Transplant

In patients with T-cell lymphoma, allogeneic transplant can lead to durable remissions among patients who might otherwise have poor outcomes, results of a large retrospective observational study suggest.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) approached 40% and 5-year overall survival (OS) was over 50% in the study, which according to an investigator is the largest-ever reported patient series of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in T-cell lymphomas.

“We believe that eligible patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphomas should be considered for consultation for allogeneic transplant by an expert clinician,” said investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

“These decisions should occur on a patient by patient level – but it’s important to consider this,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

Notably, patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) had a higher rate of relapse yet similar overall survival (OS) compared to patients with common peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) subtypes, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Among PTCL subtypes, there was a trend toward improved PFS and OS for angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), compared with PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), she added.

Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, director of the clinical lymphoma program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said the results of this retrospective study need to considered in light of the treatment-related risks associated with allogeneic transplantation.

Treatment-related mortality in the study ranged from about 8% to 24%, depending on the donor type, while acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (GvHD) was seen in more than 40% of patients, the reported data show.

“If I have a relapsed patient with AITL, I would look to this data and say that patients with AITL appear in a retrospective study to have a strong benefit,” Dr. Diefenbach said in an interview.

“For the other patients, you would describe both potential benefits and also discuss the treatment-associated risks – both the chronic GvHD and transplant-related mortality – and you’d have to balance the risk with the benefits for each individual case,” Dr. Diefenbach added.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Mehta-Shah and colleagues included 508 consecutive T-cell lymphoma patients receiving allogeneic transplants at 12 academic centers between 2000 and 2019. The most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS in 26%, AITL in 16%, CTCL in 13%, and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) in 7%. About 40% had a matched related donor (MRD) and 39% had a matched unrelated donor (MUD). The conditioning regimen was myeloablative in about a third of patients and nonmyeloablative in two-thirds.

At 5 years, PFS was 39.4% and OS was 50.8% for the overall study cohort, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, noting that the median time from relapse to death post allogeneic transplant was 10.2 months.

Patients in complete remission at the time of transplant fared better than others, with a median PFS of 44.6 months vs. 8.5 months for those in partial remission, 21.0 months in those with stable disease, and 3.5 months for those with progressive disease at time of transplant, data show.

Patients with common PTCL subtypes had better PFS compared to patients with CTCL, yet OS was similar, according to the investigator. At 5 years, PFS was 43.7% and 18.6%, respectively, for PTCL and CTCL, while OS was 53.1% and 44.0%, respectively.

There was a trend toward improved outcomes for AITL relative to PTCL-NOS and ALCL, with a median PFS of 51.4 months for AITL versus 18.3 months those other subtypes. Similarly, median OS was not reached for AITL versus 73.1 months in the other subtypes.

Treatment-related mortality was lowest for patients with MRDs, or 8.2% at 12 months, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, while patients with MUDs, mismatched donors, or haploidentical donors had treatment-related mortality of 13% to 16% at 12 months, and those with cord blood donors had treatment-related mortality of nearly 24% at 12 months.

Acute GvHD was observed in 46% of patients and chronic GvHD was seen in nearly 41%, the investigator added.

While these findings are important to consider in individual patient consultations, the study is nevertheless subject to limitations including patient selection and referral bias, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

“This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent transplant,” she said in a question-and-answer period. “Of course, that is heavily biased by who got to a transplant center, who was well enough to achieve transplant, and who had a donor or donor options, as well as their overall health and depth of remission,” the researcher said.

“I think this just represents what we could tell patients about what may happen to them once they embark on a transplant,” she added, “but really, there would be more prospective work needed to be done for what happens to patients overarching, and how many of them even get to a transplant consultation.”

Further studies should be done to develop predictive tools or biomarkers to determine who benefits from an allogeneic transplant, if there are predictors of relapse following allogeneic transplant, and what are the mechanisms of relapse following allogeneic transplant, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Dr. Mehta-Shah reported research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Verastem, Corvus, Innate Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech/Roche. She reported consultancy with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, C4 Therapeutics, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 41.

In patients with T-cell lymphoma, allogeneic transplant can lead to durable remissions among patients who might otherwise have poor outcomes, results of a large retrospective observational study suggest.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) approached 40% and 5-year overall survival (OS) was over 50% in the study, which according to an investigator is the largest-ever reported patient series of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in T-cell lymphomas.

“We believe that eligible patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphomas should be considered for consultation for allogeneic transplant by an expert clinician,” said investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

“These decisions should occur on a patient by patient level – but it’s important to consider this,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

Notably, patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) had a higher rate of relapse yet similar overall survival (OS) compared to patients with common peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) subtypes, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Among PTCL subtypes, there was a trend toward improved PFS and OS for angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), compared with PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), she added.

Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, director of the clinical lymphoma program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said the results of this retrospective study need to considered in light of the treatment-related risks associated with allogeneic transplantation.

Treatment-related mortality in the study ranged from about 8% to 24%, depending on the donor type, while acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (GvHD) was seen in more than 40% of patients, the reported data show.

“If I have a relapsed patient with AITL, I would look to this data and say that patients with AITL appear in a retrospective study to have a strong benefit,” Dr. Diefenbach said in an interview.

“For the other patients, you would describe both potential benefits and also discuss the treatment-associated risks – both the chronic GvHD and transplant-related mortality – and you’d have to balance the risk with the benefits for each individual case,” Dr. Diefenbach added.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Mehta-Shah and colleagues included 508 consecutive T-cell lymphoma patients receiving allogeneic transplants at 12 academic centers between 2000 and 2019. The most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS in 26%, AITL in 16%, CTCL in 13%, and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) in 7%. About 40% had a matched related donor (MRD) and 39% had a matched unrelated donor (MUD). The conditioning regimen was myeloablative in about a third of patients and nonmyeloablative in two-thirds.

At 5 years, PFS was 39.4% and OS was 50.8% for the overall study cohort, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, noting that the median time from relapse to death post allogeneic transplant was 10.2 months.

Patients in complete remission at the time of transplant fared better than others, with a median PFS of 44.6 months vs. 8.5 months for those in partial remission, 21.0 months in those with stable disease, and 3.5 months for those with progressive disease at time of transplant, data show.

Patients with common PTCL subtypes had better PFS compared to patients with CTCL, yet OS was similar, according to the investigator. At 5 years, PFS was 43.7% and 18.6%, respectively, for PTCL and CTCL, while OS was 53.1% and 44.0%, respectively.

There was a trend toward improved outcomes for AITL relative to PTCL-NOS and ALCL, with a median PFS of 51.4 months for AITL versus 18.3 months those other subtypes. Similarly, median OS was not reached for AITL versus 73.1 months in the other subtypes.

Treatment-related mortality was lowest for patients with MRDs, or 8.2% at 12 months, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, while patients with MUDs, mismatched donors, or haploidentical donors had treatment-related mortality of 13% to 16% at 12 months, and those with cord blood donors had treatment-related mortality of nearly 24% at 12 months.

Acute GvHD was observed in 46% of patients and chronic GvHD was seen in nearly 41%, the investigator added.

While these findings are important to consider in individual patient consultations, the study is nevertheless subject to limitations including patient selection and referral bias, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

“This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent transplant,” she said in a question-and-answer period. “Of course, that is heavily biased by who got to a transplant center, who was well enough to achieve transplant, and who had a donor or donor options, as well as their overall health and depth of remission,” the researcher said.

“I think this just represents what we could tell patients about what may happen to them once they embark on a transplant,” she added, “but really, there would be more prospective work needed to be done for what happens to patients overarching, and how many of them even get to a transplant consultation.”

Further studies should be done to develop predictive tools or biomarkers to determine who benefits from an allogeneic transplant, if there are predictors of relapse following allogeneic transplant, and what are the mechanisms of relapse following allogeneic transplant, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Dr. Mehta-Shah reported research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Verastem, Corvus, Innate Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech/Roche. She reported consultancy with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, C4 Therapeutics, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 41.

In patients with T-cell lymphoma, allogeneic transplant can lead to durable remissions among patients who might otherwise have poor outcomes, results of a large retrospective observational study suggest.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) approached 40% and 5-year overall survival (OS) was over 50% in the study, which according to an investigator is the largest-ever reported patient series of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in T-cell lymphomas.

“We believe that eligible patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphomas should be considered for consultation for allogeneic transplant by an expert clinician,” said investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

“These decisions should occur on a patient by patient level – but it’s important to consider this,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

Notably, patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) had a higher rate of relapse yet similar overall survival (OS) compared to patients with common peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) subtypes, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Among PTCL subtypes, there was a trend toward improved PFS and OS for angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), compared with PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), she added.

Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, director of the clinical lymphoma program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said the results of this retrospective study need to considered in light of the treatment-related risks associated with allogeneic transplantation.

Treatment-related mortality in the study ranged from about 8% to 24%, depending on the donor type, while acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (GvHD) was seen in more than 40% of patients, the reported data show.

