Multiple Myeloma

The annual issue of Cancer Data Trends, produced in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), highlights the latest research in some of the top cancers impacting US veterans. 

Click to view the Digital Edition.

In this issue: 

Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Special care for veterans, changes in staging, and biomarkers for early diagnosis

Lung Cancer
Guideline updates and racial disparities in veterans

Multiple Myeloma
Improving survival in the VA

Colorectal Cancer
Barriers to follow-up colonoscopies after FIT testing 

B-Cell Lymphomas
Findings from the VA's National TeleOncology Program and recent therapy updates

Breast Cancer
A look at the VA's Risk Assessment Pipeline and incidence among veterans vs the general population

Genitourinary Cancers
Molecular testing in prostate cancer, improving survival for metastatic RCC, and links between bladder cancer and Agent Orange exposure

The annual issue of Cancer Data Trends, produced in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), highlights the latest research in some of the top cancers impacting US veterans. 

Click to view the Digital Edition.

In this issue: 

Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Special care for veterans, changes in staging, and biomarkers for early diagnosis

Lung Cancer
Guideline updates and racial disparities in veterans

Multiple Myeloma
Improving survival in the VA

Colorectal Cancer
Barriers to follow-up colonoscopies after FIT testing 

B-Cell Lymphomas
Findings from the VA's National TeleOncology Program and recent therapy updates

Breast Cancer
A look at the VA's Risk Assessment Pipeline and incidence among veterans vs the general population

Genitourinary Cancers
Molecular testing in prostate cancer, improving survival for metastatic RCC, and links between bladder cancer and Agent Orange exposure

The annual issue of Cancer Data Trends, produced in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), highlights the latest research in some of the top cancers impacting US veterans. 

Click to view the Digital Edition.

In this issue: 

Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Special care for veterans, changes in staging, and biomarkers for early diagnosis

Lung Cancer
Guideline updates and racial disparities in veterans

Multiple Myeloma
Improving survival in the VA

Colorectal Cancer
Barriers to follow-up colonoscopies after FIT testing 

B-Cell Lymphomas
Findings from the VA's National TeleOncology Program and recent therapy updates

Breast Cancer
A look at the VA's Risk Assessment Pipeline and incidence among veterans vs the general population

Genitourinary Cancers
Molecular testing in prostate cancer, improving survival for metastatic RCC, and links between bladder cancer and Agent Orange exposure

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As an avid student of myeloma clinical trial history, I greatly appreciate the groundwork laid by past efforts. All that hard work has helped ease my journey as a junior hematologist with a focus on myeloma. Delving into old trials is not just an academic exercise; it provides pearls and insights that continue to shape our day-to-day approach to patient care.

Among those that intrigue me most are the pioneering “less is more” trials that challenged conventional practices and remain relevant today. One such trial was inspired by a patient’s dissatisfaction with high doses of dexamethasone and its side effects.

Dr. Mohyuddin

Unlike the prevailing norm of frequent high doses, this trial compared a steroid dose administered weekly (as opposed to doses given several days a week). Lo and behold, the lower steroid dosage was associated with significantly better survival rates. At 1-year follow-up, 96% of patients in the lower-dose group were alive, compared with 87% in the higher-dose group.

Another noteworthy “less-is more” trial that I love, spearheaded by an Italian team, also focused on steroid dosage. This trial investigated discontinuing dexamethasone after nine cycles, along with reducing the dose of lenalidomide, versus maintaining long-term treatment without reductions. The findings revealed comparable progression-free survival with reduced toxicity, highlighting the potential benefits of this less-is-more approach.

While these trials are inspirational, a closer examination of myeloma trial history, especially those that led to regulatory approvals, reveals a preponderance of “add-on” trials. You add a potentially effective drug to an existing backbone, and you get an improvement in an outcome such as response rate (shrinking cancer) or duration of remission or progression free survival (amount of time alive and in remission).

