thinkstockphotos.com

The researchers examined three different models of frailty using data available in the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to define frailty in their cohort: the international myeloma working group (IMWG) frailty model, the revised myeloma comorbidity index (R-MCI), and the Carolina Frailty Index (CFI).

The researchers found that, for their same population, applying the IMWG frailty index yielded 3 (7.5%) patients categorized as fit, 15 (37.5%) categorized as intermediate fit, and 22 (55%) categorized as frail. The R-MCI yielded 4 (10%) patients categorized as fit, 29 (72.5%) as intermediate, and 7 (17.5%) as frail. When using the CFI, 17 (42.5%) patients were categorized as fit, 8 (20%) were intermediate, and 15 (37.5%) were frail. Of particular note, among 28 patients categorized as frail by at least one of the three indexes, only 3 (11%) patients were categorized as frail by all three models.

The reasons for the differences were discussed by the authors, who pointed out that patients categorized as frail by the IMWG or R-MCI tended to be older than those categorized as frail by CFI, reflecting the fact that the IMWG and R-MCI both include age as a component of frailty, while the CFI does not. In addition, each index incorporates comorbidities into its assessment of frailty in a different way.

For example, falls and depression are incorporated as components of the CFI, reflected in the higher proportion of patients reporting a prior fall and more symptoms of depression in the group categorized as frail by the CFI model than in the IMWG or R-MCI. In the CFI as well, each of the individual instrumental activities of daily living is a component of the model, rather than the summary score, as in the IMWG and R-MCI.

“Our findings highlight the differences in currently available approaches to applying the concept of frailty to older adults with cancer. This problem is not unique to oncology, as there is a continued lack of consensus on defining the concept of frailty in the general geriatric population,” the researchers stated. “Further studies are needed to establish the role of frailty indexes in predicting toxicity of therapy and other outcomes of importance in older adults with multiple myeloma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and other U.S. government agencies. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Isaacs A et al. J Geriat Onc. 2020;11(2):311-15.

Despite the perceived benefits of their use in guiding treatment, frailty indexes were not reliable in differentiating elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort of 40 patients studied at a single institution.

©AlexRaths/thinkstockphotos.com

The researchers examined three different models of frailty using data available in the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to define frailty in their cohort: the international myeloma working group (IMWG) frailty model, the revised myeloma comorbidity index (R-MCI), and the Carolina Frailty Index (CFI).

The researchers found that, for their same population, applying the IMWG frailty index yielded 3 (7.5%) patients categorized as fit, 15 (37.5%) categorized as intermediate fit, and 22 (55%) categorized as frail. The R-MCI yielded 4 (10%) patients categorized as fit, 29 (72.5%) as intermediate, and 7 (17.5%) as frail. When using the CFI, 17 (42.5%) patients were categorized as fit, 8 (20%) were intermediate, and 15 (37.5%) were frail. Of particular note, among 28 patients categorized as frail by at least one of the three indexes, only 3 (11%) patients were categorized as frail by all three models.

The reasons for the differences were discussed by the authors, who pointed out that patients categorized as frail by the IMWG or R-MCI tended to be older than those categorized as frail by CFI, reflecting the fact that the IMWG and R-MCI both include age as a component of frailty, while the CFI does not. In addition, each index incorporates comorbidities into its assessment of frailty in a different way.

For example, falls and depression are incorporated as components of the CFI, reflected in the higher proportion of patients reporting a prior fall and more symptoms of depression in the group categorized as frail by the CFI model than in the IMWG or R-MCI. In the CFI as well, each of the individual instrumental activities of daily living is a component of the model, rather than the summary score, as in the IMWG and R-MCI.

“Our findings highlight the differences in currently available approaches to applying the concept of frailty to older adults with cancer. This problem is not unique to oncology, as there is a continued lack of consensus on defining the concept of frailty in the general geriatric population,” the researchers stated. “Further studies are needed to establish the role of frailty indexes in predicting toxicity of therapy and other outcomes of importance in older adults with multiple myeloma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and other U.S. government agencies. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Isaacs A et al. J Geriat Onc. 2020;11(2):311-15.