“If I have a relapsed patient with AITL, I would look to this data and say that patients with AITL appear in a retrospective study to have a strong benefit,” Dr. Diefenbach said in an interview.

“For the other patients, you would describe both potential benefits and also discuss the treatment-associated risks – both the chronic GvHD and transplant-related mortality – and you’d have to balance the risk with the benefits for each individual case,” Dr. Diefenbach added.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Mehta-Shah and colleagues included 508 consecutive T-cell lymphoma patients receiving allogeneic transplants at 12 academic centers between 2000 and 2019. The most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS in 26%, AITL in 16%, CTCL in 13%, and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) in 7%. About 40% had a matched related donor (MRD) and 39% had a matched unrelated donor (MUD). The conditioning regimen was myeloablative in about a third of patients and nonmyeloablative in two-thirds.

At 5 years, PFS was 39.4% and OS was 50.8% for the overall study cohort, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, noting that the median time from relapse to death post allogeneic transplant was 10.2 months.

Patients in complete remission at the time of transplant fared better than others, with a median PFS of 44.6 months vs. 8.5 months for those in partial remission, 21.0 months in those with stable disease, and 3.5 months for those with progressive disease at time of transplant, data show.

Patients with common PTCL subtypes had better PFS compared to patients with CTCL, yet OS was similar, according to the investigator. At 5 years, PFS was 43.7% and 18.6%, respectively, for PTCL and CTCL, while OS was 53.1% and 44.0%, respectively.

There was a trend toward improved outcomes for AITL relative to PTCL-NOS and ALCL, with a median PFS of 51.4 months for AITL versus 18.3 months those other subtypes. Similarly, median OS was not reached for AITL versus 73.1 months in the other subtypes.

Treatment-related mortality was lowest for patients with MRDs, or 8.2% at 12 months, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, while patients with MUDs, mismatched donors, or haploidentical donors had treatment-related mortality of 13% to 16% at 12 months, and those with cord blood donors had treatment-related mortality of nearly 24% at 12 months.

Acute GvHD was observed in 46% of patients and chronic GvHD was seen in nearly 41%, the investigator added.

While these findings are important to consider in individual patient consultations, the study is nevertheless subject to limitations including patient selection and referral bias, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

“This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent transplant,” she said in a question-and-answer period. “Of course, that is heavily biased by who got to a transplant center, who was well enough to achieve transplant, and who had a donor or donor options, as well as their overall health and depth of remission,” the researcher said.

“I think this just represents what we could tell patients about what may happen to them once they embark on a transplant,” she added, “but really, there would be more prospective work needed to be done for what happens to patients overarching, and how many of them even get to a transplant consultation.”

Further studies should be done to develop predictive tools or biomarkers to determine who benefits from an allogeneic transplant, if there are predictors of relapse following allogeneic transplant, and what are the mechanisms of relapse following allogeneic transplant, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Dr. Mehta-Shah reported research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Verastem, Corvus, Innate Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech/Roche. She reported consultancy with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, C4 Therapeutics, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 41.

Can receiving all posttransplant care at home improve outcomes for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.

Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., described this research to David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, host of the Blood & Cancer podcast.

On the Nov. 12 episode of Blood & Cancer, Dr. Sung outlined the process of receiving post-HSCT care at home and discussed Duke’s clinical trials assessing the impact of home care on costs, quality of life, the microbiome, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and other outcomes. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this podcast. We’re delighted to have you listening today because we’re going to be speaking with Dr. Anthony Sung from Duke University, where he is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapies.

So let’s get right into it. I’m a generalist at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, where we do auto [autologous] transplants at the main university hospital, autos and allos [allogeneic], and these patients are in [hospital] anywhere from a little bit to a long time. And I’ve often thought to try and do some of this as outpatient. But I think you have a project, which I’m going to ask you to describe, where you try and do most [treatment] outpatient. So tell me what this project is all about, and we’ll skip through how it works.
 

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So this is focused on both autologous as well as allogeneic stem cell transplant patients at Duke and a few other centers around the country. Duke University has actually had a long history of an outpatient transplant program. This program is based in a day hospital, which is basically like a high-functioning clinic that’s open 7 days a week. Patients can come into the hospital and receive blood transfusions, IV infusions, and any other therapies that they would need as part of their stem cell transplant treatment in the outpatient setting, returning to their home or to a furnished apartment, temporary lodging, while they’re receiving their care.

What we have done, however, is to take this a step further and deliver care within the patient’s own home. In a sense, we’re returning to an older form of medicine where doctors would make house calls. Within our home-transplant program, instead of the patients having to be in the hospital or instead of having to come back and forth to the outpatient hospital every day, which places additional stresses and strains upon them, our providers will make house calls to the patient’s homes, will draw their labs right there, do a history and physical exam, assess and attend to any of the needs that they have.

Then in the afternoon, the providers will return, have the labs run in the hospital, as they would normally do, a CBC, CMP [comprehensive metabolic panel], and so forth. And then a nurse would return to the patient’s home if needed to deliver any interventions, such as blood transfusions, intravenous fluids, or electrolytes, right there in the comfort of the patient’s own home.
 

Dr. Henry: So let’s then take it through what happens. Say I am a patient with myeloma. I’ve had various therapies, and it’s time for me to get an autotransplant, let’s say. And so I need to do a couple of things. I need to get my stem cells collected. I need to then get my high-dose [conditioning] therapy, and then follows the stem cell therapy reinfusion. So can you take me through each step? Where is that done?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So the collection will occur in the outpatient setting, typically after mobilization with G-CSF [granulocyte colony–stimulating factor] and/or plerixafor. That will occur in our outpatient clinic with one of our leukapheresis machines. And the patient will then return to that same outpatient clinic, which is the same building, the same facility as the hospital, to receive melphalan conditioning. And then, following conditioning, about 24 hours after, day 0, that’s the day of their stem cell transplant infusion, which we do in the hospital setting just because of the potential for reactions associated with that.

But everything after that, from day 1 onwards, we try to keep them at home. And as I said, they will stay in their home. One of our nurse practitioners or physician assistants will visit them in the morning, do the assessment and draw the labs. And nurses will return in the afternoon to deliver any supportive care that they need.
 

Dr. Henry: So let’s define “home.” So I’m a Philadelphia resident and I say to you, Dr. Sung, I want to go home. You say, well, Philadelphia is too far. What is close enough and not too far, when you say home?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So when we originally conceived the program, we focused on patients who lived within an hour of our transplant center. And in part, that was because, as you know, unfortunately, things can sometimes go wrong during transplant. One of the most concerning ones is infections. And if a patient were to develop a neutropenic fever, we would want them to be seen as urgently as possible within an hour. And that’s where our limitation comes from.

So for our patients who live more than an hour away, those are the ones that we will have relocate to temporary lodging near our transplant center. And we’ve worked with several facilities in the area that have clean, furnished units that are available for rent. Many insurances also include lodging benefits for patients during stem cell transplant, recognizing this need. And historically, those [patients] were not considered part of our transplant patient cohorts.

I have not mentioned, but we initially did this in a phase 1 study, and we’re now studying it in a series of randomized, phase 2 studies that I can go into detail later on. And because they were not necessarily in their home, but a temporary lodging environment, those patients who relocated to Durham were not eligible for a home transplant study.

However, in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve actually pivoted our program in many ways. Specifically, if you think about a patient who’s coming into contact with the medical system, they come to the hospital, they meet someone at the door who is screening them for COVID-19. They see someone who checks them in at the front desk. A medical assistant takes them in the back. Someone calls their labs and phlebotomy. They may encounter other patients and environmental services, other individuals in the setting. You’re talking about dozens of different encounters. Who knows how many surfaces that potentially someone with COVID-19 has coughed on or contaminated?

And in contrast, you have house calls, which even if they are located in the temporary lodging, that’s just one or two individuals going into their living environment. They’re not encountering any different surfaces. And so, in the setting of COVID-19, we felt that this platform had the potential to help protect all our transplant patients who are among the most vulnerable patients, the most immunocompromised patients, and so we expanded our program to include those individuals as well.
 

Dr. Henry: So ... what are the actual outcomes of your patients in terms of how they’re doing, engrafting, and getting cured of their malignancy?

Dr. Sung: So as I mentioned, we first did this in a phase 1 safety and feasibility pilot study of both autologous and allo-transplant patients. This was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology [Blood. 2017;130:745]. And we’re actually about ready to submit our manuscript on this.

And we found no difference in outcomes between patients who received care in the home transplant setting versus those who received conventional care either in the day hospital or hospital environment. The process appeared safe. Patients did just as well, if not better. Certainly, anecdotally, patients would talk about feeling so much more comfortable and happier being cared for in that home environment.

And we are now in the process of formally studying these outcomes in two NIH [National Institutes of Health]-funded clinical trials, one focused on allogeneic transplant patients [NCT02218151] and the other focused on autologous transplant patients [NCT01725022].
 