Such trials have led to an abundance of effective options. But these same trials have almost always been a comparison of three drugs versus two drugs, and almost never three drugs versus three. And the drugs are often given continuously, especially the “newer” added drug, without a break. As a result, we are left completely unsure of how to sequence our drugs, and whether a finite course of the new drug would be equivalent to administering that new drug forever.

This problem is not unique to myeloma. Yet it is very apparent in myeloma, because we have been lucky to have so many good drugs (or at least “potentially” good drugs) that make it to phase 3 trials.

Unfortunately, the landscape of clinical trials is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, with limited funding available from alternative sources. As a result, there is a scarcity of trials exploring “less is more” approaches, despite their potential to optimize treatment outcomes and quality of life. 

Even government-funded trials run by cooperative groups require industry buy-in or are run by people who have very close contacts and conflicts of interest with industry. We need so many more of these less-is-more trials, but we have limited means to fund them.

These are the kinds of discussions I have with my patients daily. We grapple with questions about the necessity of lifelong (or any) maintenance therapy or the feasibility of treatment breaks for patients with stable disease. While we strive to provide the best care possible, the lack of definitive data often leaves us making tough decisions in the clinic.

I am grateful to those who are working tirelessly to facilitate trials that prioritize quality of life and “less is more” approaches. Your efforts are invaluable. Looking forward, I aspire to contribute to this important work.

Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

As an avid student of myeloma clinical trial history, I greatly appreciate the groundwork laid by past efforts. All that hard work has helped ease my journey as a junior hematologist with a focus on myeloma. Delving into old trials is not just an academic exercise; it provides pearls and insights that continue to shape our day-to-day approach to patient care.

Among those that intrigue me most are the pioneering “less is more” trials that challenged conventional practices and remain relevant today. One such trial was inspired by a patient’s dissatisfaction with high doses of dexamethasone and its side effects.

Dr. Mohyuddin

Unlike the prevailing norm of frequent high doses, this trial compared a steroid dose administered weekly (as opposed to doses given several days a week). Lo and behold, the lower steroid dosage was associated with significantly better survival rates. At 1-year follow-up, 96% of patients in the lower-dose group were alive, compared with 87% in the higher-dose group.

Another noteworthy “less-is more” trial that I love, spearheaded by an Italian team, also focused on steroid dosage. This trial investigated discontinuing dexamethasone after nine cycles, along with reducing the dose of lenalidomide, versus maintaining long-term treatment without reductions. The findings revealed comparable progression-free survival with reduced toxicity, highlighting the potential benefits of this less-is-more approach.

While these trials are inspirational, a closer examination of myeloma trial history, especially those that led to regulatory approvals, reveals a preponderance of “add-on” trials. You add a potentially effective drug to an existing backbone, and you get an improvement in an outcome such as response rate (shrinking cancer) or duration of remission or progression free survival (amount of time alive and in remission).

Such trials have led to an abundance of effective options. But these same trials have almost always been a comparison of three drugs versus two drugs, and almost never three drugs versus three. And the drugs are often given continuously, especially the “newer” added drug, without a break. As a result, we are left completely unsure of how to sequence our drugs, and whether a finite course of the new drug would be equivalent to administering that new drug forever.

This problem is not unique to myeloma. Yet it is very apparent in myeloma, because we have been lucky to have so many good drugs (or at least “potentially” good drugs) that make it to phase 3 trials.

Unfortunately, the landscape of clinical trials is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, with limited funding available from alternative sources. As a result, there is a scarcity of trials exploring “less is more” approaches, despite their potential to optimize treatment outcomes and quality of life. 

Even government-funded trials run by cooperative groups require industry buy-in or are run by people who have very close contacts and conflicts of interest with industry. We need so many more of these less-is-more trials, but we have limited means to fund them.

These are the kinds of discussions I have with my patients daily. We grapple with questions about the necessity of lifelong (or any) maintenance therapy or the feasibility of treatment breaks for patients with stable disease. While we strive to provide the best care possible, the lack of definitive data often leaves us making tough decisions in the clinic.

I am grateful to those who are working tirelessly to facilitate trials that prioritize quality of life and “less is more” approaches. Your efforts are invaluable. Looking forward, I aspire to contribute to this important work.

Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

As an avid student of myeloma clinical trial history, I greatly appreciate the groundwork laid by past efforts. All that hard work has helped ease my journey as a junior hematologist with a focus on myeloma. Delving into old trials is not just an academic exercise; it provides pearls and insights that continue to shape our day-to-day approach to patient care.

Among those that intrigue me most are the pioneering “less is more” trials that challenged conventional practices and remain relevant today. One such trial was inspired by a patient’s dissatisfaction with high doses of dexamethasone and its side effects.

Dr. Mohyuddin

Unlike the prevailing norm of frequent high doses, this trial compared a steroid dose administered weekly (as opposed to doses given several days a week). Lo and behold, the lower steroid dosage was associated with significantly better survival rates. At 1-year follow-up, 96% of patients in the lower-dose group were alive, compared with 87% in the higher-dose group.

Another noteworthy “less-is more” trial that I love, spearheaded by an Italian team, also focused on steroid dosage. This trial investigated discontinuing dexamethasone after nine cycles, along with reducing the dose of lenalidomide, versus maintaining long-term treatment without reductions. The findings revealed comparable progression-free survival with reduced toxicity, highlighting the potential benefits of this less-is-more approach.

While these trials are inspirational, a closer examination of myeloma trial history, especially those that led to regulatory approvals, reveals a preponderance of “add-on” trials. You add a potentially effective drug to an existing backbone, and you get an improvement in an outcome such as response rate (shrinking cancer) or duration of remission or progression free survival (amount of time alive and in remission).

Such trials have led to an abundance of effective options. But these same trials have almost always been a comparison of three drugs versus two drugs, and almost never three drugs versus three. And the drugs are often given continuously, especially the “newer” added drug, without a break. As a result, we are left completely unsure of how to sequence our drugs, and whether a finite course of the new drug would be equivalent to administering that new drug forever.

This problem is not unique to myeloma. Yet it is very apparent in myeloma, because we have been lucky to have so many good drugs (or at least “potentially” good drugs) that make it to phase 3 trials.

Unfortunately, the landscape of clinical trials is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, with limited funding available from alternative sources. As a result, there is a scarcity of trials exploring “less is more” approaches, despite their potential to optimize treatment outcomes and quality of life. 

Even government-funded trials run by cooperative groups require industry buy-in or are run by people who have very close contacts and conflicts of interest with industry. We need so many more of these less-is-more trials, but we have limited means to fund them.

These are the kinds of discussions I have with my patients daily. We grapple with questions about the necessity of lifelong (or any) maintenance therapy or the feasibility of treatment breaks for patients with stable disease. While we strive to provide the best care possible, the lack of definitive data often leaves us making tough decisions in the clinic.

I am grateful to those who are working tirelessly to facilitate trials that prioritize quality of life and “less is more” approaches. Your efforts are invaluable. Looking forward, I aspire to contribute to this important work.

Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

A simple prediction model developed with US and European cohorts shows accuracy in identifying patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are or are not at high risk for relapsing after treatment with anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) therapy.

“To our knowledge, this large multicenter study is the first report to identify patients with RRMM at high risk of early relapse after CAR-T,” the authors report in the study, published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“We saw that early relapse within 5 months from infusion was significantly associated with very poor outcomes, and disease-, treatment-, and inflammation-specific variables were independent predictors of early relapse,” first author Nico Gagelmann, MD, of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, in Hamburg, Germany, explained in presenting the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association. CAR-T therapy has revolutionized the treatment of RRMM, with the idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) CAR-T therapies approved for the condition. However, the treatment is far from a cure, with nearly 50% of patients relapsing and having progression of disease within the first year after infusion, prompting a need to better understand the risk factors for who may or may not progress.

With a lack of a universal model to help with those predictions across products and populations, Dr. Gagelmann and colleagues conducted a retrospective observational study utilizing data from 136 patients at seven CAR-T centers in Europe and 133 patients at three centers in the US who had received either commercial or academically produced anti-BCMA CAR-T.

