Multiple Myeloma

Patients with multiple myeloma who did not respond to treatment with lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor had a significantly lower risk of progression or death when receiving elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone, compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.86; P = .008), according to results of a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine 2018 Nov 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805762.

Study results of ELOQUENT-3 were presented earlier this year at the Annual Congress of the European Hematology Association.

[email protected]

Patients with multiple myeloma who did not respond to treatment with lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor had a significantly lower risk of progression or death when receiving elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone, compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.86; P = .008), according to results of a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine 2018 Nov 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805762.

Study results of ELOQUENT-3 were presented earlier this year at the Annual Congress of the European Hematology Association.

[email protected]

Patients with multiple myeloma who did not respond to treatment with lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor had a significantly lower risk of progression or death when receiving elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone, compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.86; P = .008), according to results of a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine 2018 Nov 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805762.

Study results of ELOQUENT-3 were presented earlier this year at the Annual Congress of the European Hematology Association.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved elotuzumab (Empliciti) in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for adults with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is already approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat adult myeloma patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

The FDA’s latest approval of elotuzumab is based on results from ELOQUENT-3. This phase 2 trial enrolled multiple myeloma patients who had refractory or relapsed disease and had received both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In the trial, patients were randomized to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EPd, n = 60) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd, n = 57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53.3% in the EPd arm and 26.3% in the Pd arm (P = .0029); the rate of complete response or stringent complete response was 8.3% and 1.8%, respectively.


Median progression-free survival was 10.25 months with EPd and 4.67 months with Pd (P = .0078).

Serious adverse events occurred in 22% of patients in the EPd arm and 15% in the Pd arm. The most frequent serious adverse events were pneumonia and respiratory tract infection.

Additional results from ELOQUENT-3 can be found in the full prescribing information for elotuzumab, which is available on the Empliciti website.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are codeveloping elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved elotuzumab (Empliciti) in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for adults with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is already approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat adult myeloma patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

The FDA’s latest approval of elotuzumab is based on results from ELOQUENT-3. This phase 2 trial enrolled multiple myeloma patients who had refractory or relapsed disease and had received both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In the trial, patients were randomized to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EPd, n = 60) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd, n = 57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53.3% in the EPd arm and 26.3% in the Pd arm (P = .0029); the rate of complete response or stringent complete response was 8.3% and 1.8%, respectively.


Median progression-free survival was 10.25 months with EPd and 4.67 months with Pd (P = .0078).

Serious adverse events occurred in 22% of patients in the EPd arm and 15% in the Pd arm. The most frequent serious adverse events were pneumonia and respiratory tract infection.

Additional results from ELOQUENT-3 can be found in the full prescribing information for elotuzumab, which is available on the Empliciti website.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are codeveloping elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved elotuzumab (Empliciti) in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for adults with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is already approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat adult myeloma patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

The FDA’s latest approval of elotuzumab is based on results from ELOQUENT-3. This phase 2 trial enrolled multiple myeloma patients who had refractory or relapsed disease and had received both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In the trial, patients were randomized to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EPd, n = 60) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd, n = 57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53.3% in the EPd arm and 26.3% in the Pd arm (P = .0029); the rate of complete response or stringent complete response was 8.3% and 1.8%, respectively.


Median progression-free survival was 10.25 months with EPd and 4.67 months with Pd (P = .0078).

Serious adverse events occurred in 22% of patients in the EPd arm and 15% in the Pd arm. The most frequent serious adverse events were pneumonia and respiratory tract infection.

Additional results from ELOQUENT-3 can be found in the full prescribing information for elotuzumab, which is available on the Empliciti website.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are codeveloping elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

[email protected]

Bristol-Myers Squibb

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved elotuzumab (Empliciti®) in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone.

The combination is now approved for use in adults with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is also FDA-approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat adult MM patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

The FDA’s latest approval of elotuzumab is based on results from the phase 2 ELOQUENT-3 trial, which were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June.

ELOQUENT-3 enrolled MM patients who had refractory or relapsed and refractory MM and had received both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The patients were randomized to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EPd, n=60) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd, n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53.3% in the EPd arm and 26.3% in the Pd arm (P=0.0029). The rate of complete response or stringent complete response was 8.3% in the EPd arm and 1.8% in the Pd arm.

The median progression-free survival was 10.25 months with EPd and 4.67 months with Pd (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 22% of patients in the EPd arm and 15% in the Pd arm. The most frequent serious AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) were pneumonia (13% and 11%) and respiratory tract infection (7% and 3.6%).

AEs occurring in at least 10% of patients in the EPd arm and at least 5% of those in the Pd arm (respectively) included:

• Constipation (22% and 11%)
• Hyperglycemia (20% and 15%)
• Pneumonia (18% and 13%)
• Diarrhea (18% and 9%)
• Respiratory tract infection (17% and 9%)
• Bone pain (15% and 9%)
• Dyspnea (15% and 7%)
• Muscle spasms (13% and 5%)
• Peripheral edema (13% and 7%)
• Lymphopenia (10% and 1.8%).