Dr. Henry: So of course, I’m waiting for this next question, which is cost. The services are the same, but you have people traveling, people who are highly skilled caregivers. Have you looked at cost differences from hospital versus home?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So you do have increased upfront costs because you have travel time for advanced practice providers and nurses. Not only that, but when a nurse is helping to give a patient a blood transfusion in the home environment, they’re 1:1 with that patient as opposed to the day hospital where a nurse could help with transfusions simultaneously for multiple patients. At the same time, by keeping patients out of the hospital, you have drastic, significant cost savings in that way.

In addition, I should mention, part of why we’re conducting these randomized, phase 2 clinical trials is we believe home care actually has the potential to decrease complications. One area of my research is on the impact of the microbiome, the bacteria in the gut, on transplant outcomes. And we’ve done a number of studies, many in collaboration with Memorial Sloan Kettering, showing that disruption of the microbiota, the bacteria in the gut, is associated with increased infections, graft-versus-host disease, and treatment-related mortality if we’re able to keep patients in their home setting.

However, I actually should go back a step. It’s well known that, if you take an individual from their home setting and put them in a foreign environment such as the hospital, that new environment, that new diet, hospital food as opposed to home food, and so forth, can dramatically shift the microbiome. Our hypothesis is that, by keeping patients in the home environment, their familiar environment will be able to help preserve their microbiome, thus decreasing infections, graft-versus-host disease, and other complications. That’s actually the goal of our studies: to see if we can preserve the microbiome and decrease complications.
 

Dr. Henry: So how will you evaluate that? Are you doing fecal studies, patient culture studies? How are you testing that?

Dr. Sung: So we have a very broad biobank program where we collect stool on our transplantations, pretransplant, day 0, weekly for the first month. And then, in the case of our allogeneic transplant patients, day 60, 90, 180, and 365.

And we do that both in our home transplant patients as well as their matched controls on the phase 2 studies. And we also collect it on a lot of our other transplant patients as part of our biobanking programs and our observational studies to try to understand what’s going on during transplant and how to help improve transplant outcomes.
 

Dr. Henry: Do you have any results of that? You’re probably showing a difference.

Dr. Sung: We think so, on some preliminary results, but those were based on small numbers of patients. And we’re really hoping that these randomized clinical trials with the larger numbers of patients enrolled will help show that difference.

But getting back to your earlier question about cost, a case of graft-versus-host disease, grade 2 or higher, can add about $100,000 to the cost of care. So if you prevent one case of bad gut or liver graft-versus-host disease, those are your cost savings right there.

The randomized, phase 2 trial for allogeneic transplant patients, the primary endpoint is graft-versus-host disease. So we’re looking at the microbiome and those associations and the prevention of GVHD. For the randomized clinical trial in autologous transplant patients – with autologous stem cells, you’re not going to get GVHD – but we do hope to improve quality of life and long-term outcomes in those patients as well.
 

Dr. Henry: Wonderful. Well, Tony, I really want to thank you so much for talking with us today.

Dr. Sung: Thank you very much for this opportunity. And again, I also want to just thank everyone who’s been involved in these studies, the advanced practice providers and nurses who are caring for our patients at home, the study staff who have been involved. Particularly, I’d like to highlight the role of both Nelson Chao, who’s our division chief and my mentor who piloted and first developed home transplant, and Kristin Nichols, our research nurse who has really led the drive forward.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. The trials are funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Can receiving all posttransplant care at home improve outcomes for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.

Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., described this research to David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, host of the Blood & Cancer podcast.

On the Nov. 12 episode of Blood & Cancer, Dr. Sung outlined the process of receiving post-HSCT care at home and discussed Duke’s clinical trials assessing the impact of home care on costs, quality of life, the microbiome, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and other outcomes. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this podcast. We’re delighted to have you listening today because we’re going to be speaking with Dr. Anthony Sung from Duke University, where he is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapies.

So let’s get right into it. I’m a generalist at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, where we do auto [autologous] transplants at the main university hospital, autos and allos [allogeneic], and these patients are in [hospital] anywhere from a little bit to a long time. And I’ve often thought to try and do some of this as outpatient. But I think you have a project, which I’m going to ask you to describe, where you try and do most [treatment] outpatient. So tell me what this project is all about, and we’ll skip through how it works.
 

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So this is focused on both autologous as well as allogeneic stem cell transplant patients at Duke and a few other centers around the country. Duke University has actually had a long history of an outpatient transplant program. This program is based in a day hospital, which is basically like a high-functioning clinic that’s open 7 days a week. Patients can come into the hospital and receive blood transfusions, IV infusions, and any other therapies that they would need as part of their stem cell transplant treatment in the outpatient setting, returning to their home or to a furnished apartment, temporary lodging, while they’re receiving their care.

What we have done, however, is to take this a step further and deliver care within the patient’s own home. In a sense, we’re returning to an older form of medicine where doctors would make house calls. Within our home-transplant program, instead of the patients having to be in the hospital or instead of having to come back and forth to the outpatient hospital every day, which places additional stresses and strains upon them, our providers will make house calls to the patient’s homes, will draw their labs right there, do a history and physical exam, assess and attend to any of the needs that they have.

Then in the afternoon, the providers will return, have the labs run in the hospital, as they would normally do, a CBC, CMP [comprehensive metabolic panel], and so forth. And then a nurse would return to the patient’s home if needed to deliver any interventions, such as blood transfusions, intravenous fluids, or electrolytes, right there in the comfort of the patient’s own home.
 

Dr. Henry: So let’s then take it through what happens. Say I am a patient with myeloma. I’ve had various therapies, and it’s time for me to get an autotransplant, let’s say. And so I need to do a couple of things. I need to get my stem cells collected. I need to then get my high-dose [conditioning] therapy, and then follows the stem cell therapy reinfusion. So can you take me through each step? Where is that done?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So the collection will occur in the outpatient setting, typically after mobilization with G-CSF [granulocyte colony–stimulating factor] and/or plerixafor. That will occur in our outpatient clinic with one of our leukapheresis machines. And the patient will then return to that same outpatient clinic, which is the same building, the same facility as the hospital, to receive melphalan conditioning. And then, following conditioning, about 24 hours after, day 0, that’s the day of their stem cell transplant infusion, which we do in the hospital setting just because of the potential for reactions associated with that.

But everything after that, from day 1 onwards, we try to keep them at home. And as I said, they will stay in their home. One of our nurse practitioners or physician assistants will visit them in the morning, do the assessment and draw the labs. And nurses will return in the afternoon to deliver any supportive care that they need.
 

Dr. Henry: So let’s define “home.” So I’m a Philadelphia resident and I say to you, Dr. Sung, I want to go home. You say, well, Philadelphia is too far. What is close enough and not too far, when you say home?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So when we originally conceived the program, we focused on patients who lived within an hour of our transplant center. And in part, that was because, as you know, unfortunately, things can sometimes go wrong during transplant. One of the most concerning ones is infections. And if a patient were to develop a neutropenic fever, we would want them to be seen as urgently as possible within an hour. And that’s where our limitation comes from.

So for our patients who live more than an hour away, those are the ones that we will have relocate to temporary lodging near our transplant center. And we’ve worked with several facilities in the area that have clean, furnished units that are available for rent. Many insurances also include lodging benefits for patients during stem cell transplant, recognizing this need. And historically, those [patients] were not considered part of our transplant patient cohorts.

I have not mentioned, but we initially did this in a phase 1 study, and we’re now studying it in a series of randomized, phase 2 studies that I can go into detail later on. And because they were not necessarily in their home, but a temporary lodging environment, those patients who relocated to Durham were not eligible for a home transplant study.

However, in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve actually pivoted our program in many ways. Specifically, if you think about a patient who’s coming into contact with the medical system, they come to the hospital, they meet someone at the door who is screening them for COVID-19. They see someone who checks them in at the front desk. A medical assistant takes them in the back. Someone calls their labs and phlebotomy. They may encounter other patients and environmental services, other individuals in the setting. You’re talking about dozens of different encounters. Who knows how many surfaces that potentially someone with COVID-19 has coughed on or contaminated?

And in contrast, you have house calls, which even if they are located in the temporary lodging, that’s just one or two individuals going into their living environment. They’re not encountering any different surfaces. And so, in the setting of COVID-19, we felt that this platform had the potential to help protect all our transplant patients who are among the most vulnerable patients, the most immunocompromised patients, and so we expanded our program to include those individuals as well.
 

Dr. Henry: So ... what are the actual outcomes of your patients in terms of how they’re doing, engrafting, and getting cured of their malignancy?

Dr. Sung: So as I mentioned, we first did this in a phase 1 safety and feasibility pilot study of both autologous and allo-transplant patients. This was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology [Blood. 2017;130:745]. And we’re actually about ready to submit our manuscript on this.

And we found no difference in outcomes between patients who received care in the home transplant setting versus those who received conventional care either in the day hospital or hospital environment. The process appeared safe. Patients did just as well, if not better. Certainly, anecdotally, patients would talk about feeling so much more comfortable and happier being cared for in that home environment.

