Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Individuals working near intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), may be at higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) according to a preprint analysis conducted on missileers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. The study, which has not undergone peer review, found higher rates of NHL diagnosis at younger ages compared with the general population. The study also found a statistically significant increase in NHL diagnoses among older missileers, with such rates surpassing expected benchmarks.

The findings build on anecdotal and evidentiary data gathered in the last 50-plus years, including from the Torchlight Initiative, established in 2023 to collect self-reported cancer diagnoses and related fatalities from personnel and family members associated with the ICBM community. 

The report shows patterns that “warranted a detailed statistical analysis,” leading to a granular examination of the registry and categorization of the data by cancer type, geographical location, and specific demographics. This narrowed the focus to 18 missileers who served at Malmstrom and were diagnosed with NHL.

In 2001, the Air Force Institute for Operational Health did a site evaluation and sampled for potential chemical and biological contaminants at Malmstrom following various reports of cancers from missileers, including 2 who died after being diagnosed with NHL. In a 2005 review, the Air Force said, “there is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” 

In 2022, Lt. Col. Daniel Sebeck, a vice commander of Space Delta 8 in Colorado who served at Malmstrom and a close friend and fellow missileer were diagnosed with NHL. Sebeck discovered 36 cancer cases among missileers who had been stationed at Malmstrom. Ten developed NHL, 2 developed Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 developed another form of cancer. The Air Force has acknowledged the concerns. 

In 2023, US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) approved the Missile Community Cancer Study (MCCS) to assess “specific cancer concerns raised by missile community members across related career fields and also examines the possibility of clusters of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at intercontinental ballistic missile bases.” The study compares 14 common cancers in the general population with that of missile-related career fields. The USAFSAM is reviewing records from former and current Missile Community members on active duty from 1976-2010, as well as state and national cancer data from multiple registries.

Early results from the MCCS suggested elevated rates of some cancers—mainly breast and prostate cancer—among missileers, maintainers, and other ICMB-related job positions, which aligns with other national cancer data.

At a June 2024 AFGSC town hall, officials announced that missileers would now have their information submitted to the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS), a Pentagon database for reporting occupational and exposure hazards.

"This info from DOEHRS flows into the recently developed Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record, a system that compiles occupational and environmental health data throughout a person's career," Lt. Col. John Severns, a spokesperson for Air Force Global Strike Command, said. DOEHRS, which has tracked Air Force records since 2010, allows US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs clinical staff to access the information.

MCCS considers potential PCB exposures an occupational hazard. The Air Force says researchers are working with the System Program Offices and leadership to determine the timeframe of PCB removal from bases.

The lack of incontrovertible evidence connecting workplace toxins to NHL has often stymied patients and their family members from receiving appropriate benefits. An “informal talk” in April led by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) focused on exposures to hazardous materials at US military bases. Participants included various advocacy groups like the Torchlight Initiative, the Invisible Enemy, and Burn Pits 360.

More than a dozen veterans spoke about serving at military bases where they were exposed to a variety of harmful substances, and issues they faced in receiving coverage. David Crete, a veteran and chairman of The Invisible Enemy, said, “I am asking Congress to please allow us to get the benefits every other veteran earned. We are not asking to be special but to be treated equal.”

Rep. Takano called for greater focus on toxic exposures at US military bases: “We must push back against the idea that service members are only in harm’s way in war zones.”

Individuals working near intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), may be at higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) according to a preprint analysis conducted on missileers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. The study, which has not undergone peer review, found higher rates of NHL diagnosis at younger ages compared with the general population. The study also found a statistically significant increase in NHL diagnoses among older missileers, with such rates surpassing expected benchmarks.

The findings build on anecdotal and evidentiary data gathered in the last 50-plus years, including from the Torchlight Initiative, established in 2023 to collect self-reported cancer diagnoses and related fatalities from personnel and family members associated with the ICBM community. 

The report shows patterns that “warranted a detailed statistical analysis,” leading to a granular examination of the registry and categorization of the data by cancer type, geographical location, and specific demographics. This narrowed the focus to 18 missileers who served at Malmstrom and were diagnosed with NHL.

