Kate Johnson

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

Treatment with the oral Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax was associated with improved progression-free survival, compared with standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy in frontline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a prespecified interim analysis of the AMPLIFY trial.

In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.

Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.

“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.

 

Study Details

AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.

Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.

More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.

It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.

Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.

When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.

COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.

Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.

The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.

As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.

 

To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab

Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.

But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.

“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”

The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.

Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.

“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.

Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”

Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.

However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.

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

Treatment with the oral Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax was associated with improved progression-free survival, compared with standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy in frontline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a prespecified interim analysis of the AMPLIFY trial.

In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.

Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.

“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.

 

Study Details

AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.

Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.

More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.

It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.

Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.

When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.

COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.

Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.

The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.

As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.

 

To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab

Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.

But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.

“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”

The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.

Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.

“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.

Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”

Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.

However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.

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

Treatment with the oral Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax was associated with improved progression-free survival, compared with standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy in frontline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a prespecified interim analysis of the AMPLIFY trial.

In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.

Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.

“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.

 

Study Details

AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.

Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.

More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.

It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.

Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.

When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.

COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.

Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.

The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.

As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.

 

To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab

Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.

But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.

“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”

The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.

Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.

“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.

Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”

Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.

However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.

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

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists led to a significant reduction in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a recent analysis indicated.

Overall, GLP-1 agonist use was associated with a 20% reduction in VTE, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor use, in those with type 2 diabetes, and this benefit held regardless of people’s obesity status, said study investigator Cho-Han Chiang, MD, a medical resident at Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The incidence of VTE has increased by 20% over the past 10 years, and obesity is a risk factor for VTE, Chiang explained. A growing body of evidence demonstrated that GLP-1s provide a variety of cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, but data on VTE benefits remain more limited.

In the retrospective study, the researchers combed electronic health records from the TriNetX global database, which includes more than 250 million patients, and identified adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking a GLP-1 agonist or a DPP-4 inhibitor.

After excluding anyone with prior VTE or atrial fibrillation as well as those treated with both drugs or with oral anticoagulants, patients on GLP-1s were matched with those on DPP-4 inhibitors based on predetermined variables, including age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c, use of other antidiabetic agents, and underlying comorbidities. VTE was a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis that stratified patients by obesity status, defined as a BMI ≥ 30.

Within 1 year of GLP-1 or DPP-4 prescription, VTE occurred at a rate of 6.5 cases/1000 person-years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P < .001).

The 20% risk reduction in VTE held across various subgroups of BMI, including among those with obesity, Chiang reported.

Among patients with the highest BMI (≥ 40), VTE occurred at a rate of 7.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 9.6 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.74). Among patients with the next highest BMI (30-34.9), VTE occurred at a rate of 4.8 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.60). Among those with the lowest BMI (18.5-24.9), VTE occurred significantly less frequently among those in the GLP-1 group — 4.7 cases/1000 person years vs 7.4 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.61).

The lower risk for VTE associated with GLP-1s also held across the individual components of the composite VTE. Pulmonary embolism occurred at a rate of 3.1 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 3.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.78), and deep vein thrombosis occurred in 4.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 5.0 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.82).

Interestingly, the GLP-1 and DPP-4 curves started diverging within the first 30 days of the index prescription date, said Chiang.

Session moderator Ghadeer Dawwas, PhD, said in an interview that patients with type 2 diabetes are increasingly using GLP-1 agonists because of the cardiovascular benefits associated with the agents, which include lower risks for stroke and heart failure, but the antithrombotic benefits are still debated.

“The current study indicates that GLP-1 agonists may help lower the risk of VTE in patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline body weight,” said Dawwas, a pharmacoepidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. “However, given the current landscape of evidence and the existence of conflicting data on VTE risk, clinicians should proceed with caution and await further studies to validate these findings before making clinical decisions.”

This study was funded by the National Blood Clot Alliance and Conquer Cancer Foundation. Chiang and Dawwas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists led to a significant reduction in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a recent analysis indicated.

Overall, GLP-1 agonist use was associated with a 20% reduction in VTE, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor use, in those with type 2 diabetes, and this benefit held regardless of people’s obesity status, said study investigator Cho-Han Chiang, MD, a medical resident at Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The incidence of VTE has increased by 20% over the past 10 years, and obesity is a risk factor for VTE, Chiang explained. A growing body of evidence demonstrated that GLP-1s provide a variety of cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, but data on VTE benefits remain more limited.