And we are now in the process of formally studying these outcomes in two NIH [National Institutes of Health]-funded clinical trials, one focused on allogeneic transplant patients [NCT02218151] and the other focused on autologous transplant patients [NCT01725022].
 

Dr. Henry: So of course, I’m waiting for this next question, which is cost. The services are the same, but you have people traveling, people who are highly skilled caregivers. Have you looked at cost differences from hospital versus home?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So you do have increased upfront costs because you have travel time for advanced practice providers and nurses. Not only that, but when a nurse is helping to give a patient a blood transfusion in the home environment, they’re 1:1 with that patient as opposed to the day hospital where a nurse could help with transfusions simultaneously for multiple patients. At the same time, by keeping patients out of the hospital, you have drastic, significant cost savings in that way.

In addition, I should mention, part of why we’re conducting these randomized, phase 2 clinical trials is we believe home care actually has the potential to decrease complications. One area of my research is on the impact of the microbiome, the bacteria in the gut, on transplant outcomes. And we’ve done a number of studies, many in collaboration with Memorial Sloan Kettering, showing that disruption of the microbiota, the bacteria in the gut, is associated with increased infections, graft-versus-host disease, and treatment-related mortality if we’re able to keep patients in their home setting.

However, I actually should go back a step. It’s well known that, if you take an individual from their home setting and put them in a foreign environment such as the hospital, that new environment, that new diet, hospital food as opposed to home food, and so forth, can dramatically shift the microbiome. Our hypothesis is that, by keeping patients in the home environment, their familiar environment will be able to help preserve their microbiome, thus decreasing infections, graft-versus-host disease, and other complications. That’s actually the goal of our studies: to see if we can preserve the microbiome and decrease complications.
 

Dr. Henry: So how will you evaluate that? Are you doing fecal studies, patient culture studies? How are you testing that?

Dr. Sung: So we have a very broad biobank program where we collect stool on our transplantations, pretransplant, day 0, weekly for the first month. And then, in the case of our allogeneic transplant patients, day 60, 90, 180, and 365.

And we do that both in our home transplant patients as well as their matched controls on the phase 2 studies. And we also collect it on a lot of our other transplant patients as part of our biobanking programs and our observational studies to try to understand what’s going on during transplant and how to help improve transplant outcomes.
 

Dr. Henry: Do you have any results of that? You’re probably showing a difference.

Dr. Sung: We think so, on some preliminary results, but those were based on small numbers of patients. And we’re really hoping that these randomized clinical trials with the larger numbers of patients enrolled will help show that difference.

But getting back to your earlier question about cost, a case of graft-versus-host disease, grade 2 or higher, can add about $100,000 to the cost of care. So if you prevent one case of bad gut or liver graft-versus-host disease, those are your cost savings right there.

The randomized, phase 2 trial for allogeneic transplant patients, the primary endpoint is graft-versus-host disease. So we’re looking at the microbiome and those associations and the prevention of GVHD. For the randomized clinical trial in autologous transplant patients – with autologous stem cells, you’re not going to get GVHD – but we do hope to improve quality of life and long-term outcomes in those patients as well.
 

Dr. Henry: Wonderful. Well, Tony, I really want to thank you so much for talking with us today.

Dr. Sung: Thank you very much for this opportunity. And again, I also want to just thank everyone who’s been involved in these studies, the advanced practice providers and nurses who are caring for our patients at home, the study staff who have been involved. Particularly, I’d like to highlight the role of both Nelson Chao, who’s our division chief and my mentor who piloted and first developed home transplant, and Kristin Nichols, our research nurse who has really led the drive forward.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. The trials are funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Can receiving all posttransplant care at home improve outcomes for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.

Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., described this research to David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, host of the Blood & Cancer podcast.

On the Nov. 12 episode of Blood & Cancer, Dr. Sung outlined the process of receiving post-HSCT care at home and discussed Duke’s clinical trials assessing the impact of home care on costs, quality of life, the microbiome, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and other outcomes. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this podcast. We’re delighted to have you listening today because we’re going to be speaking with Dr. Anthony Sung from Duke University, where he is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapies.

So let’s get right into it. I’m a generalist at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, where we do auto [autologous] transplants at the main university hospital, autos and allos [allogeneic], and these patients are in [hospital] anywhere from a little bit to a long time. And I’ve often thought to try and do some of this as outpatient. But I think you have a project, which I’m going to ask you to describe, where you try and do most [treatment] outpatient. So tell me what this project is all about, and we’ll skip through how it works.
 

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So this is focused on both autologous as well as allogeneic stem cell transplant patients at Duke and a few other centers around the country. Duke University has actually had a long history of an outpatient transplant program. This program is based in a day hospital, which is basically like a high-functioning clinic that’s open 7 days a week. Patients can come into the hospital and receive blood transfusions, IV infusions, and any other therapies that they would need as part of their stem cell transplant treatment in the outpatient setting, returning to their home or to a furnished apartment, temporary lodging, while they’re receiving their care.

What we have done, however, is to take this a step further and deliver care within the patient’s own home. In a sense, we’re returning to an older form of medicine where doctors would make house calls. Within our home-transplant program, instead of the patients having to be in the hospital or instead of having to come back and forth to the outpatient hospital every day, which places additional stresses and strains upon them, our providers will make house calls to the patient’s homes, will draw their labs right there, do a history and physical exam, assess and attend to any of the needs that they have.

Then in the afternoon, the providers will return, have the labs run in the hospital, as they would normally do, a CBC, CMP [comprehensive metabolic panel], and so forth. And then a nurse would return to the patient’s home if needed to deliver any interventions, such as blood transfusions, intravenous fluids, or electrolytes, right there in the comfort of the patient’s own home.
 

Dr. Henry: So let’s then take it through what happens. Say I am a patient with myeloma. I’ve had various therapies, and it’s time for me to get an autotransplant, let’s say. And so I need to do a couple of things. I need to get my stem cells collected. I need to then get my high-dose [conditioning] therapy, and then follows the stem cell therapy reinfusion. So can you take me through each step? Where is that done?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So the collection will occur in the outpatient setting, typically after mobilization with G-CSF [granulocyte colony–stimulating factor] and/or plerixafor. That will occur in our outpatient clinic with one of our leukapheresis machines. And the patient will then return to that same outpatient clinic, which is the same building, the same facility as the hospital, to receive melphalan conditioning. And then, following conditioning, about 24 hours after, day 0, that’s the day of their stem cell transplant infusion, which we do in the hospital setting just because of the potential for reactions associated with that.

But everything after that, from day 1 onwards, we try to keep them at home. And as I said, they will stay in their home. One of our nurse practitioners or physician assistants will visit them in the morning, do the assessment and draw the labs. And nurses will return in the afternoon to deliver any supportive care that they need.
 

Dr. Henry: So let’s define “home.” So I’m a Philadelphia resident and I say to you, Dr. Sung, I want to go home. You say, well, Philadelphia is too far. What is close enough and not too far, when you say home?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So when we originally conceived the program, we focused on patients who lived within an hour of our transplant center. And in part, that was because, as you know, unfortunately, things can sometimes go wrong during transplant. One of the most concerning ones is infections. And if a patient were to develop a neutropenic fever, we would want them to be seen as urgently as possible within an hour. And that’s where our limitation comes from.

So for our patients who live more than an hour away, those are the ones that we will have relocate to temporary lodging near our transplant center. And we’ve worked with several facilities in the area that have clean, furnished units that are available for rent. Many insurances also include lodging benefits for patients during stem cell transplant, recognizing this need. And historically, those [patients] were not considered part of our transplant patient cohorts.

I have not mentioned, but we initially did this in a phase 1 study, and we’re now studying it in a series of randomized, phase 2 studies that I can go into detail later on. And because they were not necessarily in their home, but a temporary lodging environment, those patients who relocated to Durham were not eligible for a home transplant study.

However, in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve actually pivoted our program in many ways. Specifically, if you think about a patient who’s coming into contact with the medical system, they come to the hospital, they meet someone at the door who is screening them for COVID-19. They see someone who checks them in at the front desk. A medical assistant takes them in the back. Someone calls their labs and phlebotomy. They may encounter other patients and environmental services, other individuals in the setting. You’re talking about dozens of different encounters. Who knows how many surfaces that potentially someone with COVID-19 has coughed on or contaminated?

And in contrast, you have house calls, which even if they are located in the temporary lodging, that’s just one or two individuals going into their living environment. They’re not encountering any different surfaces. And so, in the setting of COVID-19, we felt that this platform had the potential to help protect all our transplant patients who are among the most vulnerable patients, the most immunocompromised patients, and so we expanded our program to include those individuals as well.
 

Dr. Henry: So ... what are the actual outcomes of your patients in terms of how they’re doing, engrafting, and getting cured of their malignancy?

Dr. Sung: So as I mentioned, we first did this in a phase 1 safety and feasibility pilot study of both autologous and allo-transplant patients. This was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology [Blood. 2017;130:745]. And we’re actually about ready to submit our manuscript on this.