Additional results from ELOQUENT-3 can be found in the full prescribing information for elotuzumab, which is available at www.empliciti.com.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are co-developing elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

Bristol-Myers Squibb

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved elotuzumab (Empliciti®) in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone.

The combination is now approved for use in adults with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is also FDA-approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat adult MM patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

The FDA’s latest approval of elotuzumab is based on results from the phase 2 ELOQUENT-3 trial, which were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June.

ELOQUENT-3 enrolled MM patients who had refractory or relapsed and refractory MM and had received both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The patients were randomized to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EPd, n=60) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd, n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53.3% in the EPd arm and 26.3% in the Pd arm (P=0.0029). The rate of complete response or stringent complete response was 8.3% in the EPd arm and 1.8% in the Pd arm.

The median progression-free survival was 10.25 months with EPd and 4.67 months with Pd (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 22% of patients in the EPd arm and 15% in the Pd arm. The most frequent serious AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) were pneumonia (13% and 11%) and respiratory tract infection (7% and 3.6%).

AEs occurring in at least 10% of patients in the EPd arm and at least 5% of those in the Pd arm (respectively) included:

• Constipation (22% and 11%)
• Hyperglycemia (20% and 15%)
• Pneumonia (18% and 13%)
• Diarrhea (18% and 9%)
• Respiratory tract infection (17% and 9%)
• Bone pain (15% and 9%)
• Dyspnea (15% and 7%)
• Muscle spasms (13% and 5%)
• Peripheral edema (13% and 7%)
• Lymphopenia (10% and 1.8%).

Additional results from ELOQUENT-3 can be found in the full prescribing information for elotuzumab, which is available at www.empliciti.com.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are co-developing elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

Bristol-Myers Squibb

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved elotuzumab (Empliciti®) in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone.

The combination is now approved for use in adults with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is also FDA-approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat adult MM patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

The FDA’s latest approval of elotuzumab is based on results from the phase 2 ELOQUENT-3 trial, which were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June.

ELOQUENT-3 enrolled MM patients who had refractory or relapsed and refractory MM and had received both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The patients were randomized to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EPd, n=60) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd, n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53.3% in the EPd arm and 26.3% in the Pd arm (P=0.0029). The rate of complete response or stringent complete response was 8.3% in the EPd arm and 1.8% in the Pd arm.

The median progression-free survival was 10.25 months with EPd and 4.67 months with Pd (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 22% of patients in the EPd arm and 15% in the Pd arm. The most frequent serious AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) were pneumonia (13% and 11%) and respiratory tract infection (7% and 3.6%).

AEs occurring in at least 10% of patients in the EPd arm and at least 5% of those in the Pd arm (respectively) included:

• Constipation (22% and 11%)
• Hyperglycemia (20% and 15%)
• Pneumonia (18% and 13%)
• Diarrhea (18% and 9%)
• Respiratory tract infection (17% and 9%)
• Bone pain (15% and 9%)
• Dyspnea (15% and 7%)
• Muscle spasms (13% and 5%)
• Peripheral edema (13% and 7%)
• Lymphopenia (10% and 1.8%).

Additional results from ELOQUENT-3 can be found in the full prescribing information for elotuzumab, which is available at www.empliciti.com.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are co-developing elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

In multiple myeloma patients who have no matched donor, haploidentical allogeneic transplantation is feasible and has an acceptable rate of non-relapse mortality in comparison to donor-based transplants, investigators have reported.

The rate of non-relapse mortality at one year was 21% in the retrospective analysis of 96 patients, recently reported in the journal Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Haploidentical allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) is currently limited in use due to a high rate of relapse, but may hold potential promise for future applications, according to Firoozeh Sahebi, MD, a hematologist with the City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues. “Our results demonstrate that haploidentical allo-HCT can be safely performed in appropriate patients with MM who lack on HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor.”

“The allo-HCT platform can be used in the context of other post-transplantation immune-based strategies, such as donor-derived chimeric antigen receptor T cells and natural killer cell infusions, newer immunomodulatory drugs or proteasome inhibitors, bispecific T cell engagers, and bispecific killer cell engagers, to further enhance antitumor effects and ultimately improve survival in an appropriate patient population,” Dr. Sahebi and colleagues said in their report.

The investigators reported results of a retrospective analysis including 96 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who had failed at least one previous autologous HCT. They underwent haploidentical allo-HCT at European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation/Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research centers between 2008 and 2016.

Median follow-up in the analysis was 24 months. Almost all patients (97%) achieved neutrophil engraftment by day 28, while 75% had recovery of platelets by day 60, Dr. Sahebi and co-investigators reported.

The 1-year nonrelapse mortality rate was 21%, but the cumulative risk of relapse and progression at 2 years was 56%, according to the study results. Two-year progression-free survival was reported to be 17%, while overall survival was 48%.