Of the patients, 171 were infused with ide-cel, 38 with cilta-cel, and 60 with an academic CAR-T therapy. The patients had a median age of 63, and extramedullary disease was more common in the US cohort (48%) versus European (35%; P = .04).

Notably, the response rates between the European and US cohorts were similar, despite various differences between the cohorts, including differences in ethnicities and a lower body mass index (BMI) in the European cohort versus US (BMI 25 vs 28, respectively; P < .001). There were also no significant differences in responses between the CAR-T treatments.

The overall response rate was 87% and was comparable between the European and US groups, with complete responses occurring among 48% of patients in Europe and 49% in the US group.

Their measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at any time was 29% and 37%, respectively, and rates of complete response at day 30 were 29% and 26%, respectively. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 40% for the entire cohort, with a rate of 45% in the European group and 34% in the US group (P = .09). Overall survival rates at 12 months were 79% and 65%, respectively (P = .11).

The patients had a median time to relapse of 5 months, and the 5-month incidence of relapse was identical, at 24% in each cohort.

Of those patients, overall survival at 12 months was low, at 30% in the European cohort and 14% in the US group.

“Early relapse within the first 5 months clearly identified patients with poor survival across the cohort,” Dr. Gagelmann said.

Key Risk Factors Identified

Key factors found after multivariate adjustment to be independently predictive of early relapse or progression included extramedullary disease or plasma cell leukemia, being refractory to lenalidomide, having high-risk cytogenetics, and having increased age- and sex-adjusted ferritin at the time of lymphodepletion.

With each of the risk factors valued at 1 point, the MyCARe model ranked scores of 0-1 points as low-risk, 2-3 as intermediate risk, and a score above 4 was considered high-risk.

Based on the model, the risk of early relapse within 5 months among those scored as low risk was 7%, for intermediate risk, 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 3.27 vs low-risk; P < .001), and for high risk, 53% (HR, 7.89 vs low-risk; P < .001), with outcomes overall comparable between the two geographic groups. Importantly, the model maintained utility for patients who did and did not receive salvage therapies; however, “more studies are needed to identify the optimal post–CAR-T approach,” the authors write.

Dr. Gagelmann added that older age was significantly associated with improved progression-free survival in the US cohort, with a 12-month progression-free survival of 27% among patients under 65 versus 43% for those over 65 (P = .03). However, age was not found to be associated with similar outcomes in the European cohort.

The authors note that the MyCARe model outperformed the CAR-HEMATOTOX and more recent disease-specific R2-ISS risk-stratification tools regarding prediction of relapse/progression and progression-free survival.

However, with CAR-HEMATOTOX developed to predict side effects and non-relapse mortality, “our results demonstrate that both scores independently predict different outcomes after anti–BCMA CAR-T in RRMM,” the authors report. Therefore, “they can be used complimentarily to predict complications (CAR-HEMATOTOX) and relapse/progression-free survival (MyCARe model).”

Importantly, the authors add that the tool may help in patient selection for earlier treatment.

“As ide-cel and cilta-cel have shown astonishing efficacy for earlier treatment lines, our model might also be validated for such patients,” the authors note in the study. They conclude that the study provides “the first Euro-American cartography of the efficacy and safety profile of current CAR-T, showing comparable results.”

“We also built the MyCARe model, which can predict early relapse, response, and survival and may facilitate patient selection in this very challenging setting,” the authors report.
 

Hope for Interventions Based on Patients’ Risk

Commenting on the study, Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, underscored that “we need more cross-border research like this in the myeloma field.”

“Clinically, my hope that this will help us tailor post–CAR-T interventions according to each patient’s risk profile,” he said.

Risk factors such as the presence of extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia, or high-risk cytogenetics are expected; however, Dr. Banerjee said the inclusion of increased ferritin before CAR-T was “an interesting new risk factor that we’ve also heard about from our colleagues in the lymphoma space.”