In 2001, the Air Force Institute for Operational Health did a site evaluation and sampled for potential chemical and biological contaminants at Malmstrom following various reports of cancers from missileers, including 2 who died after being diagnosed with NHL. In a 2005 review, the Air Force said, “there is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” 

In 2022, Lt. Col. Daniel Sebeck, a vice commander of Space Delta 8 in Colorado who served at Malmstrom and a close friend and fellow missileer were diagnosed with NHL. Sebeck discovered 36 cancer cases among missileers who had been stationed at Malmstrom. Ten developed NHL, 2 developed Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 developed another form of cancer. The Air Force has acknowledged the concerns. 

In 2023, US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) approved the Missile Community Cancer Study (MCCS) to assess “specific cancer concerns raised by missile community members across related career fields and also examines the possibility of clusters of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at intercontinental ballistic missile bases.” The study compares 14 common cancers in the general population with that of missile-related career fields. The USAFSAM is reviewing records from former and current Missile Community members on active duty from 1976-2010, as well as state and national cancer data from multiple registries.

Early results from the MCCS suggested elevated rates of some cancers—mainly breast and prostate cancer—among missileers, maintainers, and other ICMB-related job positions, which aligns with other national cancer data.

At a June 2024 AFGSC town hall, officials announced that missileers would now have their information submitted to the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS), a Pentagon database for reporting occupational and exposure hazards.

"This info from DOEHRS flows into the recently developed Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record, a system that compiles occupational and environmental health data throughout a person's career," Lt. Col. John Severns, a spokesperson for Air Force Global Strike Command, said. DOEHRS, which has tracked Air Force records since 2010, allows US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs clinical staff to access the information.

MCCS considers potential PCB exposures an occupational hazard. The Air Force says researchers are working with the System Program Offices and leadership to determine the timeframe of PCB removal from bases.

The lack of incontrovertible evidence connecting workplace toxins to NHL has often stymied patients and their family members from receiving appropriate benefits. An “informal talk” in April led by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) focused on exposures to hazardous materials at US military bases. Participants included various advocacy groups like the Torchlight Initiative, the Invisible Enemy, and Burn Pits 360.

More than a dozen veterans spoke about serving at military bases where they were exposed to a variety of harmful substances, and issues they faced in receiving coverage. David Crete, a veteran and chairman of The Invisible Enemy, said, “I am asking Congress to please allow us to get the benefits every other veteran earned. We are not asking to be special but to be treated equal.”

Rep. Takano called for greater focus on toxic exposures at US military bases: “We must push back against the idea that service members are only in harm’s way in war zones.”

Individuals working near intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), may be at higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) according to a preprint analysis conducted on missileers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. The study, which has not undergone peer review, found higher rates of NHL diagnosis at younger ages compared with the general population. The study also found a statistically significant increase in NHL diagnoses among older missileers, with such rates surpassing expected benchmarks.

The findings build on anecdotal and evidentiary data gathered in the last 50-plus years, including from the Torchlight Initiative, established in 2023 to collect self-reported cancer diagnoses and related fatalities from personnel and family members associated with the ICBM community. 

The report shows patterns that “warranted a detailed statistical analysis,” leading to a granular examination of the registry and categorization of the data by cancer type, geographical location, and specific demographics. This narrowed the focus to 18 missileers who served at Malmstrom and were diagnosed with NHL.

In 2001, the Air Force Institute for Operational Health did a site evaluation and sampled for potential chemical and biological contaminants at Malmstrom following various reports of cancers from missileers, including 2 who died after being diagnosed with NHL. In a 2005 review, the Air Force said, “there is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” 

In 2022, Lt. Col. Daniel Sebeck, a vice commander of Space Delta 8 in Colorado who served at Malmstrom and a close friend and fellow missileer were diagnosed with NHL. Sebeck discovered 36 cancer cases among missileers who had been stationed at Malmstrom. Ten developed NHL, 2 developed Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 developed another form of cancer. The Air Force has acknowledged the concerns. 