Despite the perceived benefits of their use in guiding treatment, frailty indexes were not reliable in differentiating elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort of 40 patients studied at a single institution.

©AlexRaths/thinkstockphotos.com

The researchers examined three different models of frailty using data available in the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to define frailty in their cohort: the international myeloma working group (IMWG) frailty model, the revised myeloma comorbidity index (R-MCI), and the Carolina Frailty Index (CFI).

The researchers found that, for their same population, applying the IMWG frailty index yielded 3 (7.5%) patients categorized as fit, 15 (37.5%) categorized as intermediate fit, and 22 (55%) categorized as frail. The R-MCI yielded 4 (10%) patients categorized as fit, 29 (72.5%) as intermediate, and 7 (17.5%) as frail. When using the CFI, 17 (42.5%) patients were categorized as fit, 8 (20%) were intermediate, and 15 (37.5%) were frail. Of particular note, among 28 patients categorized as frail by at least one of the three indexes, only 3 (11%) patients were categorized as frail by all three models.

The reasons for the differences were discussed by the authors, who pointed out that patients categorized as frail by the IMWG or R-MCI tended to be older than those categorized as frail by CFI, reflecting the fact that the IMWG and R-MCI both include age as a component of frailty, while the CFI does not. In addition, each index incorporates comorbidities into its assessment of frailty in a different way.

For example, falls and depression are incorporated as components of the CFI, reflected in the higher proportion of patients reporting a prior fall and more symptoms of depression in the group categorized as frail by the CFI model than in the IMWG or R-MCI. In the CFI as well, each of the individual instrumental activities of daily living is a component of the model, rather than the summary score, as in the IMWG and R-MCI.

“Our findings highlight the differences in currently available approaches to applying the concept of frailty to older adults with cancer. This problem is not unique to oncology, as there is a continued lack of consensus on defining the concept of frailty in the general geriatric population,” the researchers stated. “Further studies are needed to establish the role of frailty indexes in predicting toxicity of therapy and other outcomes of importance in older adults with multiple myeloma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and other U.S. government agencies. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Isaacs A et al. J Geriat Onc. 2020;11(2):311-15.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.

“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”

In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.

The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.

Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.

To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.

“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”

If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.

Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.

“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.

“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”

Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”

It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.

“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.

Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.

“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.

In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.

“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.

In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.

“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.

Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”

In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.

While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.

“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.

Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.

Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.

To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.

“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”

Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.

“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.

“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”

In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.

The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.

Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.

To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.

“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”

If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.

Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.

“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.

“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”

Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”

It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.

“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.

Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.

“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.

In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.

“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.

In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.

“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.

Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”

In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.

While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.

“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.

Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.

Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.

To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.

“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”

Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.

“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.

“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”

In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.

The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.

Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.

To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.

“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”

If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.

Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.

“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.

“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”

Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”

It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.

“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.

Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.

“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.

In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.

“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.

In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.

“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.

Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”

In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.

While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.

“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.

Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.

Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.

To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.

“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”

Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.

“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a third of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) are over the age of 80, and yet most treatment successes have been reported in younger patients. However, patients over the age of 80 years received similar benefits as younger patients from MM treatment, according to a study reported online in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

Researchers identified 2,155 patients diagnosed with MM at age 80 years or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)–Medicare database from 2007 to 2013. A cohort of 2,933 similar patients diagnosed with myeloma at age 70-79 was used for comparison.

The researcher found that the number of patients receiving treatment for myeloma within 6 months of diagnosis was significantly lower in the 80 years and older group, compared with the 70-79 years group. Only 51% of patients in the 80 years and older cohort received systemic treatment within 6 months following diagnosis, compared with 71% of patients in the 70-79 years cohort received systemic treatment in the same timeframe (P < .001)

The analysis showed that treatment was associated with an overall 26% decrease in hazard for death, independent of age, race, gender, poverty, comorbidities, and proxy measures of performance status. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment benefit based on age cohort (P = .610).