Ferritin perturbations can indicate many things, but high ferritin can be a sign of elevated inflammation at baseline,” he explained. “These patients may have a hyperinflammatory phenotype of their myeloma which can predispose T-cells to exhaustion,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“Exhausted T-cells at collection mean exhausted CAR T-cells at infusion, and so the negative prognostic significance of elevated ferritin — which we don’t always check before CAR-T — makes sense.”

While the authors suggest a potential benefit of the MyCAR3 model in identifying patients who could benefit from other novel therapies at relapse, Dr. Banerjee suggests another possibility. “I’d take this a step further and suggest future studies of this MyCARe model to identify patients who might benefit from post–CAR-T maintenance,” he said.

“The ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T in terms of not requiring further myeloma therapy after infusion is a powerful benefit for patients, but there are some patients who may benefit from low-dose pomalidomide or iberdomide/mezigdomide maintenance to help keep the myeloma at bay and to promote T-cell fitness,” Dr. Banerjee explained. “This risk model may identify patients to prioritize for such types of clinical trials in the future.”

Caveats include that factors beyond the baseline features (used for the risk model) can further influence outcomes,” Dr. Banerjee noted.

“Risk stratification is inherently a dynamic process over time,” he said, questioning, for instance, “what about patients who achieve measurable residual disease negativity [MRD] at day +28 after CAR-T cell? Does the achievement of MRD negativity ‘erase’ a high-risk MyCARe score? We’ll need future studies to tell.”

An overriding take-home message for clinicians should be to simply refer eligible patients to a CAR-T capable center as soon as possible for evaluation.

“In the lymphoma world, they have a nice adage for this: ‘If they recur, you should refer,’ ” he said. “I’d suggest the same here. By no means will we move to CAR-T therapy for every patient at first relapse. However, based on their MyCARe score and other risk factors, there may be patients we prioritize for CAR-T first versus CAR-T with maintenance versus clinical trials.”

Dr. Gagelmann reported relationships with BMS, Pfizer, Stemline, MorphoSys, and Kite. Dr. Banerjee disclosed ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

A simple prediction model developed with US and European cohorts shows accuracy in identifying patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are or are not at high risk for relapsing after treatment with anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) therapy.

“To our knowledge, this large multicenter study is the first report to identify patients with RRMM at high risk of early relapse after CAR-T,” the authors report in the study, published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“We saw that early relapse within 5 months from infusion was significantly associated with very poor outcomes, and disease-, treatment-, and inflammation-specific variables were independent predictors of early relapse,” first author Nico Gagelmann, MD, of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, in Hamburg, Germany, explained in presenting the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association. CAR-T therapy has revolutionized the treatment of RRMM, with the idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) CAR-T therapies approved for the condition. However, the treatment is far from a cure, with nearly 50% of patients relapsing and having progression of disease within the first year after infusion, prompting a need to better understand the risk factors for who may or may not progress.

With a lack of a universal model to help with those predictions across products and populations, Dr. Gagelmann and colleagues conducted a retrospective observational study utilizing data from 136 patients at seven CAR-T centers in Europe and 133 patients at three centers in the US who had received either commercial or academically produced anti-BCMA CAR-T.

Of the patients, 171 were infused with ide-cel, 38 with cilta-cel, and 60 with an academic CAR-T therapy. The patients had a median age of 63, and extramedullary disease was more common in the US cohort (48%) versus European (35%; P = .04).

Notably, the response rates between the European and US cohorts were similar, despite various differences between the cohorts, including differences in ethnicities and a lower body mass index (BMI) in the European cohort versus US (BMI 25 vs 28, respectively; P < .001). There were also no significant differences in responses between the CAR-T treatments.

The overall response rate was 87% and was comparable between the European and US groups, with complete responses occurring among 48% of patients in Europe and 49% in the US group.

Their measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at any time was 29% and 37%, respectively, and rates of complete response at day 30 were 29% and 26%, respectively. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 40% for the entire cohort, with a rate of 45% in the European group and 34% in the US group (P = .09). Overall survival rates at 12 months were 79% and 65%, respectively (P = .11).

The patients had a median time to relapse of 5 months, and the 5-month incidence of relapse was identical, at 24% in each cohort.