In the retrospective study, the researchers combed electronic health records from the TriNetX global database, which includes more than 250 million patients, and identified adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking a GLP-1 agonist or a DPP-4 inhibitor.

After excluding anyone with prior VTE or atrial fibrillation as well as those treated with both drugs or with oral anticoagulants, patients on GLP-1s were matched with those on DPP-4 inhibitors based on predetermined variables, including age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c, use of other antidiabetic agents, and underlying comorbidities. VTE was a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis that stratified patients by obesity status, defined as a BMI ≥ 30.

Within 1 year of GLP-1 or DPP-4 prescription, VTE occurred at a rate of 6.5 cases/1000 person-years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P < .001).

The 20% risk reduction in VTE held across various subgroups of BMI, including among those with obesity, Chiang reported.

Among patients with the highest BMI (≥ 40), VTE occurred at a rate of 7.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 9.6 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.74). Among patients with the next highest BMI (30-34.9), VTE occurred at a rate of 4.8 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.60). Among those with the lowest BMI (18.5-24.9), VTE occurred significantly less frequently among those in the GLP-1 group — 4.7 cases/1000 person years vs 7.4 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.61).

The lower risk for VTE associated with GLP-1s also held across the individual components of the composite VTE. Pulmonary embolism occurred at a rate of 3.1 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 3.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.78), and deep vein thrombosis occurred in 4.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 5.0 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.82).

Interestingly, the GLP-1 and DPP-4 curves started diverging within the first 30 days of the index prescription date, said Chiang.

Session moderator Ghadeer Dawwas, PhD, said in an interview that patients with type 2 diabetes are increasingly using GLP-1 agonists because of the cardiovascular benefits associated with the agents, which include lower risks for stroke and heart failure, but the antithrombotic benefits are still debated.

“The current study indicates that GLP-1 agonists may help lower the risk of VTE in patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline body weight,” said Dawwas, a pharmacoepidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. “However, given the current landscape of evidence and the existence of conflicting data on VTE risk, clinicians should proceed with caution and await further studies to validate these findings before making clinical decisions.”

This study was funded by the National Blood Clot Alliance and Conquer Cancer Foundation. Chiang and Dawwas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists led to a significant reduction in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a recent analysis indicated.

Overall, GLP-1 agonist use was associated with a 20% reduction in VTE, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor use, in those with type 2 diabetes, and this benefit held regardless of people’s obesity status, said study investigator Cho-Han Chiang, MD, a medical resident at Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The incidence of VTE has increased by 20% over the past 10 years, and obesity is a risk factor for VTE, Chiang explained. A growing body of evidence demonstrated that GLP-1s provide a variety of cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, but data on VTE benefits remain more limited.

In the retrospective study, the researchers combed electronic health records from the TriNetX global database, which includes more than 250 million patients, and identified adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking a GLP-1 agonist or a DPP-4 inhibitor.

After excluding anyone with prior VTE or atrial fibrillation as well as those treated with both drugs or with oral anticoagulants, patients on GLP-1s were matched with those on DPP-4 inhibitors based on predetermined variables, including age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c, use of other antidiabetic agents, and underlying comorbidities. VTE was a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis that stratified patients by obesity status, defined as a BMI ≥ 30.

Within 1 year of GLP-1 or DPP-4 prescription, VTE occurred at a rate of 6.5 cases/1000 person-years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P < .001).

The 20% risk reduction in VTE held across various subgroups of BMI, including among those with obesity, Chiang reported.

Among patients with the highest BMI (≥ 40), VTE occurred at a rate of 7.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 9.6 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.74). Among patients with the next highest BMI (30-34.9), VTE occurred at a rate of 4.8 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.60). Among those with the lowest BMI (18.5-24.9), VTE occurred significantly less frequently among those in the GLP-1 group — 4.7 cases/1000 person years vs 7.4 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.61).

The lower risk for VTE associated with GLP-1s also held across the individual components of the composite VTE. Pulmonary embolism occurred at a rate of 3.1 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 3.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.78), and deep vein thrombosis occurred in 4.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 5.0 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.82).

Interestingly, the GLP-1 and DPP-4 curves started diverging within the first 30 days of the index prescription date, said Chiang.