Acute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) of grades II-IV occurred in 39% by 100 days, while chronic GVHD was seen in 46% at 2 years, the report shows.

Factors linked to improved overall survival at 2 years included use of bone marrow as the source of stem cells, and the use of cyclophosphamide after transplantation, according to Dr. Sahebi and co-authors.

By contrast, factors that had no impact on overall survival, progression-free survival, or non-relapse mortality included disease status (ie, degree of response), gender, conditioning regimen intensity, presence of cytomegalovirus in the blood, or donor-recipient sex mismatch.

This analysis was conducted in part due to the limited availability of matched donors, along with the promising results of allo-HCT in other malignancies, according to investigators.

There were no conflicts of interest to report related to this research, Dr. Sahebi and colleagues reported in the journal.
 

SOURCE: Sahebi F, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Sep 20. pii: S1083-8791(18)30575-5.

In multiple myeloma patients who have no matched donor, haploidentical allogeneic transplantation is feasible and has an acceptable rate of non-relapse mortality in comparison to donor-based transplants, investigators have reported.

The rate of non-relapse mortality at one year was 21% in the retrospective analysis of 96 patients, recently reported in the journal Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Haploidentical allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) is currently limited in use due to a high rate of relapse, but may hold potential promise for future applications, according to Firoozeh Sahebi, MD, a hematologist with the City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues. “Our results demonstrate that haploidentical allo-HCT can be safely performed in appropriate patients with MM who lack on HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor.”

“The allo-HCT platform can be used in the context of other post-transplantation immune-based strategies, such as donor-derived chimeric antigen receptor T cells and natural killer cell infusions, newer immunomodulatory drugs or proteasome inhibitors, bispecific T cell engagers, and bispecific killer cell engagers, to further enhance antitumor effects and ultimately improve survival in an appropriate patient population,” Dr. Sahebi and colleagues said in their report.

The investigators reported results of a retrospective analysis including 96 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who had failed at least one previous autologous HCT. They underwent haploidentical allo-HCT at European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation/Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research centers between 2008 and 2016.

Median follow-up in the analysis was 24 months. Almost all patients (97%) achieved neutrophil engraftment by day 28, while 75% had recovery of platelets by day 60, Dr. Sahebi and co-investigators reported.

The 1-year nonrelapse mortality rate was 21%, but the cumulative risk of relapse and progression at 2 years was 56%, according to the study results. Two-year progression-free survival was reported to be 17%, while overall survival was 48%.

Acute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) of grades II-IV occurred in 39% by 100 days, while chronic GVHD was seen in 46% at 2 years, the report shows.

Factors linked to improved overall survival at 2 years included use of bone marrow as the source of stem cells, and the use of cyclophosphamide after transplantation, according to Dr. Sahebi and co-authors.

By contrast, factors that had no impact on overall survival, progression-free survival, or non-relapse mortality included disease status (ie, degree of response), gender, conditioning regimen intensity, presence of cytomegalovirus in the blood, or donor-recipient sex mismatch.

This analysis was conducted in part due to the limited availability of matched donors, along with the promising results of allo-HCT in other malignancies, according to investigators.

There were no conflicts of interest to report related to this research, Dr. Sahebi and colleagues reported in the journal.
 

SOURCE: Sahebi F, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Sep 20. pii: S1083-8791(18)30575-5.

In multiple myeloma patients who have no matched donor, haploidentical allogeneic transplantation is feasible and has an acceptable rate of non-relapse mortality in comparison to donor-based transplants, investigators have reported.

The rate of non-relapse mortality at one year was 21% in the retrospective analysis of 96 patients, recently reported in the journal Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Haploidentical allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) is currently limited in use due to a high rate of relapse, but may hold potential promise for future applications, according to Firoozeh Sahebi, MD, a hematologist with the City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues. “Our results demonstrate that haploidentical allo-HCT can be safely performed in appropriate patients with MM who lack on HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor.”

“The allo-HCT platform can be used in the context of other post-transplantation immune-based strategies, such as donor-derived chimeric antigen receptor T cells and natural killer cell infusions, newer immunomodulatory drugs or proteasome inhibitors, bispecific T cell engagers, and bispecific killer cell engagers, to further enhance antitumor effects and ultimately improve survival in an appropriate patient population,” Dr. Sahebi and colleagues said in their report.

The investigators reported results of a retrospective analysis including 96 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who had failed at least one previous autologous HCT. They underwent haploidentical allo-HCT at European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation/Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research centers between 2008 and 2016.

Median follow-up in the analysis was 24 months. Almost all patients (97%) achieved neutrophil engraftment by day 28, while 75% had recovery of platelets by day 60, Dr. Sahebi and co-investigators reported.

The 1-year nonrelapse mortality rate was 21%, but the cumulative risk of relapse and progression at 2 years was 56%, according to the study results. Two-year progression-free survival was reported to be 17%, while overall survival was 48%.