And we found no difference in outcomes between patients who received care in the home transplant setting versus those who received conventional care either in the day hospital or hospital environment. The process appeared safe. Patients did just as well, if not better. Certainly, anecdotally, patients would talk about feeling so much more comfortable and happier being cared for in that home environment.

And we are now in the process of formally studying these outcomes in two NIH [National Institutes of Health]-funded clinical trials, one focused on allogeneic transplant patients [NCT02218151] and the other focused on autologous transplant patients [NCT01725022].
 

Dr. Henry: So of course, I’m waiting for this next question, which is cost. The services are the same, but you have people traveling, people who are highly skilled caregivers. Have you looked at cost differences from hospital versus home?

Dr. Sung: Absolutely. So you do have increased upfront costs because you have travel time for advanced practice providers and nurses. Not only that, but when a nurse is helping to give a patient a blood transfusion in the home environment, they’re 1:1 with that patient as opposed to the day hospital where a nurse could help with transfusions simultaneously for multiple patients. At the same time, by keeping patients out of the hospital, you have drastic, significant cost savings in that way.

In addition, I should mention, part of why we’re conducting these randomized, phase 2 clinical trials is we believe home care actually has the potential to decrease complications. One area of my research is on the impact of the microbiome, the bacteria in the gut, on transplant outcomes. And we’ve done a number of studies, many in collaboration with Memorial Sloan Kettering, showing that disruption of the microbiota, the bacteria in the gut, is associated with increased infections, graft-versus-host disease, and treatment-related mortality if we’re able to keep patients in their home setting.

However, I actually should go back a step. It’s well known that, if you take an individual from their home setting and put them in a foreign environment such as the hospital, that new environment, that new diet, hospital food as opposed to home food, and so forth, can dramatically shift the microbiome. Our hypothesis is that, by keeping patients in the home environment, their familiar environment will be able to help preserve their microbiome, thus decreasing infections, graft-versus-host disease, and other complications. That’s actually the goal of our studies: to see if we can preserve the microbiome and decrease complications.
 

Dr. Henry: So how will you evaluate that? Are you doing fecal studies, patient culture studies? How are you testing that?

Dr. Sung: So we have a very broad biobank program where we collect stool on our transplantations, pretransplant, day 0, weekly for the first month. And then, in the case of our allogeneic transplant patients, day 60, 90, 180, and 365.

And we do that both in our home transplant patients as well as their matched controls on the phase 2 studies. And we also collect it on a lot of our other transplant patients as part of our biobanking programs and our observational studies to try to understand what’s going on during transplant and how to help improve transplant outcomes.
 

Dr. Henry: Do you have any results of that? You’re probably showing a difference.

Dr. Sung: We think so, on some preliminary results, but those were based on small numbers of patients. And we’re really hoping that these randomized clinical trials with the larger numbers of patients enrolled will help show that difference.

But getting back to your earlier question about cost, a case of graft-versus-host disease, grade 2 or higher, can add about $100,000 to the cost of care. So if you prevent one case of bad gut or liver graft-versus-host disease, those are your cost savings right there.

The randomized, phase 2 trial for allogeneic transplant patients, the primary endpoint is graft-versus-host disease. So we’re looking at the microbiome and those associations and the prevention of GVHD. For the randomized clinical trial in autologous transplant patients – with autologous stem cells, you’re not going to get GVHD – but we do hope to improve quality of life and long-term outcomes in those patients as well.
 

Dr. Henry: Wonderful. Well, Tony, I really want to thank you so much for talking with us today.

Dr. Sung: Thank you very much for this opportunity. And again, I also want to just thank everyone who’s been involved in these studies, the advanced practice providers and nurses who are caring for our patients at home, the study staff who have been involved. Particularly, I’d like to highlight the role of both Nelson Chao, who’s our division chief and my mentor who piloted and first developed home transplant, and Kristin Nichols, our research nurse who has really led the drive forward.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. The trials are funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Physicians are gaining a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) in allo-hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and novel treatments are being tested.

However, options remain limited. There’s only one Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for cGVHD that’s failed one or more treatments, and clinical trials remain a crucial option in some cases, said Mary E.D. Flowers, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

According to Dr. Flowers, cGVHD – a product of a graft’s “immunological assault” against the person receiving a transplant – occurs in 40% of patients within a year after allo-HCT. The disorder “is associated with a poor quality of life, disability, and increased mortality after allo-transplantation,” she said. “It’s a syndrome that can be inflammatory and fibrotic. It involves several organs – the skin, the mouth, the eyes, the lungs, the GI tract.”

The median length of treatment after peripheral blood stem cell transplant is 3.5 years, Dr. Flowers said. Seven years after treatment, 10% of those who are alive – and have avoided relapse – will still need treatment. “Corticosteroids remain the first-line [treatment], at 0.5-1.0 [mg/kg], but they do not control at least 40% of the patients with cGVHD.”

In regard to pathophysiology, she highlighted a 2017 report that presented findings about the pathophysiology of cGVHD. The findings, the report authors wrote, “have yielded a raft of potential new therapeutics, centered on naive T-cell depletion, interleukin-17/21 inhibition, kinase inhibition, regulatory T-cell restoration, and CSF-1 inhibition.”

For now, no agents other than corticosteroids have shown benefit in cGVHD as initial therapy, Dr. Flowers said. In fact, several trials closed early from lack of benefit. But trials continue, she said: Results are pending for a completed phase 3 trial of ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus steroids for initial treatment of cGVHD. Nearly 500 patients were enrolled, she said. And there’s an ongoing phase 2/3 trial of itacitinib, a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor plus steroids as initial treatment.

Dr. Flowers highlighted the case of a patient with moderate cGVHD. The patient was treated with infection prophylaxis, supportive care for oral and eyes manifestations, and prednisone 0.5 mg/kg (at a lower dose because of diabetes) plus a substitution of tacrolimus with sirolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor.

Why sirolimus? At this early point in progression, she said, the patient didn’t necessarily need systemwide chemo-suppression, and calcineurin inhibitors can be “quite effective” in management of inflammation in the liver. “It would be a completely different story once the patient develops severe cGVHR.” In that case, she said, calcineurin inhibitors wouldn’t be appropriate.

The patient’s status deteriorated to severe cGVHD, and sirolimus was replaced with ibrutinib. Other drugs were added to prevent infection and treat bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome.

In general, “the goal of the treatment is get adequate control of clinical manifestations and prevent more severe disease from developing,” Dr. Flowers said.

In response to a question about polypharmacy in patient with advanced disease – “we tend not to peel those drugs off” – Dr. Flowers said she does see new patients who appear to be taking too many medications. “They are on five drugs, and I say, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

Quite often, Dr. Flowers said, she doesn’t add therapies to existing ones but instead looks for substitutes. “A clinical lesson that I feel that I learned over time is: Ask your questions first. What would you like to see in 3 months? Or 6 months? Before you just add another therapy, do you really know what the trajectory of a disease might be?”

Dr. Flowers discloses research support (Pharmacyclics, Incyte), speaker honorarium (Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Mallinckrodt), and consulting relationships (Pharmacyclics, CSL Behring, Fresenius Kabi).

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Physicians are gaining a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) in allo-hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and novel treatments are being tested.

However, options remain limited. There’s only one Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for cGVHD that’s failed one or more treatments, and clinical trials remain a crucial option in some cases, said Mary E.D. Flowers, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

According to Dr. Flowers, cGVHD – a product of a graft’s “immunological assault” against the person receiving a transplant – occurs in 40% of patients within a year after allo-HCT. The disorder “is associated with a poor quality of life, disability, and increased mortality after allo-transplantation,” she said. “It’s a syndrome that can be inflammatory and fibrotic. It involves several organs – the skin, the mouth, the eyes, the lungs, the GI tract.”

The median length of treatment after peripheral blood stem cell transplant is 3.5 years, Dr. Flowers said. Seven years after treatment, 10% of those who are alive – and have avoided relapse – will still need treatment. “Corticosteroids remain the first-line [treatment], at 0.5-1.0 [mg/kg], but they do not control at least 40% of the patients with cGVHD.”

In regard to pathophysiology, she highlighted a 2017 report that presented findings about the pathophysiology of cGVHD. The findings, the report authors wrote, “have yielded a raft of potential new therapeutics, centered on naive T-cell depletion, interleukin-17/21 inhibition, kinase inhibition, regulatory T-cell restoration, and CSF-1 inhibition.”

For now, no agents other than corticosteroids have shown benefit in cGVHD as initial therapy, Dr. Flowers said. In fact, several trials closed early from lack of benefit. But trials continue, she said: Results are pending for a completed phase 3 trial of ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus steroids for initial treatment of cGVHD. Nearly 500 patients were enrolled, she said. And there’s an ongoing phase 2/3 trial of itacitinib, a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor plus steroids as initial treatment.

Dr. Flowers highlighted the case of a patient with moderate cGVHD. The patient was treated with infection prophylaxis, supportive care for oral and eyes manifestations, and prednisone 0.5 mg/kg (at a lower dose because of diabetes) plus a substitution of tacrolimus with sirolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor.