Session moderator Ghadeer Dawwas, PhD, said in an interview that patients with type 2 diabetes are increasingly using GLP-1 agonists because of the cardiovascular benefits associated with the agents, which include lower risks for stroke and heart failure, but the antithrombotic benefits are still debated.

“The current study indicates that GLP-1 agonists may help lower the risk of VTE in patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline body weight,” said Dawwas, a pharmacoepidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. “However, given the current landscape of evidence and the existence of conflicting data on VTE risk, clinicians should proceed with caution and await further studies to validate these findings before making clinical decisions.”

This study was funded by the National Blood Clot Alliance and Conquer Cancer Foundation. Chiang and Dawwas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Omitting 24-hour urine testing from multiple myeloma response assessments does not compromise accurate tracking of patients’ responses to treatment, a new analysis indicates.

Overall, evaluating patients’ responses using urine-free and traditional criteria led to nearly identical assessments. When comparing the two criteria, only 7 of 645 patients evaluated had discordant results.

The findings, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, add weight to the push to drop the requirement to perform routine urine tests from International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria for multiple myeloma, said the study’s lead author, Rahul Banerjee, MD, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.

“International guidelines for multiple myeloma, which haven’t been updated in almost a decade, currently recommend these refrigerated 24-hour urine assessments, which are cumbersome for patients and can create substantial disparities,” Banerjee said in an interview. 

“The international community is actually in the midst of updating its guidelines (I am part of this effort), and our work will hopefully help lead the way for future guidelines that de-emphasize the need for 24-hour urine testing to only a few rare scenarios, such as AL amyloidosis,” Banerjee added.

Urine tests can help detect the presence of abnormal proteins, which can indicate the level of myeloma tumor burden. Performing these tests routinely can help physicians monitor the effectiveness of patients’ treatment in practice and clinical trials. 

Some recent data, however, suggest that dropping urine testing from the response criteria would change the response assessment in fewer than 5% of patients. Still, it’s not clear how urine-free criteria would impact assessments of progression free survival.

In the current study, Banerjee and colleagues performed a secondary analysis of the STaMINA trial. In the original trial, patients were randomized to lenalidomide maintenance, tandem autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation followed by lenalidomide maintenance, or consolidation therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) followed by lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression.

The secondary analysis included 645 patients from the original trial who were evaluable 56 days following autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. The analysis looked at patients across all groups, but excluded those with progressive disease, and compared patients’ responses using traditional IMWG criteria, which includes 24-hour urine assessments, and urine-free criteria. Response measurements included complete response, very good partial response, partial response, and stable disease. 

Patients were a median age of 56 years, 41% were female, 17% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic; 26% had light-chain only disease. About half (49%) had received lenalidomide alone, 28% had received post-autologous stem cell transplantation consolidation followed by lenalidomide, and 24% had received tandem transplantation followed by lenalidomide.

The analysis showed that “urine-free response criteria worked just fine in terms of their prognostic value,” Banerjee said while presenting the findings. 

Specifically, the complete response rate was 29.4% using the traditional criteria vs 29.7% using the urine-free criteria. The very good partial response rate was 37.0% with the traditional approach vs 36.6% with the urine-free approach. The partial response rate was 30.7% for both and the stable disease rate was 3.0% for both. 

Achieving a complete response based on the urine-free criteria was highly prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .005) while achieving a very good partial response by either criterion was borderline prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .102). 

Only 1.1% of patients — seven patients altogether — had discordant responses between traditional and urine-free response criteria, Banerjee noted. One patient, for instance, was downgraded from a very good partial response with traditional criteria to a partial response with urine-free criteria “because current response criteria rate urine [as] more important than serum-free light chains,” Banerjee explained. Two other patients who met all other stringent criteria for a complete response but still had urine paraprotein at Day 56 were classified as having a very good partial response using traditional criteria but as a complete response with the urine-free criteria.

The other four patients with discordant results were the most important, Banerjee said. These patients were missing urine protein electrophoresis values, which made them non-evaluable using traditional criteria, but became evaluable when using urine-free criteria. “This is, I think, the bane of our existence, right? We ask our patients to put their blood, soul, sweat, and tears into being in a clinical trial, and then they’re not evaluable,” he said.

Overall, these results strongly support the de-emphasis of 24-hour urine requirements in updated IMWG response criteria, said Banerjee. However, he noted, 24-hour urine testing still has a very important place in the screening process and in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance or AL amyloidosis.