Acute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) of grades II-IV occurred in 39% by 100 days, while chronic GVHD was seen in 46% at 2 years, the report shows.

Factors linked to improved overall survival at 2 years included use of bone marrow as the source of stem cells, and the use of cyclophosphamide after transplantation, according to Dr. Sahebi and co-authors.

By contrast, factors that had no impact on overall survival, progression-free survival, or non-relapse mortality included disease status (ie, degree of response), gender, conditioning regimen intensity, presence of cytomegalovirus in the blood, or donor-recipient sex mismatch.

This analysis was conducted in part due to the limited availability of matched donors, along with the promising results of allo-HCT in other malignancies, according to investigators.

There were no conflicts of interest to report related to this research, Dr. Sahebi and colleagues reported in the journal.
 

SOURCE: Sahebi F, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Sep 20. pii: S1083-8791(18)30575-5.

Researchers say they may have determined why African Americans have a two- to threefold increased risk of multiple myeloma (MM), compared with European Americans.

Peter Anderson/ Pathology Education Informational Resource Digital Library/copyright University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pathology

The team genotyped 881 MM samples from various racial groups and identified three gene subtypes – t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) – that explain the racial disparity.

They found that patients with African ancestry of 80% or more had a significantly higher occurrence of these subtypes, compared with individuals with African ancestry of less than 0.1%.

And these subtypes are driving the disparity in MM diagnoses between the populations.

Previous attempts to explain the disparity relied on self-reported race rather than quantitatively measured genetic ancestry, which could result in bias, Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and his colleagues reported in Blood Cancer Journal.

“A major new aspect of this study is that we identified the ancestry of each patient through DNA sequencing, which allowed us to determine ancestry more accurately,” Dr. Rajkumar said in a statement.

All 881 samples had abnormal plasma cell FISH, 851 had a normal chromosome study, and 30 had an abnormal study.

Median age for the entire group was 64 years. More samples were from men (54.3%) than women (45.7%). Researchers observed no significant difference between men and women in the proportion of primary cytogenetic abnormalities.

Of the 881 samples, the median African ancestry was 2.3%, the median European ancestry was 64.7%, and Northern European ancestry was 26.6%.

Thirty percent of the entire cohort had less than 0.1% African ancestry, and 13.6% had 80% or greater African ancestry.

Using a logistic regression model, the researchers determined that a 10% increase in the percentage of African ancestry was associated with a 6% increase in the odds of detecting t(11;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11; P = .05).

The researchers plotted the probability of observing these cytogenetic abnormalities with the percentage of African ancestry and found the differences were most striking in the extreme populations – individuals with 80% or greater African ancestry and individuals with less than 0.1% African ancestry.

Upon further analysis, the team found a significantly higher prevalence of t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) in the group of patients with the greatest proportion of African ancestry (P = .008), compared with the European cohort.

The differences emerged in only the highest and lowest cohorts, they noted. Most patients (60%) were not included in these extreme populations because they had mixed ancestry.

The team observed no significant differences when the cutoff for African ancestry was greater than 50%.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic. One study author reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Janssen, Pfizer, Alnylam, and GSK. Two authors reported relationships with the DNA Diagnostics Center.

SOURCE: Baughn LB et al. Blood Cancer J. 2018 Oct 10;8(10):96.

Researchers say they may have determined why African Americans have a two- to threefold increased risk of multiple myeloma (MM), compared with European Americans.

Peter Anderson/ Pathology Education Informational Resource Digital Library/copyright University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pathology

The team genotyped 881 MM samples from various racial groups and identified three gene subtypes – t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) – that explain the racial disparity.

They found that patients with African ancestry of 80% or more had a significantly higher occurrence of these subtypes, compared with individuals with African ancestry of less than 0.1%.

And these subtypes are driving the disparity in MM diagnoses between the populations.

Previous attempts to explain the disparity relied on self-reported race rather than quantitatively measured genetic ancestry, which could result in bias, Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and his colleagues reported in Blood Cancer Journal.

“A major new aspect of this study is that we identified the ancestry of each patient through DNA sequencing, which allowed us to determine ancestry more accurately,” Dr. Rajkumar said in a statement.

All 881 samples had abnormal plasma cell FISH, 851 had a normal chromosome study, and 30 had an abnormal study.

Median age for the entire group was 64 years. More samples were from men (54.3%) than women (45.7%). Researchers observed no significant difference between men and women in the proportion of primary cytogenetic abnormalities.

Of the 881 samples, the median African ancestry was 2.3%, the median European ancestry was 64.7%, and Northern European ancestry was 26.6%.

Thirty percent of the entire cohort had less than 0.1% African ancestry, and 13.6% had 80% or greater African ancestry.

Using a logistic regression model, the researchers determined that a 10% increase in the percentage of African ancestry was associated with a 6% increase in the odds of detecting t(11;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11; P = .05).

The researchers plotted the probability of observing these cytogenetic abnormalities with the percentage of African ancestry and found the differences were most striking in the extreme populations – individuals with 80% or greater African ancestry and individuals with less than 0.1% African ancestry.