Of those patients, overall survival at 12 months was low, at 30% in the European cohort and 14% in the US group.

“Early relapse within the first 5 months clearly identified patients with poor survival across the cohort,” Dr. Gagelmann said.

Key Risk Factors Identified

Key factors found after multivariate adjustment to be independently predictive of early relapse or progression included extramedullary disease or plasma cell leukemia, being refractory to lenalidomide, having high-risk cytogenetics, and having increased age- and sex-adjusted ferritin at the time of lymphodepletion.

With each of the risk factors valued at 1 point, the MyCARe model ranked scores of 0-1 points as low-risk, 2-3 as intermediate risk, and a score above 4 was considered high-risk.

Based on the model, the risk of early relapse within 5 months among those scored as low risk was 7%, for intermediate risk, 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 3.27 vs low-risk; P < .001), and for high risk, 53% (HR, 7.89 vs low-risk; P < .001), with outcomes overall comparable between the two geographic groups. Importantly, the model maintained utility for patients who did and did not receive salvage therapies; however, “more studies are needed to identify the optimal post–CAR-T approach,” the authors write.

Dr. Gagelmann added that older age was significantly associated with improved progression-free survival in the US cohort, with a 12-month progression-free survival of 27% among patients under 65 versus 43% for those over 65 (P = .03). However, age was not found to be associated with similar outcomes in the European cohort.

The authors note that the MyCARe model outperformed the CAR-HEMATOTOX and more recent disease-specific R2-ISS risk-stratification tools regarding prediction of relapse/progression and progression-free survival.

However, with CAR-HEMATOTOX developed to predict side effects and non-relapse mortality, “our results demonstrate that both scores independently predict different outcomes after anti–BCMA CAR-T in RRMM,” the authors report. Therefore, “they can be used complimentarily to predict complications (CAR-HEMATOTOX) and relapse/progression-free survival (MyCARe model).”

Importantly, the authors add that the tool may help in patient selection for earlier treatment.

“As ide-cel and cilta-cel have shown astonishing efficacy for earlier treatment lines, our model might also be validated for such patients,” the authors note in the study. They conclude that the study provides “the first Euro-American cartography of the efficacy and safety profile of current CAR-T, showing comparable results.”

“We also built the MyCARe model, which can predict early relapse, response, and survival and may facilitate patient selection in this very challenging setting,” the authors report.
 

Hope for Interventions Based on Patients’ Risk

Commenting on the study, Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, underscored that “we need more cross-border research like this in the myeloma field.”

“Clinically, my hope that this will help us tailor post–CAR-T interventions according to each patient’s risk profile,” he said.

Risk factors such as the presence of extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia, or high-risk cytogenetics are expected; however, Dr. Banerjee said the inclusion of increased ferritin before CAR-T was “an interesting new risk factor that we’ve also heard about from our colleagues in the lymphoma space.”

Ferritin perturbations can indicate many things, but high ferritin can be a sign of elevated inflammation at baseline,” he explained. “These patients may have a hyperinflammatory phenotype of their myeloma which can predispose T-cells to exhaustion,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“Exhausted T-cells at collection mean exhausted CAR T-cells at infusion, and so the negative prognostic significance of elevated ferritin — which we don’t always check before CAR-T — makes sense.”

While the authors suggest a potential benefit of the MyCAR3 model in identifying patients who could benefit from other novel therapies at relapse, Dr. Banerjee suggests another possibility. “I’d take this a step further and suggest future studies of this MyCARe model to identify patients who might benefit from post–CAR-T maintenance,” he said.

“The ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T in terms of not requiring further myeloma therapy after infusion is a powerful benefit for patients, but there are some patients who may benefit from low-dose pomalidomide or iberdomide/mezigdomide maintenance to help keep the myeloma at bay and to promote T-cell fitness,” Dr. Banerjee explained. “This risk model may identify patients to prioritize for such types of clinical trials in the future.”

Caveats include that factors beyond the baseline features (used for the risk model) can further influence outcomes,” Dr. Banerjee noted.