In 2023, US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) approved the Missile Community Cancer Study (MCCS) to assess “specific cancer concerns raised by missile community members across related career fields and also examines the possibility of clusters of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at intercontinental ballistic missile bases.” The study compares 14 common cancers in the general population with that of missile-related career fields. The USAFSAM is reviewing records from former and current Missile Community members on active duty from 1976-2010, as well as state and national cancer data from multiple registries.

Early results from the MCCS suggested elevated rates of some cancers—mainly breast and prostate cancer—among missileers, maintainers, and other ICMB-related job positions, which aligns with other national cancer data.

At a June 2024 AFGSC town hall, officials announced that missileers would now have their information submitted to the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS), a Pentagon database for reporting occupational and exposure hazards.

"This info from DOEHRS flows into the recently developed Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record, a system that compiles occupational and environmental health data throughout a person's career," Lt. Col. John Severns, a spokesperson for Air Force Global Strike Command, said. DOEHRS, which has tracked Air Force records since 2010, allows US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs clinical staff to access the information.

MCCS considers potential PCB exposures an occupational hazard. The Air Force says researchers are working with the System Program Offices and leadership to determine the timeframe of PCB removal from bases.

The lack of incontrovertible evidence connecting workplace toxins to NHL has often stymied patients and their family members from receiving appropriate benefits. An “informal talk” in April led by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) focused on exposures to hazardous materials at US military bases. Participants included various advocacy groups like the Torchlight Initiative, the Invisible Enemy, and Burn Pits 360.

More than a dozen veterans spoke about serving at military bases where they were exposed to a variety of harmful substances, and issues they faced in receiving coverage. David Crete, a veteran and chairman of The Invisible Enemy, said, “I am asking Congress to please allow us to get the benefits every other veteran earned. We are not asking to be special but to be treated equal.”

Rep. Takano called for greater focus on toxic exposures at US military bases: “We must push back against the idea that service members are only in harm’s way in war zones.”

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) continue to show superior progression-free survival at 5 years with first-line pola-R-CHP, compared with the R-CHOP regimen, according to updated results of the phase 3 POLARIX study.

These findings “confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL,” said lead investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, who presented the extended results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Pola-R-CHP is a modified version of the R-CHOP regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in which vincristine is replaced with polatuzumab vedotin. The modified regimen was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2023 on the basis of 2-year results from the same study.

In POLARIX, researchers randomized 879 previously untreated adult patients with CD20-positive DLBCL (median age, 66 years) to six to eight 21-day cycles of treatment with either pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included complete remission and overall survival.

The initial 2-year results — progression-free survival of 76.7% for pola-R-CHP vs 70.2% for R-CHOP — “were the first in 20 years” showing benefits for patients with DLBCL, said Salles, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

In the current analysis, there were 879 patients in the global intention-to-treat population — 440 who received pola-R-CHP and 439 who received R-CHOP — and 873 in the safety analysis.

At the 5-year follow-up, Salles and colleagues observed a sustained and significant progression-free survival benefit in patients treated with pola-R-CHP, compared with those who received R-CHOP (64.9% vs 59.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77).

Patients receiving the modified regimen also demonstrated significantly higher rates of complete remission at 5 years (71.8% vs 66.5%; HR, 0.75). These data tell us that for patients who reach complete remission at the end of treatment, the vast majority are still in remission at 5 years, said Salles.

For patients who did progress, those treated with pola-R-CHP had fewer subsequent therapies than those treated with R-CHOP. This included radiotherapy (9.5% vs 14.1%), systemic therapy (20.0% vs 28.2%), platinum-based therapy (9.8% vs 15.5%), stem cell transplant (5.0% vs 8.4%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (2.3% vs 4.1%), and bispecifics (1.4% vs 2.1%).

The 5-year overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was numerically better but not significantly so among patients treated with pola-R-CHP (82.3% vs 79.5%; HR, 0.85).

In a competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related deaths at 5 years was 9.1% with pola-R-CHP vs 12.2% with R-CHOP. The probability of non-lymphoma–related deaths, including death due to study treatment, was similar between the two groups at 5 years — 8.56% with pola-R-CHP vs 8.93% with R-CHOP.

An exploratory analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in subgroups of the patient population, including those with high-risk disease, showed a trend in favor of pola-R-CHP in almost all cases, but Salles warned that the analysis was underpowered.