“This study provides reassurance to those of us already not repeating urine tests that urine testing is unnecessary for tracking responses,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, from the Multiple Myeloma Program at Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “These assessments aren’t done consistently in practice outside of trials anyway, and I hope that this study will lead to a formal change in criteria and the omission of urine assessments in clinical trials.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; and SWOG; and contributions were provided by Celgene and Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures, and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi. Mohyuddin has disclosed no personal payments and no consultation for industry. His institution has received research funding from Janssen for his role as a principal investigator on a trial.

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

SAN DIEGO — Omitting 24-hour urine testing from multiple myeloma response assessments does not compromise accurate tracking of patients’ responses to treatment, a new analysis indicates.

Overall, evaluating patients’ responses using urine-free and traditional criteria led to nearly identical assessments. When comparing the two criteria, only 7 of 645 patients evaluated had discordant results.

The findings, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, add weight to the push to drop the requirement to perform routine urine tests from International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria for multiple myeloma, said the study’s lead author, Rahul Banerjee, MD, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.

“International guidelines for multiple myeloma, which haven’t been updated in almost a decade, currently recommend these refrigerated 24-hour urine assessments, which are cumbersome for patients and can create substantial disparities,” Banerjee said in an interview. 

“The international community is actually in the midst of updating its guidelines (I am part of this effort), and our work will hopefully help lead the way for future guidelines that de-emphasize the need for 24-hour urine testing to only a few rare scenarios, such as AL amyloidosis,” Banerjee added.

Urine tests can help detect the presence of abnormal proteins, which can indicate the level of myeloma tumor burden. Performing these tests routinely can help physicians monitor the effectiveness of patients’ treatment in practice and clinical trials. 

Some recent data, however, suggest that dropping urine testing from the response criteria would change the response assessment in fewer than 5% of patients. Still, it’s not clear how urine-free criteria would impact assessments of progression free survival.

In the current study, Banerjee and colleagues performed a secondary analysis of the STaMINA trial. In the original trial, patients were randomized to lenalidomide maintenance, tandem autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation followed by lenalidomide maintenance, or consolidation therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) followed by lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression.

The secondary analysis included 645 patients from the original trial who were evaluable 56 days following autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. The analysis looked at patients across all groups, but excluded those with progressive disease, and compared patients’ responses using traditional IMWG criteria, which includes 24-hour urine assessments, and urine-free criteria. Response measurements included complete response, very good partial response, partial response, and stable disease. 

Patients were a median age of 56 years, 41% were female, 17% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic; 26% had light-chain only disease. About half (49%) had received lenalidomide alone, 28% had received post-autologous stem cell transplantation consolidation followed by lenalidomide, and 24% had received tandem transplantation followed by lenalidomide.

The analysis showed that “urine-free response criteria worked just fine in terms of their prognostic value,” Banerjee said while presenting the findings. 

Specifically, the complete response rate was 29.4% using the traditional criteria vs 29.7% using the urine-free criteria. The very good partial response rate was 37.0% with the traditional approach vs 36.6% with the urine-free approach. The partial response rate was 30.7% for both and the stable disease rate was 3.0% for both. 

Achieving a complete response based on the urine-free criteria was highly prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .005) while achieving a very good partial response by either criterion was borderline prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .102). 

Only 1.1% of patients — seven patients altogether — had discordant responses between traditional and urine-free response criteria, Banerjee noted. One patient, for instance, was downgraded from a very good partial response with traditional criteria to a partial response with urine-free criteria “because current response criteria rate urine [as] more important than serum-free light chains,” Banerjee explained. Two other patients who met all other stringent criteria for a complete response but still had urine paraprotein at Day 56 were classified as having a very good partial response using traditional criteria but as a complete response with the urine-free criteria.

The other four patients with discordant results were the most important, Banerjee said. These patients were missing urine protein electrophoresis values, which made them non-evaluable using traditional criteria, but became evaluable when using urine-free criteria. “This is, I think, the bane of our existence, right? We ask our patients to put their blood, soul, sweat, and tears into being in a clinical trial, and then they’re not evaluable,” he said.

Overall, these results strongly support the de-emphasis of 24-hour urine requirements in updated IMWG response criteria, said Banerjee. However, he noted, 24-hour urine testing still has a very important place in the screening process and in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance or AL amyloidosis.