Upon further analysis, the team found a significantly higher prevalence of t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) in the group of patients with the greatest proportion of African ancestry (P = .008), compared with the European cohort.

The differences emerged in only the highest and lowest cohorts, they noted. Most patients (60%) were not included in these extreme populations because they had mixed ancestry.

The team observed no significant differences when the cutoff for African ancestry was greater than 50%.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic. One study author reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Janssen, Pfizer, Alnylam, and GSK. Two authors reported relationships with the DNA Diagnostics Center.

SOURCE: Baughn LB et al. Blood Cancer J. 2018 Oct 10;8(10):96.

Researchers say they may have determined why African Americans have a two- to threefold increased risk of multiple myeloma (MM), compared with European Americans.

Peter Anderson/ Pathology Education Informational Resource Digital Library/copyright University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pathology

The team genotyped 881 MM samples from various racial groups and identified three gene subtypes – t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) – that explain the racial disparity.

They found that patients with African ancestry of 80% or more had a significantly higher occurrence of these subtypes, compared with individuals with African ancestry of less than 0.1%.

And these subtypes are driving the disparity in MM diagnoses between the populations.

Previous attempts to explain the disparity relied on self-reported race rather than quantitatively measured genetic ancestry, which could result in bias, Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and his colleagues reported in Blood Cancer Journal.

“A major new aspect of this study is that we identified the ancestry of each patient through DNA sequencing, which allowed us to determine ancestry more accurately,” Dr. Rajkumar said in a statement.

All 881 samples had abnormal plasma cell FISH, 851 had a normal chromosome study, and 30 had an abnormal study.

Median age for the entire group was 64 years. More samples were from men (54.3%) than women (45.7%). Researchers observed no significant difference between men and women in the proportion of primary cytogenetic abnormalities.

Of the 881 samples, the median African ancestry was 2.3%, the median European ancestry was 64.7%, and Northern European ancestry was 26.6%.

Thirty percent of the entire cohort had less than 0.1% African ancestry, and 13.6% had 80% or greater African ancestry.

Using a logistic regression model, the researchers determined that a 10% increase in the percentage of African ancestry was associated with a 6% increase in the odds of detecting t(11;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11; P = .05).

The researchers plotted the probability of observing these cytogenetic abnormalities with the percentage of African ancestry and found the differences were most striking in the extreme populations – individuals with 80% or greater African ancestry and individuals with less than 0.1% African ancestry.

Upon further analysis, the team found a significantly higher prevalence of t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) in the group of patients with the greatest proportion of African ancestry (P = .008), compared with the European cohort.

The differences emerged in only the highest and lowest cohorts, they noted. Most patients (60%) were not included in these extreme populations because they had mixed ancestry.

The team observed no significant differences when the cutoff for African ancestry was greater than 50%.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic. One study author reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Janssen, Pfizer, Alnylam, and GSK. Two authors reported relationships with the DNA Diagnostics Center.

SOURCE: Baughn LB et al. Blood Cancer J. 2018 Oct 10;8(10):96.

Photo from Pexels

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Photo from Pexels

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Photo from Pexels

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Researchers say they may have determined why African Americans have a two- to three-fold increased risk of multiple myeloma (MM) compared to European Americans.

The team genotyped 881 MM samples from various racial groups and identified three gene subtypes—t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20)—that explain the racial disparity.

They found that patients with African ancestry of 80% or more had a significantly higher occurrence of these subtypes compared to individuals with African ancestry less than 0.1%.

And these subtypes are driving the disparity in MM diagnoses between the populations.

The researchers state that previous attempts to explain the disparity relied on self-reported race rather than quantitatively measured genetic ancestry, which could result in bias.

“A major new aspect of this study is that we identified the ancestry of each patient through DNA sequencing, which allowed us to determine ancestry more accurately,” said study author Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

He and his colleagues reported their findings in Blood Cancer Journal.

All 881 samples had abnormal plasma cell FISH, 851 had a normal chromosome study, and 30 had an abnormal study.

Median age for the entire group was 64 (range, 26–90), with 35.4% in the 60–69 age category. More samples were from men (n=478, 54.3%) than women (n=403, 45.7%).

Researchers observed no significant difference between men and women in the proportion of primary cytogenetic abnormalities.

Of the 881 samples, the median African ancestry was 2.3%, the median European ancestry was 64.7%, and Northern European ancestry was 26.6%.

Thirty percent of the entire cohort had less than 0.1% African ancestry, and 13.6% had 80% or greater African ancestry.

Using a logistic regression model, the researchers determined that a 10% increase in the percentage of African ancestry was associated with a 6% increase in the odds of detecting t(11;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) (odds ratio=1.06, 95% CI: 1.02–1.11; P=0.05).

The researchers plotted the probability of observing these cytogenetic abnormalities with the percentage of African ancestry and found the differences were most striking in the extreme populations—individuals with ≥80.0% African ancestry and individuals with <0.1% African ancestry.