“I think that interpreting this data to decide the care of the patient should be done very cautiously,” he said.

The researchers did not observe any new safety signals, with pola-R-CHP continuing to show a favorable benefit-risk profile. Looking at adverse events of all grades, Salles noted slightly less peripheral neuropathy with pola-R-CHP (50.3% vs 52.4%), slightly more infection (47.9% vs 44.0%), as well as a favorable trend for pola-R-CHP regarding cardiac arrhythmia (3.6% vs 5.2%) and carcinogenicity (1.0% vs 2.4%), and “very slight and tiny differences” in neutropenia (48.5% vs 45.8%), anemia (33.3% vs 30.1%), and thrombocytopenia (18.0% vs 17.3%).

While the researchers concluded that the study findings confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, Ajay Major, MD, had some reservations.

The results confirm “a small but significant benefit” in progression-free survival and no significant difference in overall survival, but there is some question as to whether pola-R-CHP is appropriate for all-comers with intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, noted Major, a lymphoma specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, who was not involved in this analysis.

“The subgroup analysis in POLARIX for efficacy of pola-R-CHP based on cell of origin is not adequately powered, and further dedicated on this question studies are needed,” Major said in an interview.

One study presented at the meeting by Major’s group concluded that cell of origin is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, while another analysis of POLARIX showed progression-free survival and overall survival benefits of pola-R-CHP over R-CHOP in patients with the activated B-cell subtype of DLBCL but not those with the germinal center B-cell subtype, Major noted.

“I think many oncologists will extrapolate from these other data sources and preferentially use pola-R-CHP in patients with activated B-cell or non-germinal center DLBCL,” he predicted.

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Salles reported disclosures with the following companies: BeiGene (consultancy), AbbVie (consultancy, research funding), Genentech/Roche (consultancy, research funding), Incyte (consultancy), and BMS/Celgene (consultancy), among others. Major reported conflicts of interest with Roche/Genentech (consultancy), GSK (research funding), and Incyte (research funding).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) continue to show superior progression-free survival at 5 years with first-line pola-R-CHP, compared with the R-CHOP regimen, according to updated results of the phase 3 POLARIX study.

These findings “confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL,” said lead investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, who presented the extended results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Pola-R-CHP is a modified version of the R-CHOP regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in which vincristine is replaced with polatuzumab vedotin. The modified regimen was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2023 on the basis of 2-year results from the same study.

In POLARIX, researchers randomized 879 previously untreated adult patients with CD20-positive DLBCL (median age, 66 years) to six to eight 21-day cycles of treatment with either pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included complete remission and overall survival.

The initial 2-year results — progression-free survival of 76.7% for pola-R-CHP vs 70.2% for R-CHOP — “were the first in 20 years” showing benefits for patients with DLBCL, said Salles, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

In the current analysis, there were 879 patients in the global intention-to-treat population — 440 who received pola-R-CHP and 439 who received R-CHOP — and 873 in the safety analysis.

At the 5-year follow-up, Salles and colleagues observed a sustained and significant progression-free survival benefit in patients treated with pola-R-CHP, compared with those who received R-CHOP (64.9% vs 59.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77).

Patients receiving the modified regimen also demonstrated significantly higher rates of complete remission at 5 years (71.8% vs 66.5%; HR, 0.75). These data tell us that for patients who reach complete remission at the end of treatment, the vast majority are still in remission at 5 years, said Salles.

For patients who did progress, those treated with pola-R-CHP had fewer subsequent therapies than those treated with R-CHOP. This included radiotherapy (9.5% vs 14.1%), systemic therapy (20.0% vs 28.2%), platinum-based therapy (9.8% vs 15.5%), stem cell transplant (5.0% vs 8.4%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (2.3% vs 4.1%), and bispecifics (1.4% vs 2.1%).

The 5-year overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was numerically better but not significantly so among patients treated with pola-R-CHP (82.3% vs 79.5%; HR, 0.85).

In a competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related deaths at 5 years was 9.1% with pola-R-CHP vs 12.2% with R-CHOP. The probability of non-lymphoma–related deaths, including death due to study treatment, was similar between the two groups at 5 years — 8.56% with pola-R-CHP vs 8.93% with R-CHOP.