“Risk stratification is inherently a dynamic process over time,” he said, questioning, for instance, “what about patients who achieve measurable residual disease negativity [MRD] at day +28 after CAR-T cell? Does the achievement of MRD negativity ‘erase’ a high-risk MyCARe score? We’ll need future studies to tell.”

An overriding take-home message for clinicians should be to simply refer eligible patients to a CAR-T capable center as soon as possible for evaluation.

“In the lymphoma world, they have a nice adage for this: ‘If they recur, you should refer,’ ” he said. “I’d suggest the same here. By no means will we move to CAR-T therapy for every patient at first relapse. However, based on their MyCARe score and other risk factors, there may be patients we prioritize for CAR-T first versus CAR-T with maintenance versus clinical trials.”

Dr. Gagelmann reported relationships with BMS, Pfizer, Stemline, MorphoSys, and Kite. Dr. Banerjee disclosed ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

A simple prediction model developed with US and European cohorts shows accuracy in identifying patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are or are not at high risk for relapsing after treatment with anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) therapy.

“To our knowledge, this large multicenter study is the first report to identify patients with RRMM at high risk of early relapse after CAR-T,” the authors report in the study, published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“We saw that early relapse within 5 months from infusion was significantly associated with very poor outcomes, and disease-, treatment-, and inflammation-specific variables were independent predictors of early relapse,” first author Nico Gagelmann, MD, of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, in Hamburg, Germany, explained in presenting the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association. CAR-T therapy has revolutionized the treatment of RRMM, with the idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) CAR-T therapies approved for the condition. However, the treatment is far from a cure, with nearly 50% of patients relapsing and having progression of disease within the first year after infusion, prompting a need to better understand the risk factors for who may or may not progress.

With a lack of a universal model to help with those predictions across products and populations, Dr. Gagelmann and colleagues conducted a retrospective observational study utilizing data from 136 patients at seven CAR-T centers in Europe and 133 patients at three centers in the US who had received either commercial or academically produced anti-BCMA CAR-T.

Of the patients, 171 were infused with ide-cel, 38 with cilta-cel, and 60 with an academic CAR-T therapy. The patients had a median age of 63, and extramedullary disease was more common in the US cohort (48%) versus European (35%; P = .04).

Notably, the response rates between the European and US cohorts were similar, despite various differences between the cohorts, including differences in ethnicities and a lower body mass index (BMI) in the European cohort versus US (BMI 25 vs 28, respectively; P < .001). There were also no significant differences in responses between the CAR-T treatments.

The overall response rate was 87% and was comparable between the European and US groups, with complete responses occurring among 48% of patients in Europe and 49% in the US group.

Their measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at any time was 29% and 37%, respectively, and rates of complete response at day 30 were 29% and 26%, respectively. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 40% for the entire cohort, with a rate of 45% in the European group and 34% in the US group (P = .09). Overall survival rates at 12 months were 79% and 65%, respectively (P = .11).

The patients had a median time to relapse of 5 months, and the 5-month incidence of relapse was identical, at 24% in each cohort.

Of those patients, overall survival at 12 months was low, at 30% in the European cohort and 14% in the US group.

“Early relapse within the first 5 months clearly identified patients with poor survival across the cohort,” Dr. Gagelmann said.

Key Risk Factors Identified

Key factors found after multivariate adjustment to be independently predictive of early relapse or progression included extramedullary disease or plasma cell leukemia, being refractory to lenalidomide, having high-risk cytogenetics, and having increased age- and sex-adjusted ferritin at the time of lymphodepletion.

With each of the risk factors valued at 1 point, the MyCARe model ranked scores of 0-1 points as low-risk, 2-3 as intermediate risk, and a score above 4 was considered high-risk.

Based on the model, the risk of early relapse within 5 months among those scored as low risk was 7%, for intermediate risk, 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 3.27 vs low-risk; P < .001), and for high risk, 53% (HR, 7.89 vs low-risk; P < .001), with outcomes overall comparable between the two geographic groups. Importantly, the model maintained utility for patients who did and did not receive salvage therapies; however, “more studies are needed to identify the optimal post–CAR-T approach,” the authors write.