Upon further analysis, the team found a significantly higher prevalence of t(11;14), t(14;16),  and t(14;20) in the group of patients with the greatest proportion of African ancestry (P=0.008) compared to the European cohort.

The researchers said the differences only emerged in the highest (n=120 individuals) and lowest (n=235 individuals) cohorts. Most patients (n=526, 60%) were not included in these extreme populations because they had mixed ancestry.

The team observed no significant differences when the cutoff of African ancestry was greater than 50%.

“Our findings provide important information that will help us determine the mechanism by which myeloma is more common in African Americans, as well as help us in our quest to find out what causes myeloma in the first place,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and Center for Individualized Medicine. One study author reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Janssen, Pfizer, Alnylam, and GSK. Two authors reported relationships with the DNA Diagnostics Center.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Researchers say they may have determined why African Americans have a two- to three-fold increased risk of multiple myeloma (MM) compared to European Americans.

The team genotyped 881 MM samples from various racial groups and identified three gene subtypes—t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20)—that explain the racial disparity.

They found that patients with African ancestry of 80% or more had a significantly higher occurrence of these subtypes compared to individuals with African ancestry less than 0.1%.

And these subtypes are driving the disparity in MM diagnoses between the populations.

The researchers state that previous attempts to explain the disparity relied on self-reported race rather than quantitatively measured genetic ancestry, which could result in bias.

“A major new aspect of this study is that we identified the ancestry of each patient through DNA sequencing, which allowed us to determine ancestry more accurately,” said study author Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

He and his colleagues reported their findings in Blood Cancer Journal.

All 881 samples had abnormal plasma cell FISH, 851 had a normal chromosome study, and 30 had an abnormal study.

Median age for the entire group was 64 (range, 26–90), with 35.4% in the 60–69 age category. More samples were from men (n=478, 54.3%) than women (n=403, 45.7%).

Researchers observed no significant difference between men and women in the proportion of primary cytogenetic abnormalities.

Of the 881 samples, the median African ancestry was 2.3%, the median European ancestry was 64.7%, and Northern European ancestry was 26.6%.

Thirty percent of the entire cohort had less than 0.1% African ancestry, and 13.6% had 80% or greater African ancestry.

Using a logistic regression model, the researchers determined that a 10% increase in the percentage of African ancestry was associated with a 6% increase in the odds of detecting t(11;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) (odds ratio=1.06, 95% CI: 1.02–1.11; P=0.05).

The researchers plotted the probability of observing these cytogenetic abnormalities with the percentage of African ancestry and found the differences were most striking in the extreme populations—individuals with ≥80.0% African ancestry and individuals with <0.1% African ancestry.

Upon further analysis, the team found a significantly higher prevalence of t(11;14), t(14;16),  and t(14;20) in the group of patients with the greatest proportion of African ancestry (P=0.008) compared to the European cohort.

The researchers said the differences only emerged in the highest (n=120 individuals) and lowest (n=235 individuals) cohorts. Most patients (n=526, 60%) were not included in these extreme populations because they had mixed ancestry.

The team observed no significant differences when the cutoff of African ancestry was greater than 50%.

“Our findings provide important information that will help us determine the mechanism by which myeloma is more common in African Americans, as well as help us in our quest to find out what causes myeloma in the first place,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and Center for Individualized Medicine. One study author reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Janssen, Pfizer, Alnylam, and GSK. Two authors reported relationships with the DNA Diagnostics Center.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Researchers say they may have determined why African Americans have a two- to three-fold increased risk of multiple myeloma (MM) compared to European Americans.

The team genotyped 881 MM samples from various racial groups and identified three gene subtypes—t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20)—that explain the racial disparity.

They found that patients with African ancestry of 80% or more had a significantly higher occurrence of these subtypes compared to individuals with African ancestry less than 0.1%.

And these subtypes are driving the disparity in MM diagnoses between the populations.

The researchers state that previous attempts to explain the disparity relied on self-reported race rather than quantitatively measured genetic ancestry, which could result in bias.

“A major new aspect of this study is that we identified the ancestry of each patient through DNA sequencing, which allowed us to determine ancestry more accurately,” said study author Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

He and his colleagues reported their findings in Blood Cancer Journal.

All 881 samples had abnormal plasma cell FISH, 851 had a normal chromosome study, and 30 had an abnormal study.

Median age for the entire group was 64 (range, 26–90), with 35.4% in the 60–69 age category. More samples were from men (n=478, 54.3%) than women (n=403, 45.7%).

Researchers observed no significant difference between men and women in the proportion of primary cytogenetic abnormalities.

Of the 881 samples, the median African ancestry was 2.3%, the median European ancestry was 64.7%, and Northern European ancestry was 26.6%.

Thirty percent of the entire cohort had less than 0.1% African ancestry, and 13.6% had 80% or greater African ancestry.