“This study provides reassurance to those of us already not repeating urine tests that urine testing is unnecessary for tracking responses,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, from the Multiple Myeloma Program at Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “These assessments aren’t done consistently in practice outside of trials anyway, and I hope that this study will lead to a formal change in criteria and the omission of urine assessments in clinical trials.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; and SWOG; and contributions were provided by Celgene and Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures, and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi. Mohyuddin has disclosed no personal payments and no consultation for industry. His institution has received research funding from Janssen for his role as a principal investigator on a trial.

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

SAN DIEGO — Omitting 24-hour urine testing from multiple myeloma response assessments does not compromise accurate tracking of patients’ responses to treatment, a new analysis indicates.

Overall, evaluating patients’ responses using urine-free and traditional criteria led to nearly identical assessments. When comparing the two criteria, only 7 of 645 patients evaluated had discordant results.

The findings, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, add weight to the push to drop the requirement to perform routine urine tests from International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria for multiple myeloma, said the study’s lead author, Rahul Banerjee, MD, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.

“International guidelines for multiple myeloma, which haven’t been updated in almost a decade, currently recommend these refrigerated 24-hour urine assessments, which are cumbersome for patients and can create substantial disparities,” Banerjee said in an interview. 

“The international community is actually in the midst of updating its guidelines (I am part of this effort), and our work will hopefully help lead the way for future guidelines that de-emphasize the need for 24-hour urine testing to only a few rare scenarios, such as AL amyloidosis,” Banerjee added.

Urine tests can help detect the presence of abnormal proteins, which can indicate the level of myeloma tumor burden. Performing these tests routinely can help physicians monitor the effectiveness of patients’ treatment in practice and clinical trials. 

Some recent data, however, suggest that dropping urine testing from the response criteria would change the response assessment in fewer than 5% of patients. Still, it’s not clear how urine-free criteria would impact assessments of progression free survival.

In the current study, Banerjee and colleagues performed a secondary analysis of the STaMINA trial. In the original trial, patients were randomized to lenalidomide maintenance, tandem autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation followed by lenalidomide maintenance, or consolidation therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) followed by lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression.

The secondary analysis included 645 patients from the original trial who were evaluable 56 days following autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. The analysis looked at patients across all groups, but excluded those with progressive disease, and compared patients’ responses using traditional IMWG criteria, which includes 24-hour urine assessments, and urine-free criteria. Response measurements included complete response, very good partial response, partial response, and stable disease. 

Patients were a median age of 56 years, 41% were female, 17% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic; 26% had light-chain only disease. About half (49%) had received lenalidomide alone, 28% had received post-autologous stem cell transplantation consolidation followed by lenalidomide, and 24% had received tandem transplantation followed by lenalidomide.

The analysis showed that “urine-free response criteria worked just fine in terms of their prognostic value,” Banerjee said while presenting the findings. 

Specifically, the complete response rate was 29.4% using the traditional criteria vs 29.7% using the urine-free criteria. The very good partial response rate was 37.0% with the traditional approach vs 36.6% with the urine-free approach. The partial response rate was 30.7% for both and the stable disease rate was 3.0% for both. 

Achieving a complete response based on the urine-free criteria was highly prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .005) while achieving a very good partial response by either criterion was borderline prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .102). 

Only 1.1% of patients — seven patients altogether — had discordant responses between traditional and urine-free response criteria, Banerjee noted. One patient, for instance, was downgraded from a very good partial response with traditional criteria to a partial response with urine-free criteria “because current response criteria rate urine [as] more important than serum-free light chains,” Banerjee explained. Two other patients who met all other stringent criteria for a complete response but still had urine paraprotein at Day 56 were classified as having a very good partial response using traditional criteria but as a complete response with the urine-free criteria.

The other four patients with discordant results were the most important, Banerjee said. These patients were missing urine protein electrophoresis values, which made them non-evaluable using traditional criteria, but became evaluable when using urine-free criteria. “This is, I think, the bane of our existence, right? We ask our patients to put their blood, soul, sweat, and tears into being in a clinical trial, and then they’re not evaluable,” he said.