Why sirolimus? At this early point in progression, she said, the patient didn’t necessarily need systemwide chemo-suppression, and calcineurin inhibitors can be “quite effective” in management of inflammation in the liver. “It would be a completely different story once the patient develops severe cGVHR.” In that case, she said, calcineurin inhibitors wouldn’t be appropriate.

The patient’s status deteriorated to severe cGVHD, and sirolimus was replaced with ibrutinib. Other drugs were added to prevent infection and treat bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome.

In general, “the goal of the treatment is get adequate control of clinical manifestations and prevent more severe disease from developing,” Dr. Flowers said.

In response to a question about polypharmacy in patient with advanced disease – “we tend not to peel those drugs off” – Dr. Flowers said she does see new patients who appear to be taking too many medications. “They are on five drugs, and I say, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

Quite often, Dr. Flowers said, she doesn’t add therapies to existing ones but instead looks for substitutes. “A clinical lesson that I feel that I learned over time is: Ask your questions first. What would you like to see in 3 months? Or 6 months? Before you just add another therapy, do you really know what the trajectory of a disease might be?”

Dr. Flowers discloses research support (Pharmacyclics, Incyte), speaker honorarium (Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Mallinckrodt), and consulting relationships (Pharmacyclics, CSL Behring, Fresenius Kabi).

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Physicians are gaining a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) in allo-hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and novel treatments are being tested.

However, options remain limited. There’s only one Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for cGVHD that’s failed one or more treatments, and clinical trials remain a crucial option in some cases, said Mary E.D. Flowers, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

According to Dr. Flowers, cGVHD – a product of a graft’s “immunological assault” against the person receiving a transplant – occurs in 40% of patients within a year after allo-HCT. The disorder “is associated with a poor quality of life, disability, and increased mortality after allo-transplantation,” she said. “It’s a syndrome that can be inflammatory and fibrotic. It involves several organs – the skin, the mouth, the eyes, the lungs, the GI tract.”

The median length of treatment after peripheral blood stem cell transplant is 3.5 years, Dr. Flowers said. Seven years after treatment, 10% of those who are alive – and have avoided relapse – will still need treatment. “Corticosteroids remain the first-line [treatment], at 0.5-1.0 [mg/kg], but they do not control at least 40% of the patients with cGVHD.”

In regard to pathophysiology, she highlighted a 2017 report that presented findings about the pathophysiology of cGVHD. The findings, the report authors wrote, “have yielded a raft of potential new therapeutics, centered on naive T-cell depletion, interleukin-17/21 inhibition, kinase inhibition, regulatory T-cell restoration, and CSF-1 inhibition.”

For now, no agents other than corticosteroids have shown benefit in cGVHD as initial therapy, Dr. Flowers said. In fact, several trials closed early from lack of benefit. But trials continue, she said: Results are pending for a completed phase 3 trial of ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus steroids for initial treatment of cGVHD. Nearly 500 patients were enrolled, she said. And there’s an ongoing phase 2/3 trial of itacitinib, a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor plus steroids as initial treatment.

Dr. Flowers highlighted the case of a patient with moderate cGVHD. The patient was treated with infection prophylaxis, supportive care for oral and eyes manifestations, and prednisone 0.5 mg/kg (at a lower dose because of diabetes) plus a substitution of tacrolimus with sirolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor.

Why sirolimus? At this early point in progression, she said, the patient didn’t necessarily need systemwide chemo-suppression, and calcineurin inhibitors can be “quite effective” in management of inflammation in the liver. “It would be a completely different story once the patient develops severe cGVHR.” In that case, she said, calcineurin inhibitors wouldn’t be appropriate.

The patient’s status deteriorated to severe cGVHD, and sirolimus was replaced with ibrutinib. Other drugs were added to prevent infection and treat bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome.

In general, “the goal of the treatment is get adequate control of clinical manifestations and prevent more severe disease from developing,” Dr. Flowers said.

In response to a question about polypharmacy in patient with advanced disease – “we tend not to peel those drugs off” – Dr. Flowers said she does see new patients who appear to be taking too many medications. “They are on five drugs, and I say, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

Quite often, Dr. Flowers said, she doesn’t add therapies to existing ones but instead looks for substitutes. “A clinical lesson that I feel that I learned over time is: Ask your questions first. What would you like to see in 3 months? Or 6 months? Before you just add another therapy, do you really know what the trajectory of a disease might be?”

Dr. Flowers discloses research support (Pharmacyclics, Incyte), speaker honorarium (Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Mallinckrodt), and consulting relationships (Pharmacyclics, CSL Behring, Fresenius Kabi).

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

How old is too old for a patient to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)? That’s the wrong question to ask, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. Instead, he said, look at other factors such as disease status and genetics.

“Transplantation for older patients, even beyond the age of 70, is acceptable, as long as it’s done with caution, care, and wisdom. So we’re all not too old for transplantation, at least not today,” said Daniel Weisdorf, MD, professor of medicine and deputy director of the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

As he noted, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is often fatal. Among the general population, “the expected survival life expectancy at age 75 is 98% at 1 year, and most people living at 75 go on to live more than 10 years,” he said. “But if you have AML, at age 75, you have 20% survival at 1 year, 4% at 3 years. And since the median age of AML diagnosis is 68, and 75% of patients are diagnosed beyond the age of 55, this becomes relevant.”

Risk factors that affect survival after transplantation “certainly include age, but that interacts directly with the comorbidities people accumulate with age, their assessments of frailty, and their Karnofsky performance status, as well as the disease phenotype and molecular genetic markers,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “Perhaps most importantly, though not addressed very much, is patients’ willingness to undertake intensive therapy and their life outlook related to patient-reported outcomes when they get older.”

Despite the lack of indications that higher age by itself is an influential factor in survival after transplant, “we are generally reluctant to push the age of eligibility,” Dr. Weisdorf said. He noted that recently published American Society of Hematology guidelines for treatment of AML over the age of 55 “don’t discuss anything about transplantation fitness because they didn’t want to tackle that.”

Overall survival (OS) at 1 year after allogenic transplants only dipped slightly from ages 51-60 to 71 and above, according to Dr. Weisdorf’s analysis of U.S. data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research for the time period 2005-2019.

OS was 67.6% (66.8%-68.3%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 9,287) and 57.9% (56.1%-59.8%) for the 71 and older group, Dr. Weisdorf found. Overall, OS dropped by about 4 percentage points per decade of age, he said, revealing a “modest influence” of advancing years.

His analysis of autologous transplant data from the same source, also for 2005-2019, revealed “essentially no age influence.” OS was 90.8% (90.3%-91.2%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 15,075) and 86.6% (85.9%-87.3%) for the 71 and older group (n = 7,247).

Dr. Weisdorf also highlighted unpublished research that suggests that cord-blood transplant recipients older than 70 face a significantly higher risk of death than that of younger patients in the same category. Cord blood “may be option of last resort” because of a lack of other options, he explained. “And it may be part of the learning curve of cord blood transplantation, which grew a little bit in the early 2000s, and maybe past 2010, and then fell off as everybody got enamored with the haploidentical transplant option.”

How can physicians make decisions about transplants in older patients? “The transplant comorbidity index, the specific comorbidities themselves, performance score, and frailty are all measures of somebody’s fitness to be a good candidate for transplant, really at any age,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “But we also have to recognize that disease status, genetics, and the risk phenotype remain critical and should influence decision making.”

However, even as transplant survival improves overall, “very few people are incorporating any very specific biological markers” in decision-making, he said. “We’ve gotten to measures of frailty, but we haven’t gotten to any biologic measures of cytokines or other things that would predict poor chances for doing well. So I’m afraid we’re still standing at the foot of the bed saying: ‘You look okay.’ Or we’re measuring their comorbidity index. But it is disappointing that we’re using mostly very simple clinical measures to decide if somebody is sturdy enough to proceed, and we perhaps need something better. But I don’t have a great suggestion what it should be.”

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Weisdorf disclosed consulting fees from Fate Therapeutics and Incyte Corp.

SOURCE: “The Ever-Increasing Upper Age for Transplant: Is This Evidence-Based?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

How old is too old for a patient to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)? That’s the wrong question to ask, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. Instead, he said, look at other factors such as disease status and genetics.

“Transplantation for older patients, even beyond the age of 70, is acceptable, as long as it’s done with caution, care, and wisdom. So we’re all not too old for transplantation, at least not today,” said Daniel Weisdorf, MD, professor of medicine and deputy director of the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

As he noted, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is often fatal. Among the general population, “the expected survival life expectancy at age 75 is 98% at 1 year, and most people living at 75 go on to live more than 10 years,” he said. “But if you have AML, at age 75, you have 20% survival at 1 year, 4% at 3 years. And since the median age of AML diagnosis is 68, and 75% of patients are diagnosed beyond the age of 55, this becomes relevant.”