Using a logistic regression model, the researchers determined that a 10% increase in the percentage of African ancestry was associated with a 6% increase in the odds of detecting t(11;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) (odds ratio=1.06, 95% CI: 1.02–1.11; P=0.05).

The researchers plotted the probability of observing these cytogenetic abnormalities with the percentage of African ancestry and found the differences were most striking in the extreme populations—individuals with ≥80.0% African ancestry and individuals with <0.1% African ancestry.

Upon further analysis, the team found a significantly higher prevalence of t(11;14), t(14;16),  and t(14;20) in the group of patients with the greatest proportion of African ancestry (P=0.008) compared to the European cohort.

The researchers said the differences only emerged in the highest (n=120 individuals) and lowest (n=235 individuals) cohorts. Most patients (n=526, 60%) were not included in these extreme populations because they had mixed ancestry.

The team observed no significant differences when the cutoff of African ancestry was greater than 50%.

“Our findings provide important information that will help us determine the mechanism by which myeloma is more common in African Americans, as well as help us in our quest to find out what causes myeloma in the first place,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and Center for Individualized Medicine. One study author reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Janssen, Pfizer, Alnylam, and GSK. Two authors reported relationships with the DNA Diagnostics Center.

Photo by Esther Dyson

Cancer treatments that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) may not improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL), researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQOL in an analysis of cancer clinical trials.

“There are only two reasons to use progression-free survival as a valid endpoint in oncology,” said study author Feng Xie, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

“One is that it is a valid surrogate marker for overall survival. The second is the assumption that patients who live longer without disease progression will have better health-related quality of life, even without longer survival.”

“Given the increased use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome in new oncology drug trials, and uncertainty of overall survival, it remains possible that patients are receiving toxic and/or expensive treatments without experiencing important benefit.”

With this in mind, Dr. Xie and his colleagues conducted a review and meta-analysis of 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials. The trials included 13,979 patients with 12 types of cancer, including 1 trial of patients with multiple myeloma.

The median follow-up in these trials ranged from 10.5 months to 66.0 months.

The median PFS of patients who received the trial interventions ranged from 1.8 months to 33.7 months.

For 28 of the trials (74%), patients who received the trial intervention had better PFS than patients who received the comparator. Overall, the mean difference in median PFS between the intervention and comparator arms was 1.91 months.

HRQOL was measured with 6 different instruments* across the trials, and the types of HRQOL measured varied. Thirty trials included global HRQOL, 20 included physical, and 13 included emotional HRQOL. The duration of reported or measured HRQOL ranged from 1 month to 34 months.

Improved global HRQOL was reported in 53% of trials (16/30), improved physical HRQOL was reported in 55% (11/20), and improved emotional HRQOL was reported in 62% (8/13). The mean difference in change of HRQOL adjusted to per-month values was −0.39 for global, 0.26 for physical, and 1.08 for emotional HRQOL.

The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in HRQOL change was:

• 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.27 to 0.52) for global HRQOL
• −0.20 (95% CI,−0.62 to 0.23) for physical HRQOL
• 0.78 (95% CI, −0.05 to 1.60) for emotional HRQOL.

Dr. Xie and his colleagues said these results suggest there is no significant association between PFS and HRQOL, so interventions prolonging PFS may not improve HRQOL.

“Therefore, to ensure patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure health-related quality of life directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up, and publish it,” Dr. Xie said.

He also argued for the need to “revisit this issue of using surrogate outcomes to measure the safety and efficacy of new oncology drugs.”

Dr. Xie and his colleagues did not report any conflicts of interest. One study author (Marcin Waligora, PhD) reported funding from the National Science Centre in Poland.

*EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACT-G19, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, EQ-5D, 8-item linear analog self-assessment (LASA) questionnaire, and clinician-reported Karnofsky score

Photo by Esther Dyson

Cancer treatments that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) may not improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL), researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQOL in an analysis of cancer clinical trials.

“There are only two reasons to use progression-free survival as a valid endpoint in oncology,” said study author Feng Xie, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

“One is that it is a valid surrogate marker for overall survival. The second is the assumption that patients who live longer without disease progression will have better health-related quality of life, even without longer survival.”

“Given the increased use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome in new oncology drug trials, and uncertainty of overall survival, it remains possible that patients are receiving toxic and/or expensive treatments without experiencing important benefit.”

With this in mind, Dr. Xie and his colleagues conducted a review and meta-analysis of 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials. The trials included 13,979 patients with 12 types of cancer, including 1 trial of patients with multiple myeloma.

The median follow-up in these trials ranged from 10.5 months to 66.0 months.

The median PFS of patients who received the trial interventions ranged from 1.8 months to 33.7 months.

For 28 of the trials (74%), patients who received the trial intervention had better PFS than patients who received the comparator. Overall, the mean difference in median PFS between the intervention and comparator arms was 1.91 months.

HRQOL was measured with 6 different instruments* across the trials, and the types of HRQOL measured varied. Thirty trials included global HRQOL, 20 included physical, and 13 included emotional HRQOL. The duration of reported or measured HRQOL ranged from 1 month to 34 months.