Overall, these results strongly support the de-emphasis of 24-hour urine requirements in updated IMWG response criteria, said Banerjee. However, he noted, 24-hour urine testing still has a very important place in the screening process and in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance or AL amyloidosis.

“This study provides reassurance to those of us already not repeating urine tests that urine testing is unnecessary for tracking responses,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, from the Multiple Myeloma Program at Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “These assessments aren’t done consistently in practice outside of trials anyway, and I hope that this study will lead to a formal change in criteria and the omission of urine assessments in clinical trials.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; and SWOG; and contributions were provided by Celgene and Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures, and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi. Mohyuddin has disclosed no personal payments and no consultation for industry. His institution has received research funding from Janssen for his role as a principal investigator on a trial.

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

SAN DIEGO — Patients with multiple myeloma who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) prophylaxis during treatment with teclistamab have fewer infections and better overall survival, compared with those who do not receive IVIG prophylaxis, according to new findings presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Among 225 consecutive patients who received at least one treatment for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, those who received IVIG prophylaxis experienced a significantly longer duration of infection-free survival and an almost threefold longer median overall survival, compared with patients who did not receive IVIG prophylaxis.

IVIG supplementation has been shown to prevent severe infections in patients with multiple myeloma, but evidence on the best time to initiate IVIG prophylaxis among those receiving teclistamab remains less clear.

“Our institutional practice is to start IVIG about cycle 2 of therapy, which ended up being around 39 days,” but a key takeaway from the current findings is to “start IVIG within 30 days,” said lead investigator Heloise Cheruvalath, BA, a medical student at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings. 

The 225 patients included in the study had received at least one dose of standard-of-care teclistamab or an investigational B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed bispecific antibody (bsAb). IVIG was given as prophylaxis to 92 patients (41%) in the primary arm. The remaining 133 patients (59%) did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, but 29% received IVIG after a documented infection.

In total, there were 288 infections in 136 patients, and about 61% of infections required hospitalization. Median time to infection was 97 days, with the 12-month cumulative incidence of all-grade infections reaching 73% and the incidence of grade 3 or higher infections totaling 53%. Respiratory tract infections were the most common infection type, with COVID-19 accounting for 11% of cases, Cheruvalath noted. 

Comparing patients who did and did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, median infection-free survival was significantly longer in the prophylaxis group — a median of 7.7 months vs 3 months — as was grade 3 or higher infection-free survival — a median of 14 months vs 7.5 months.

IVIG prophylaxis also led to a higher rate of 2-year progression free survival in the prophylaxis vs nonprophylaxis group — at 38% vs 32% — as well as longer median progression-free survival — at 15 months vs 8 months.

After multivariate analysis, IVIG prophylaxis was no longer significantly associated with improved progression-free survival. 

However, median overall survival did remain significantly better in the IVIG prophylaxis than the nonprophylaxis group after multivariate analysis — 44 months vs 16 months. The presence of high-risk and extramedullary disease was independently associated with worse overall survival. 

The effects of IVIG prophylaxis were stronger for bacterial infections at earlier (30 days or sooner) vs later (31 days or later) time points, but timing of IVIG therapy did not appear to affect the incidence of viral infections.

A study limitation was lack of randomization; IVIG prophylaxis was given at the physician’s discretion. In addition, multiple myeloma treatment was not standardized, with 15% of IVIG patients and 38% of non-IVIG patients receiving investigational BCMA bsAB.

“However, the majority of those who received primary IVIG prophylaxis were treated with standard-of-care teclistamab, making our results generalizable to current clinical practice,” Cheruvalath said.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted he has already started providing routine IVIG prophylaxis based on earlier research from this group. “Before I did, my patients would often get very rare infections requiring protracted courses of antibiotics,” Banerjee, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview. “Moving to IVIG before the infections start makes much more sense.”

Banerjee also commented that, in general, “the myeloma field has been moving from IV treatments to subcutaneous treatments to lower ‘time toxicity’ and IVIG is a notable exception to that trend, but perhaps it won’t be this way forever.” 

Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in some cases, with kits they can self-administer at home, Banerjee said, and “I know some groups are starting to work on moving subcutaneous immunoglobulin to the oncologic setting.”

Funding was provided by the Advancing Healthier Wisconsin Endowment. Cheruvalath has reported no relevant disclosures. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures; and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi.