The median overall survival for patients diagnosed at age 80 years or older was 13.4 months, with those patients receiving systemic treatment having a median overall survival of 21.4 months, compared with 6.4 months for those not receiving treatment. In comparison, patients between ages 70 and 79 years had a median overall survival of 30.1 months with treatment.

The population over 80, when myeloma incidence peaks, is projected to triple over the next few decades, according to the researchers. “Antimyeloma treatment in the era of novel therapies seems to have a similar improvement on survival for the oldest-old, those beyond 80 years, as other patients. With growing knowledge of and experience with novel agents in older patients with myeloma, treatment rates have increased, which have in turn improved survival,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported research funding from Janssen. The other authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fiala MA et al. J Geriatric Oncol. 2020 Mar 10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.03.005.

More than a third of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) are over the age of 80, and yet most treatment successes have been reported in younger patients. However, patients over the age of 80 years received similar benefits as younger patients from MM treatment, according to a study reported online in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

Researchers identified 2,155 patients diagnosed with MM at age 80 years or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)–Medicare database from 2007 to 2013. A cohort of 2,933 similar patients diagnosed with myeloma at age 70-79 was used for comparison.

The researcher found that the number of patients receiving treatment for myeloma within 6 months of diagnosis was significantly lower in the 80 years and older group, compared with the 70-79 years group. Only 51% of patients in the 80 years and older cohort received systemic treatment within 6 months following diagnosis, compared with 71% of patients in the 70-79 years cohort received systemic treatment in the same timeframe (P < .001)

The analysis showed that treatment was associated with an overall 26% decrease in hazard for death, independent of age, race, gender, poverty, comorbidities, and proxy measures of performance status. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment benefit based on age cohort (P = .610).

The median overall survival for patients diagnosed at age 80 years or older was 13.4 months, with those patients receiving systemic treatment having a median overall survival of 21.4 months, compared with 6.4 months for those not receiving treatment. In comparison, patients between ages 70 and 79 years had a median overall survival of 30.1 months with treatment.

The population over 80, when myeloma incidence peaks, is projected to triple over the next few decades, according to the researchers. “Antimyeloma treatment in the era of novel therapies seems to have a similar improvement on survival for the oldest-old, those beyond 80 years, as other patients. With growing knowledge of and experience with novel agents in older patients with myeloma, treatment rates have increased, which have in turn improved survival,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported research funding from Janssen. The other authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fiala MA et al. J Geriatric Oncol. 2020 Mar 10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.03.005.

More than a third of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) are over the age of 80, and yet most treatment successes have been reported in younger patients. However, patients over the age of 80 years received similar benefits as younger patients from MM treatment, according to a study reported online in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

Researchers identified 2,155 patients diagnosed with MM at age 80 years or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)–Medicare database from 2007 to 2013. A cohort of 2,933 similar patients diagnosed with myeloma at age 70-79 was used for comparison.

The researcher found that the number of patients receiving treatment for myeloma within 6 months of diagnosis was significantly lower in the 80 years and older group, compared with the 70-79 years group. Only 51% of patients in the 80 years and older cohort received systemic treatment within 6 months following diagnosis, compared with 71% of patients in the 70-79 years cohort received systemic treatment in the same timeframe (P < .001)

The analysis showed that treatment was associated with an overall 26% decrease in hazard for death, independent of age, race, gender, poverty, comorbidities, and proxy measures of performance status. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment benefit based on age cohort (P = .610).

The median overall survival for patients diagnosed at age 80 years or older was 13.4 months, with those patients receiving systemic treatment having a median overall survival of 21.4 months, compared with 6.4 months for those not receiving treatment. In comparison, patients between ages 70 and 79 years had a median overall survival of 30.1 months with treatment.

The population over 80, when myeloma incidence peaks, is projected to triple over the next few decades, according to the researchers. “Antimyeloma treatment in the era of novel therapies seems to have a similar improvement on survival for the oldest-old, those beyond 80 years, as other patients. With growing knowledge of and experience with novel agents in older patients with myeloma, treatment rates have increased, which have in turn improved survival,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported research funding from Janssen. The other authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fiala MA et al. J Geriatric Oncol. 2020 Mar 10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.03.005.