Improved global HRQOL was reported in 53% of trials (16/30), improved physical HRQOL was reported in 55% (11/20), and improved emotional HRQOL was reported in 62% (8/13). The mean difference in change of HRQOL adjusted to per-month values was −0.39 for global, 0.26 for physical, and 1.08 for emotional HRQOL.

The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in HRQOL change was:

• 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.27 to 0.52) for global HRQOL
• −0.20 (95% CI,−0.62 to 0.23) for physical HRQOL
• 0.78 (95% CI, −0.05 to 1.60) for emotional HRQOL.

Dr. Xie and his colleagues said these results suggest there is no significant association between PFS and HRQOL, so interventions prolonging PFS may not improve HRQOL.

“Therefore, to ensure patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure health-related quality of life directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up, and publish it,” Dr. Xie said.

He also argued for the need to “revisit this issue of using surrogate outcomes to measure the safety and efficacy of new oncology drugs.”

Dr. Xie and his colleagues did not report any conflicts of interest. One study author (Marcin Waligora, PhD) reported funding from the National Science Centre in Poland.

*EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACT-G19, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, EQ-5D, 8-item linear analog self-assessment (LASA) questionnaire, and clinician-reported Karnofsky score

Photo by Esther Dyson

Cancer treatments that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) may not improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL), researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQOL in an analysis of cancer clinical trials.

“There are only two reasons to use progression-free survival as a valid endpoint in oncology,” said study author Feng Xie, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

“One is that it is a valid surrogate marker for overall survival. The second is the assumption that patients who live longer without disease progression will have better health-related quality of life, even without longer survival.”

“Given the increased use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome in new oncology drug trials, and uncertainty of overall survival, it remains possible that patients are receiving toxic and/or expensive treatments without experiencing important benefit.”

With this in mind, Dr. Xie and his colleagues conducted a review and meta-analysis of 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials. The trials included 13,979 patients with 12 types of cancer, including 1 trial of patients with multiple myeloma.

The median follow-up in these trials ranged from 10.5 months to 66.0 months.

The median PFS of patients who received the trial interventions ranged from 1.8 months to 33.7 months.

For 28 of the trials (74%), patients who received the trial intervention had better PFS than patients who received the comparator. Overall, the mean difference in median PFS between the intervention and comparator arms was 1.91 months.

HRQOL was measured with 6 different instruments* across the trials, and the types of HRQOL measured varied. Thirty trials included global HRQOL, 20 included physical, and 13 included emotional HRQOL. The duration of reported or measured HRQOL ranged from 1 month to 34 months.

Improved global HRQOL was reported in 53% of trials (16/30), improved physical HRQOL was reported in 55% (11/20), and improved emotional HRQOL was reported in 62% (8/13). The mean difference in change of HRQOL adjusted to per-month values was −0.39 for global, 0.26 for physical, and 1.08 for emotional HRQOL.

The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in HRQOL change was:

• 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.27 to 0.52) for global HRQOL
• −0.20 (95% CI,−0.62 to 0.23) for physical HRQOL
• 0.78 (95% CI, −0.05 to 1.60) for emotional HRQOL.

Dr. Xie and his colleagues said these results suggest there is no significant association between PFS and HRQOL, so interventions prolonging PFS may not improve HRQOL.

“Therefore, to ensure patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure health-related quality of life directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up, and publish it,” Dr. Xie said.

He also argued for the need to “revisit this issue of using surrogate outcomes to measure the safety and efficacy of new oncology drugs.”

Dr. Xie and his colleagues did not report any conflicts of interest. One study author (Marcin Waligora, PhD) reported funding from the National Science Centre in Poland.

*EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACT-G19, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, EQ-5D, 8-item linear analog self-assessment (LASA) questionnaire, and clinician-reported Karnofsky score

The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease assessment in clinical trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA said it developed the document to assist drug sponsors who are planning to use minimal residual disease (MRD) as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials – specifically as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker, according to the draft guidance. Additionally, MRD could be used as a surrogate endpoint or “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population.”

The draft guidance also provides specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, acute promyelocytic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, and multiple myeloma.

The full document is available on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease assessment in clinical trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA said it developed the document to assist drug sponsors who are planning to use minimal residual disease (MRD) as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials – specifically as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker, according to the draft guidance. Additionally, MRD could be used as a surrogate endpoint or “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population.”

The draft guidance also provides specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, acute promyelocytic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, and multiple myeloma.

The full document is available on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease assessment in clinical trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA said it developed the document to assist drug sponsors who are planning to use minimal residual disease (MRD) as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials – specifically as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker, according to the draft guidance. Additionally, MRD could be used as a surrogate endpoint or “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population.”

The draft guidance also provides specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, acute promyelocytic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, and multiple myeloma.

The full document is available on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.