Risk factors that affect survival after transplantation “certainly include age, but that interacts directly with the comorbidities people accumulate with age, their assessments of frailty, and their Karnofsky performance status, as well as the disease phenotype and molecular genetic markers,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “Perhaps most importantly, though not addressed very much, is patients’ willingness to undertake intensive therapy and their life outlook related to patient-reported outcomes when they get older.”

Despite the lack of indications that higher age by itself is an influential factor in survival after transplant, “we are generally reluctant to push the age of eligibility,” Dr. Weisdorf said. He noted that recently published American Society of Hematology guidelines for treatment of AML over the age of 55 “don’t discuss anything about transplantation fitness because they didn’t want to tackle that.”

Overall survival (OS) at 1 year after allogenic transplants only dipped slightly from ages 51-60 to 71 and above, according to Dr. Weisdorf’s analysis of U.S. data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research for the time period 2005-2019.

OS was 67.6% (66.8%-68.3%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 9,287) and 57.9% (56.1%-59.8%) for the 71 and older group, Dr. Weisdorf found. Overall, OS dropped by about 4 percentage points per decade of age, he said, revealing a “modest influence” of advancing years.

His analysis of autologous transplant data from the same source, also for 2005-2019, revealed “essentially no age influence.” OS was 90.8% (90.3%-91.2%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 15,075) and 86.6% (85.9%-87.3%) for the 71 and older group (n = 7,247).

Dr. Weisdorf also highlighted unpublished research that suggests that cord-blood transplant recipients older than 70 face a significantly higher risk of death than that of younger patients in the same category. Cord blood “may be option of last resort” because of a lack of other options, he explained. “And it may be part of the learning curve of cord blood transplantation, which grew a little bit in the early 2000s, and maybe past 2010, and then fell off as everybody got enamored with the haploidentical transplant option.”

How can physicians make decisions about transplants in older patients? “The transplant comorbidity index, the specific comorbidities themselves, performance score, and frailty are all measures of somebody’s fitness to be a good candidate for transplant, really at any age,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “But we also have to recognize that disease status, genetics, and the risk phenotype remain critical and should influence decision making.”

However, even as transplant survival improves overall, “very few people are incorporating any very specific biological markers” in decision-making, he said. “We’ve gotten to measures of frailty, but we haven’t gotten to any biologic measures of cytokines or other things that would predict poor chances for doing well. So I’m afraid we’re still standing at the foot of the bed saying: ‘You look okay.’ Or we’re measuring their comorbidity index. But it is disappointing that we’re using mostly very simple clinical measures to decide if somebody is sturdy enough to proceed, and we perhaps need something better. But I don’t have a great suggestion what it should be.”

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Weisdorf disclosed consulting fees from Fate Therapeutics and Incyte Corp.

SOURCE: “The Ever-Increasing Upper Age for Transplant: Is This Evidence-Based?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

How old is too old for a patient to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)? That’s the wrong question to ask, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. Instead, he said, look at other factors such as disease status and genetics.

“Transplantation for older patients, even beyond the age of 70, is acceptable, as long as it’s done with caution, care, and wisdom. So we’re all not too old for transplantation, at least not today,” said Daniel Weisdorf, MD, professor of medicine and deputy director of the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

As he noted, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is often fatal. Among the general population, “the expected survival life expectancy at age 75 is 98% at 1 year, and most people living at 75 go on to live more than 10 years,” he said. “But if you have AML, at age 75, you have 20% survival at 1 year, 4% at 3 years. And since the median age of AML diagnosis is 68, and 75% of patients are diagnosed beyond the age of 55, this becomes relevant.”

Risk factors that affect survival after transplantation “certainly include age, but that interacts directly with the comorbidities people accumulate with age, their assessments of frailty, and their Karnofsky performance status, as well as the disease phenotype and molecular genetic markers,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “Perhaps most importantly, though not addressed very much, is patients’ willingness to undertake intensive therapy and their life outlook related to patient-reported outcomes when they get older.”

Despite the lack of indications that higher age by itself is an influential factor in survival after transplant, “we are generally reluctant to push the age of eligibility,” Dr. Weisdorf said. He noted that recently published American Society of Hematology guidelines for treatment of AML over the age of 55 “don’t discuss anything about transplantation fitness because they didn’t want to tackle that.”

Overall survival (OS) at 1 year after allogenic transplants only dipped slightly from ages 51-60 to 71 and above, according to Dr. Weisdorf’s analysis of U.S. data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research for the time period 2005-2019.

OS was 67.6% (66.8%-68.3%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 9,287) and 57.9% (56.1%-59.8%) for the 71 and older group, Dr. Weisdorf found. Overall, OS dropped by about 4 percentage points per decade of age, he said, revealing a “modest influence” of advancing years.

His analysis of autologous transplant data from the same source, also for 2005-2019, revealed “essentially no age influence.” OS was 90.8% (90.3%-91.2%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 15,075) and 86.6% (85.9%-87.3%) for the 71 and older group (n = 7,247).

Dr. Weisdorf also highlighted unpublished research that suggests that cord-blood transplant recipients older than 70 face a significantly higher risk of death than that of younger patients in the same category. Cord blood “may be option of last resort” because of a lack of other options, he explained. “And it may be part of the learning curve of cord blood transplantation, which grew a little bit in the early 2000s, and maybe past 2010, and then fell off as everybody got enamored with the haploidentical transplant option.”

How can physicians make decisions about transplants in older patients? “The transplant comorbidity index, the specific comorbidities themselves, performance score, and frailty are all measures of somebody’s fitness to be a good candidate for transplant, really at any age,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “But we also have to recognize that disease status, genetics, and the risk phenotype remain critical and should influence decision making.”

However, even as transplant survival improves overall, “very few people are incorporating any very specific biological markers” in decision-making, he said. “We’ve gotten to measures of frailty, but we haven’t gotten to any biologic measures of cytokines or other things that would predict poor chances for doing well. So I’m afraid we’re still standing at the foot of the bed saying: ‘You look okay.’ Or we’re measuring their comorbidity index. But it is disappointing that we’re using mostly very simple clinical measures to decide if somebody is sturdy enough to proceed, and we perhaps need something better. But I don’t have a great suggestion what it should be.”

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Weisdorf disclosed consulting fees from Fate Therapeutics and Incyte Corp.

SOURCE: “The Ever-Increasing Upper Age for Transplant: Is This Evidence-Based?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hari called the findings “provocative.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hari called the findings “provocative.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hari called the findings “provocative.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approximately one-fifth of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), based on a retrospective analysis.

Patient factors at time of transplantation, such as low quality of life and high anxiety, predicted PTSD 6 months later, reported lead author Sarah Griffith, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“We know that patients admitted for HSCT are often isolated in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, usually about 3-4 weeks, and that they endure substantial toxicities that impact both their physical and psychological well-being,” Dr. Griffith said. “We also know from the literature that HSCT can be considered a traumatic event and that it may lead to clinically significant PTSD symptoms.” But studies evaluating the prevalence and characteristics of PTSD in this patient population have been lacking, she noted.

Dr. Griffith and her colleagues therefore conducted a retrospective analysis involving 250 adults with hematologic malignancies who underwent autologous or allogeneic HSCT during clinical trials conducted from 2014 to 2016. Median patient age was 56 years.

The first objective of the study was to measure the prevalence of PTSD. The second was to characterize features of PTSD such as intrusion, which entails reliving experiences in the form of nightmares or flashbacks, and hypervigilance, which encompasses insomnia, irritability, and hyperarousal for threat. The third objective was to determine risk factors at baseline.

At time of admission for HSCT, after 2 weeks of hospitalization, and again 6 months after transplantation, patients were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which measured of quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Six months after HSCT, patients also underwent screening for PTSD with the Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist (PTSD-CL). Multivariate regression models were used to determine predictive risk factors.

Six months after HSCT, 18.9% of patients had clinically significant PTSD symptoms; most common were symptoms of avoidance (92.3%), hypervigilance (92.3%), and intrusion (76.9%). Among those who did not have clinically significant PTSD, almost one-quarter (24.5%) demonstrated significant hypervigilance, while 13.7% showed symptoms of avoidance.

“Clinically significant PTSD symptoms are common in the transplant population,” Dr. Griffith said.

Baseline predictors of PTSD included single status and lower quality of life. More severe PTSD was predicted by single status, younger age, higher baseline scores for anxiety or depression, and increased anxiety during hospitalization.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Griffith said that the findings, while correlative and not causative, should prompt concern and intervention.

“It is very important to be aware of and to manage PTSD symptoms in these patients,” she said. “There are several baseline factors that can be identified prior to HSCT that may illuminate patients at risk for developing worse PTSD symptoms down the road, and these patients may benefit from tailored supportive care interventions.”

Specifically, Dr. Griffith recommended integrating palliative care into hospitalization, as this has been shown to reduce anxiety.

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., highlighted the importance of the findings, while also noting that the impact of palliative care on risk of PTSD has yet to be demonstrated.