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

SAN DIEGO — Patients with multiple myeloma who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) prophylaxis during treatment with teclistamab have fewer infections and better overall survival, compared with those who do not receive IVIG prophylaxis, according to new findings presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Among 225 consecutive patients who received at least one treatment for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, those who received IVIG prophylaxis experienced a significantly longer duration of infection-free survival and an almost threefold longer median overall survival, compared with patients who did not receive IVIG prophylaxis.

IVIG supplementation has been shown to prevent severe infections in patients with multiple myeloma, but evidence on the best time to initiate IVIG prophylaxis among those receiving teclistamab remains less clear.

“Our institutional practice is to start IVIG about cycle 2 of therapy, which ended up being around 39 days,” but a key takeaway from the current findings is to “start IVIG within 30 days,” said lead investigator Heloise Cheruvalath, BA, a medical student at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings. 

The 225 patients included in the study had received at least one dose of standard-of-care teclistamab or an investigational B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed bispecific antibody (bsAb). IVIG was given as prophylaxis to 92 patients (41%) in the primary arm. The remaining 133 patients (59%) did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, but 29% received IVIG after a documented infection.

In total, there were 288 infections in 136 patients, and about 61% of infections required hospitalization. Median time to infection was 97 days, with the 12-month cumulative incidence of all-grade infections reaching 73% and the incidence of grade 3 or higher infections totaling 53%. Respiratory tract infections were the most common infection type, with COVID-19 accounting for 11% of cases, Cheruvalath noted. 

Comparing patients who did and did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, median infection-free survival was significantly longer in the prophylaxis group — a median of 7.7 months vs 3 months — as was grade 3 or higher infection-free survival — a median of 14 months vs 7.5 months.

IVIG prophylaxis also led to a higher rate of 2-year progression free survival in the prophylaxis vs nonprophylaxis group — at 38% vs 32% — as well as longer median progression-free survival — at 15 months vs 8 months.

After multivariate analysis, IVIG prophylaxis was no longer significantly associated with improved progression-free survival. 

However, median overall survival did remain significantly better in the IVIG prophylaxis than the nonprophylaxis group after multivariate analysis — 44 months vs 16 months. The presence of high-risk and extramedullary disease was independently associated with worse overall survival. 

The effects of IVIG prophylaxis were stronger for bacterial infections at earlier (30 days or sooner) vs later (31 days or later) time points, but timing of IVIG therapy did not appear to affect the incidence of viral infections.

A study limitation was lack of randomization; IVIG prophylaxis was given at the physician’s discretion. In addition, multiple myeloma treatment was not standardized, with 15% of IVIG patients and 38% of non-IVIG patients receiving investigational BCMA bsAB.

“However, the majority of those who received primary IVIG prophylaxis were treated with standard-of-care teclistamab, making our results generalizable to current clinical practice,” Cheruvalath said.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted he has already started providing routine IVIG prophylaxis based on earlier research from this group. “Before I did, my patients would often get very rare infections requiring protracted courses of antibiotics,” Banerjee, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview. “Moving to IVIG before the infections start makes much more sense.”

Banerjee also commented that, in general, “the myeloma field has been moving from IV treatments to subcutaneous treatments to lower ‘time toxicity’ and IVIG is a notable exception to that trend, but perhaps it won’t be this way forever.” 

Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in some cases, with kits they can self-administer at home, Banerjee said, and “I know some groups are starting to work on moving subcutaneous immunoglobulin to the oncologic setting.”

Funding was provided by the Advancing Healthier Wisconsin Endowment. Cheruvalath has reported no relevant disclosures. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures; and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi.

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

SAN DIEGO — Patients with multiple myeloma who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) prophylaxis during treatment with teclistamab have fewer infections and better overall survival, compared with those who do not receive IVIG prophylaxis, according to new findings presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Among 225 consecutive patients who received at least one treatment for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, those who received IVIG prophylaxis experienced a significantly longer duration of infection-free survival and an almost threefold longer median overall survival, compared with patients who did not receive IVIG prophylaxis.

IVIG supplementation has been shown to prevent severe infections in patients with multiple myeloma, but evidence on the best time to initiate IVIG prophylaxis among those receiving teclistamab remains less clear.

“Our institutional practice is to start IVIG about cycle 2 of therapy, which ended up being around 39 days,” but a key takeaway from the current findings is to “start IVIG within 30 days,” said lead investigator Heloise Cheruvalath, BA, a medical student at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings. 