An exploratory analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in subgroups of the patient population, including those with high-risk disease, showed a trend in favor of pola-R-CHP in almost all cases, but Salles warned that the analysis was underpowered.

“I think that interpreting this data to decide the care of the patient should be done very cautiously,” he said.

The researchers did not observe any new safety signals, with pola-R-CHP continuing to show a favorable benefit-risk profile. Looking at adverse events of all grades, Salles noted slightly less peripheral neuropathy with pola-R-CHP (50.3% vs 52.4%), slightly more infection (47.9% vs 44.0%), as well as a favorable trend for pola-R-CHP regarding cardiac arrhythmia (3.6% vs 5.2%) and carcinogenicity (1.0% vs 2.4%), and “very slight and tiny differences” in neutropenia (48.5% vs 45.8%), anemia (33.3% vs 30.1%), and thrombocytopenia (18.0% vs 17.3%).

While the researchers concluded that the study findings confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, Ajay Major, MD, had some reservations.

The results confirm “a small but significant benefit” in progression-free survival and no significant difference in overall survival, but there is some question as to whether pola-R-CHP is appropriate for all-comers with intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, noted Major, a lymphoma specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, who was not involved in this analysis.

“The subgroup analysis in POLARIX for efficacy of pola-R-CHP based on cell of origin is not adequately powered, and further dedicated on this question studies are needed,” Major said in an interview.

One study presented at the meeting by Major’s group concluded that cell of origin is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, while another analysis of POLARIX showed progression-free survival and overall survival benefits of pola-R-CHP over R-CHOP in patients with the activated B-cell subtype of DLBCL but not those with the germinal center B-cell subtype, Major noted.

“I think many oncologists will extrapolate from these other data sources and preferentially use pola-R-CHP in patients with activated B-cell or non-germinal center DLBCL,” he predicted.

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Salles reported disclosures with the following companies: BeiGene (consultancy), AbbVie (consultancy, research funding), Genentech/Roche (consultancy, research funding), Incyte (consultancy), and BMS/Celgene (consultancy), among others. Major reported conflicts of interest with Roche/Genentech (consultancy), GSK (research funding), and Incyte (research funding).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) continue to show superior progression-free survival at 5 years with first-line pola-R-CHP, compared with the R-CHOP regimen, according to updated results of the phase 3 POLARIX study.

These findings “confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL,” said lead investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, who presented the extended results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Pola-R-CHP is a modified version of the R-CHOP regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in which vincristine is replaced with polatuzumab vedotin. The modified regimen was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2023 on the basis of 2-year results from the same study.

In POLARIX, researchers randomized 879 previously untreated adult patients with CD20-positive DLBCL (median age, 66 years) to six to eight 21-day cycles of treatment with either pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included complete remission and overall survival.

The initial 2-year results — progression-free survival of 76.7% for pola-R-CHP vs 70.2% for R-CHOP — “were the first in 20 years” showing benefits for patients with DLBCL, said Salles, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

In the current analysis, there were 879 patients in the global intention-to-treat population — 440 who received pola-R-CHP and 439 who received R-CHOP — and 873 in the safety analysis.

At the 5-year follow-up, Salles and colleagues observed a sustained and significant progression-free survival benefit in patients treated with pola-R-CHP, compared with those who received R-CHOP (64.9% vs 59.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77).

Patients receiving the modified regimen also demonstrated significantly higher rates of complete remission at 5 years (71.8% vs 66.5%; HR, 0.75). These data tell us that for patients who reach complete remission at the end of treatment, the vast majority are still in remission at 5 years, said Salles.

For patients who did progress, those treated with pola-R-CHP had fewer subsequent therapies than those treated with R-CHOP. This included radiotherapy (9.5% vs 14.1%), systemic therapy (20.0% vs 28.2%), platinum-based therapy (9.8% vs 15.5%), stem cell transplant (5.0% vs 8.4%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (2.3% vs 4.1%), and bispecifics (1.4% vs 2.1%).

The 5-year overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was numerically better but not significantly so among patients treated with pola-R-CHP (82.3% vs 79.5%; HR, 0.85).