Dr. Shah suggested that future research may be improved through use of a formal diagnosis for PTSD, instead of a PTSD checklist, as was used in the present study.

“And certainly long-term follow-up would be important to evaluate the utility of this tool looking at symptoms beyond 6 months,” she said.

Dr. Shah went on to discuss the relevance of the findings for pediatric populations, as children may face unique risk factors and consequences related to PTSD.

“[PTSD in children] may be impacted by family dynamics and structure,” Dr. Shah said. “Children may also have significant neurocognitive implications as a result of their underlying disease or prior therapy. They may experience chronic pain as they go out into adulthood and long-term survivorship, and may also struggle with symptoms of anxiety and depression.”

According to Dr. Shah, one previous study involving more than 6,000 adult survivors of childhood cancer found that PTSD was relatively common, with prevalence rate of 9%, suggesting that interventional work is necessary.

“Applying the data in the study from Griffith et al. suggests that evaluation in the more proximal posttransplant period for children is needed to specifically evaluate PTSD and symptoms thereof, and to try to use this to identify an opportunity for intervention,” Dr. Shah said.

“Pediatric-specific assessments are essential to optimally capture disease and/or age-specific considerations,” she added.

The study was funded by the Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Vector Oncology, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Gaido Health/BCG Digital Ventures.

SOURCE: Griffith et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract # 7505.

Approximately one-fifth of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), based on a retrospective analysis.

Patient factors at time of transplantation, such as low quality of life and high anxiety, predicted PTSD 6 months later, reported lead author Sarah Griffith, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“We know that patients admitted for HSCT are often isolated in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, usually about 3-4 weeks, and that they endure substantial toxicities that impact both their physical and psychological well-being,” Dr. Griffith said. “We also know from the literature that HSCT can be considered a traumatic event and that it may lead to clinically significant PTSD symptoms.” But studies evaluating the prevalence and characteristics of PTSD in this patient population have been lacking, she noted.

Dr. Griffith and her colleagues therefore conducted a retrospective analysis involving 250 adults with hematologic malignancies who underwent autologous or allogeneic HSCT during clinical trials conducted from 2014 to 2016. Median patient age was 56 years.

The first objective of the study was to measure the prevalence of PTSD. The second was to characterize features of PTSD such as intrusion, which entails reliving experiences in the form of nightmares or flashbacks, and hypervigilance, which encompasses insomnia, irritability, and hyperarousal for threat. The third objective was to determine risk factors at baseline.

At time of admission for HSCT, after 2 weeks of hospitalization, and again 6 months after transplantation, patients were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which measured of quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Six months after HSCT, patients also underwent screening for PTSD with the Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist (PTSD-CL). Multivariate regression models were used to determine predictive risk factors.

Six months after HSCT, 18.9% of patients had clinically significant PTSD symptoms; most common were symptoms of avoidance (92.3%), hypervigilance (92.3%), and intrusion (76.9%). Among those who did not have clinically significant PTSD, almost one-quarter (24.5%) demonstrated significant hypervigilance, while 13.7% showed symptoms of avoidance.

“Clinically significant PTSD symptoms are common in the transplant population,” Dr. Griffith said.

Baseline predictors of PTSD included single status and lower quality of life. More severe PTSD was predicted by single status, younger age, higher baseline scores for anxiety or depression, and increased anxiety during hospitalization.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Griffith said that the findings, while correlative and not causative, should prompt concern and intervention.

“It is very important to be aware of and to manage PTSD symptoms in these patients,” she said. “There are several baseline factors that can be identified prior to HSCT that may illuminate patients at risk for developing worse PTSD symptoms down the road, and these patients may benefit from tailored supportive care interventions.”

Specifically, Dr. Griffith recommended integrating palliative care into hospitalization, as this has been shown to reduce anxiety.

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., highlighted the importance of the findings, while also noting that the impact of palliative care on risk of PTSD has yet to be demonstrated.

Dr. Shah suggested that future research may be improved through use of a formal diagnosis for PTSD, instead of a PTSD checklist, as was used in the present study.

“And certainly long-term follow-up would be important to evaluate the utility of this tool looking at symptoms beyond 6 months,” she said.

Dr. Shah went on to discuss the relevance of the findings for pediatric populations, as children may face unique risk factors and consequences related to PTSD.

“[PTSD in children] may be impacted by family dynamics and structure,” Dr. Shah said. “Children may also have significant neurocognitive implications as a result of their underlying disease or prior therapy. They may experience chronic pain as they go out into adulthood and long-term survivorship, and may also struggle with symptoms of anxiety and depression.”

According to Dr. Shah, one previous study involving more than 6,000 adult survivors of childhood cancer found that PTSD was relatively common, with prevalence rate of 9%, suggesting that interventional work is necessary.

“Applying the data in the study from Griffith et al. suggests that evaluation in the more proximal posttransplant period for children is needed to specifically evaluate PTSD and symptoms thereof, and to try to use this to identify an opportunity for intervention,” Dr. Shah said.

“Pediatric-specific assessments are essential to optimally capture disease and/or age-specific considerations,” she added.

The study was funded by the Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Vector Oncology, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Gaido Health/BCG Digital Ventures.

SOURCE: Griffith et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract # 7505.

Approximately one-fifth of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), based on a retrospective analysis.

Patient factors at time of transplantation, such as low quality of life and high anxiety, predicted PTSD 6 months later, reported lead author Sarah Griffith, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“We know that patients admitted for HSCT are often isolated in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, usually about 3-4 weeks, and that they endure substantial toxicities that impact both their physical and psychological well-being,” Dr. Griffith said. “We also know from the literature that HSCT can be considered a traumatic event and that it may lead to clinically significant PTSD symptoms.” But studies evaluating the prevalence and characteristics of PTSD in this patient population have been lacking, she noted.

Dr. Griffith and her colleagues therefore conducted a retrospective analysis involving 250 adults with hematologic malignancies who underwent autologous or allogeneic HSCT during clinical trials conducted from 2014 to 2016. Median patient age was 56 years.

The first objective of the study was to measure the prevalence of PTSD. The second was to characterize features of PTSD such as intrusion, which entails reliving experiences in the form of nightmares or flashbacks, and hypervigilance, which encompasses insomnia, irritability, and hyperarousal for threat. The third objective was to determine risk factors at baseline.

At time of admission for HSCT, after 2 weeks of hospitalization, and again 6 months after transplantation, patients were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which measured of quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Six months after HSCT, patients also underwent screening for PTSD with the Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist (PTSD-CL). Multivariate regression models were used to determine predictive risk factors.

Six months after HSCT, 18.9% of patients had clinically significant PTSD symptoms; most common were symptoms of avoidance (92.3%), hypervigilance (92.3%), and intrusion (76.9%). Among those who did not have clinically significant PTSD, almost one-quarter (24.5%) demonstrated significant hypervigilance, while 13.7% showed symptoms of avoidance.

“Clinically significant PTSD symptoms are common in the transplant population,” Dr. Griffith said.

Baseline predictors of PTSD included single status and lower quality of life. More severe PTSD was predicted by single status, younger age, higher baseline scores for anxiety or depression, and increased anxiety during hospitalization.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Griffith said that the findings, while correlative and not causative, should prompt concern and intervention.

“It is very important to be aware of and to manage PTSD symptoms in these patients,” she said. “There are several baseline factors that can be identified prior to HSCT that may illuminate patients at risk for developing worse PTSD symptoms down the road, and these patients may benefit from tailored supportive care interventions.”

Specifically, Dr. Griffith recommended integrating palliative care into hospitalization, as this has been shown to reduce anxiety.

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., highlighted the importance of the findings, while also noting that the impact of palliative care on risk of PTSD has yet to be demonstrated.

Dr. Shah suggested that future research may be improved through use of a formal diagnosis for PTSD, instead of a PTSD checklist, as was used in the present study.

“And certainly long-term follow-up would be important to evaluate the utility of this tool looking at symptoms beyond 6 months,” she said.

Dr. Shah went on to discuss the relevance of the findings for pediatric populations, as children may face unique risk factors and consequences related to PTSD.

“[PTSD in children] may be impacted by family dynamics and structure,” Dr. Shah said. “Children may also have significant neurocognitive implications as a result of their underlying disease or prior therapy. They may experience chronic pain as they go out into adulthood and long-term survivorship, and may also struggle with symptoms of anxiety and depression.”

According to Dr. Shah, one previous study involving more than 6,000 adult survivors of childhood cancer found that PTSD was relatively common, with prevalence rate of 9%, suggesting that interventional work is necessary.

“Applying the data in the study from Griffith et al. suggests that evaluation in the more proximal posttransplant period for children is needed to specifically evaluate PTSD and symptoms thereof, and to try to use this to identify an opportunity for intervention,” Dr. Shah said.

“Pediatric-specific assessments are essential to optimally capture disease and/or age-specific considerations,” she added.

The study was funded by the Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Vector Oncology, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Gaido Health/BCG Digital Ventures.

SOURCE: Griffith et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract # 7505.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.