The 225 patients included in the study had received at least one dose of standard-of-care teclistamab or an investigational B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed bispecific antibody (bsAb). IVIG was given as prophylaxis to 92 patients (41%) in the primary arm. The remaining 133 patients (59%) did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, but 29% received IVIG after a documented infection.

In total, there were 288 infections in 136 patients, and about 61% of infections required hospitalization. Median time to infection was 97 days, with the 12-month cumulative incidence of all-grade infections reaching 73% and the incidence of grade 3 or higher infections totaling 53%. Respiratory tract infections were the most common infection type, with COVID-19 accounting for 11% of cases, Cheruvalath noted. 

Comparing patients who did and did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, median infection-free survival was significantly longer in the prophylaxis group — a median of 7.7 months vs 3 months — as was grade 3 or higher infection-free survival — a median of 14 months vs 7.5 months.

IVIG prophylaxis also led to a higher rate of 2-year progression free survival in the prophylaxis vs nonprophylaxis group — at 38% vs 32% — as well as longer median progression-free survival — at 15 months vs 8 months.

After multivariate analysis, IVIG prophylaxis was no longer significantly associated with improved progression-free survival. 

However, median overall survival did remain significantly better in the IVIG prophylaxis than the nonprophylaxis group after multivariate analysis — 44 months vs 16 months. The presence of high-risk and extramedullary disease was independently associated with worse overall survival. 

The effects of IVIG prophylaxis were stronger for bacterial infections at earlier (30 days or sooner) vs later (31 days or later) time points, but timing of IVIG therapy did not appear to affect the incidence of viral infections.

A study limitation was lack of randomization; IVIG prophylaxis was given at the physician’s discretion. In addition, multiple myeloma treatment was not standardized, with 15% of IVIG patients and 38% of non-IVIG patients receiving investigational BCMA bsAB.

“However, the majority of those who received primary IVIG prophylaxis were treated with standard-of-care teclistamab, making our results generalizable to current clinical practice,” Cheruvalath said.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted he has already started providing routine IVIG prophylaxis based on earlier research from this group. “Before I did, my patients would often get very rare infections requiring protracted courses of antibiotics,” Banerjee, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview. “Moving to IVIG before the infections start makes much more sense.”

Banerjee also commented that, in general, “the myeloma field has been moving from IV treatments to subcutaneous treatments to lower ‘time toxicity’ and IVIG is a notable exception to that trend, but perhaps it won’t be this way forever.” 

Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in some cases, with kits they can self-administer at home, Banerjee said, and “I know some groups are starting to work on moving subcutaneous immunoglobulin to the oncologic setting.”

Funding was provided by the Advancing Healthier Wisconsin Endowment. Cheruvalath has reported no relevant disclosures. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures; and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi.

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

The emergence of vorasidenib, the first targeted therapy for certain gliomas with IDH mutations, has ignited a wave of excitement in both patient and physician spaces.

After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”

Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.

But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.

In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”

Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”

Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.

INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.

Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).

A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.

Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.

The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.

“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”

Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.

In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.

This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.

The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.

But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.

“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.

This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.

While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.

Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.

Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.

“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.” 

In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.

But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.

In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.

“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.

A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.

Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.

Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”

Nagpal strongly disagreed.

“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”

Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.

Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.

Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.

“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”

The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of vorasidenib, the first targeted therapy for certain gliomas with IDH mutations, has ignited a wave of excitement in both patient and physician spaces.

After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”

Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.

But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.

In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”

Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”

Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.

INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.

Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).

A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.

Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.

The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.

“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”

Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.

In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.

This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.

The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.

But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.

“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.

This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.

While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.

Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.

Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.

“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.” 

In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.

But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.

In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.

“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.

A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.

Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.

Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”

Nagpal strongly disagreed.

“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”

Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.

Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.

Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.

“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”

The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of vorasidenib, the first targeted therapy for certain gliomas with IDH mutations, has ignited a wave of excitement in both patient and physician spaces.

After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”

Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.

But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.

In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”

Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”

Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.

INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.

Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).

A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.

Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.

The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.

“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”

Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.

In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.

This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.

The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.

But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.

“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.

This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.

While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.

Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.

Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.

“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.” 

In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.

But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.

In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.

“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.

A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.

Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.

Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”

Nagpal strongly disagreed.

“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”

Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.

Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.

Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.

“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”

The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.