In a competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related deaths at 5 years was 9.1% with pola-R-CHP vs 12.2% with R-CHOP. The probability of non-lymphoma–related deaths, including death due to study treatment, was similar between the two groups at 5 years — 8.56% with pola-R-CHP vs 8.93% with R-CHOP.

An exploratory analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in subgroups of the patient population, including those with high-risk disease, showed a trend in favor of pola-R-CHP in almost all cases, but Salles warned that the analysis was underpowered.

“I think that interpreting this data to decide the care of the patient should be done very cautiously,” he said.

The researchers did not observe any new safety signals, with pola-R-CHP continuing to show a favorable benefit-risk profile. Looking at adverse events of all grades, Salles noted slightly less peripheral neuropathy with pola-R-CHP (50.3% vs 52.4%), slightly more infection (47.9% vs 44.0%), as well as a favorable trend for pola-R-CHP regarding cardiac arrhythmia (3.6% vs 5.2%) and carcinogenicity (1.0% vs 2.4%), and “very slight and tiny differences” in neutropenia (48.5% vs 45.8%), anemia (33.3% vs 30.1%), and thrombocytopenia (18.0% vs 17.3%).

While the researchers concluded that the study findings confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, Ajay Major, MD, had some reservations.

The results confirm “a small but significant benefit” in progression-free survival and no significant difference in overall survival, but there is some question as to whether pola-R-CHP is appropriate for all-comers with intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, noted Major, a lymphoma specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, who was not involved in this analysis.

“The subgroup analysis in POLARIX for efficacy of pola-R-CHP based on cell of origin is not adequately powered, and further dedicated on this question studies are needed,” Major said in an interview.

One study presented at the meeting by Major’s group concluded that cell of origin is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, while another analysis of POLARIX showed progression-free survival and overall survival benefits of pola-R-CHP over R-CHOP in patients with the activated B-cell subtype of DLBCL but not those with the germinal center B-cell subtype, Major noted.

“I think many oncologists will extrapolate from these other data sources and preferentially use pola-R-CHP in patients with activated B-cell or non-germinal center DLBCL,” he predicted.

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Salles reported disclosures with the following companies: BeiGene (consultancy), AbbVie (consultancy, research funding), Genentech/Roche (consultancy, research funding), Incyte (consultancy), and BMS/Celgene (consultancy), among others. Major reported conflicts of interest with Roche/Genentech (consultancy), GSK (research funding), and Incyte (research funding).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

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

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

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

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

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

Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for blood disorders who maintain diets high in fiber show significant improvements in overall survival and a reduced risk of developing the potentially life-threatening complication of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), new research shows.

Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits. 

“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.

Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.

However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.

For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.

Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration. 

Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).

After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health. 

Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).

Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD. 

Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).

However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).

A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.

The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.

“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview. 

“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.

“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”

Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.

The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.

“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.

“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.

Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned. 

“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said. 

 

High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?

The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).

NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.

Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or higher.

The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI. 

Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.

“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement. 

“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.

The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.

Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not. 

“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

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

Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for blood disorders who maintain diets high in fiber show significant improvements in overall survival and a reduced risk of developing the potentially life-threatening complication of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), new research shows.

Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits. 

“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.

Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.

However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.

For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.

Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration. 

Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).

After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health. 

Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).

Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD. 

Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).

However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).

A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.

The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.

“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview. 

“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.

“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”

Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.

The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.

“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.

“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.

Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned. 

“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said. 

 

High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?

The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).

NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.

Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or higher.

The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI. 

Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.

“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement. 

“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.

The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.

Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not. 

“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

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

Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for blood disorders who maintain diets high in fiber show significant improvements in overall survival and a reduced risk of developing the potentially life-threatening complication of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), new research shows.

Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits. 

“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.

Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.

However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.

For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.

Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration. 

Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).

After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health. 

Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).

Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD. 

Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).

However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).

A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.

The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.

“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview. 

“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.

“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”

Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.

The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.

“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.

“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.

Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned. 

“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said. 

 

High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?

The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).

NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.

Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or higher.

The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI. 

Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.

“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement. 

“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.

The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.

Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not. 

“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

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

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.