Dr. Gagelmann added that older age was significantly associated with improved progression-free survival in the US cohort, with a 12-month progression-free survival of 27% among patients under 65 versus 43% for those over 65 (P = .03). However, age was not found to be associated with similar outcomes in the European cohort.

The authors note that the MyCARe model outperformed the CAR-HEMATOTOX and more recent disease-specific R2-ISS risk-stratification tools regarding prediction of relapse/progression and progression-free survival.

However, with CAR-HEMATOTOX developed to predict side effects and non-relapse mortality, “our results demonstrate that both scores independently predict different outcomes after anti–BCMA CAR-T in RRMM,” the authors report. Therefore, “they can be used complimentarily to predict complications (CAR-HEMATOTOX) and relapse/progression-free survival (MyCARe model).”

Importantly, the authors add that the tool may help in patient selection for earlier treatment.

“As ide-cel and cilta-cel have shown astonishing efficacy for earlier treatment lines, our model might also be validated for such patients,” the authors note in the study. They conclude that the study provides “the first Euro-American cartography of the efficacy and safety profile of current CAR-T, showing comparable results.”

“We also built the MyCARe model, which can predict early relapse, response, and survival and may facilitate patient selection in this very challenging setting,” the authors report.
 

Hope for Interventions Based on Patients’ Risk

Commenting on the study, Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, underscored that “we need more cross-border research like this in the myeloma field.”

“Clinically, my hope that this will help us tailor post–CAR-T interventions according to each patient’s risk profile,” he said.

Risk factors such as the presence of extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia, or high-risk cytogenetics are expected; however, Dr. Banerjee said the inclusion of increased ferritin before CAR-T was “an interesting new risk factor that we’ve also heard about from our colleagues in the lymphoma space.”

Ferritin perturbations can indicate many things, but high ferritin can be a sign of elevated inflammation at baseline,” he explained. “These patients may have a hyperinflammatory phenotype of their myeloma which can predispose T-cells to exhaustion,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“Exhausted T-cells at collection mean exhausted CAR T-cells at infusion, and so the negative prognostic significance of elevated ferritin — which we don’t always check before CAR-T — makes sense.”

While the authors suggest a potential benefit of the MyCAR3 model in identifying patients who could benefit from other novel therapies at relapse, Dr. Banerjee suggests another possibility. “I’d take this a step further and suggest future studies of this MyCARe model to identify patients who might benefit from post–CAR-T maintenance,” he said.

“The ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T in terms of not requiring further myeloma therapy after infusion is a powerful benefit for patients, but there are some patients who may benefit from low-dose pomalidomide or iberdomide/mezigdomide maintenance to help keep the myeloma at bay and to promote T-cell fitness,” Dr. Banerjee explained. “This risk model may identify patients to prioritize for such types of clinical trials in the future.”

Caveats include that factors beyond the baseline features (used for the risk model) can further influence outcomes,” Dr. Banerjee noted.

“Risk stratification is inherently a dynamic process over time,” he said, questioning, for instance, “what about patients who achieve measurable residual disease negativity [MRD] at day +28 after CAR-T cell? Does the achievement of MRD negativity ‘erase’ a high-risk MyCARe score? We’ll need future studies to tell.”

An overriding take-home message for clinicians should be to simply refer eligible patients to a CAR-T capable center as soon as possible for evaluation.

“In the lymphoma world, they have a nice adage for this: ‘If they recur, you should refer,’ ” he said. “I’d suggest the same here. By no means will we move to CAR-T therapy for every patient at first relapse. However, based on their MyCARe score and other risk factors, there may be patients we prioritize for CAR-T first versus CAR-T with maintenance versus clinical trials.”

Dr. Gagelmann reported relationships with BMS, Pfizer, Stemline, MorphoSys, and Kite. Dr. Banerjee disclosed ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Liza Simonsson

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Liza Simonsson

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Liza Simonsson

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.