User login
-
Racial, other disparities in blood cancer treatment
As compared with White individuals, minorities often face higher barriers to cancer care. Racial and ethnic disparities in patients with solid tumors, particularly those of the prostate and breast, have been well documented. Hematologic malignancies are less common, but an increasing number of studies have documented disparities within this subgroup of cancer, particularly among Black and non-White Hispanics. An increasing armamentarium of therapeutics, including novel chemotherapy agents and targeted molecular, cellular, and immunologic therapies, has highlighted the need for understanding and exploring the differences in care as well as biology, which may lead to disparate outcomes.
Overall, an estimated 186,400 people living in the United States are expected to be diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma in 2021, and new cases of hematologic malignancies are expected to account for 9.8% of the estimated 1,898,160 new cancer cases diagnosed this year.1
The underlying reasons for disparities are highly complex and multifactorial, and clinicians must consider how the biologic, clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics of their patients interact. All of these factors can play a role in prognosis and/or access to care.
Disparities in leukemia
Leukemia is a heterogeneous group of diseases affecting both children and adults, but during the past few decades survival rates have steadily improved, particularly among children. Response to therapy and prognosis do vary among leukemia types, but one large analysis reported that there were overall improvements in survival seen across racial/ethnic groups, most age groups, and genders during a 40-year period.2
From 1973 through 2014, survival trends were assessed across four leukemia types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL). After stratifying survival for each leukemia type by race/ethnicity, improvement rates were not uniform among all groups.
For example, there were substantial improvements of leukemia-specific survival in 2010-2014 among Black (81.0%) and Asian (80.0%) patients with CML, as well as younger patients (20-49 years) with CLL (96.0%). But in contrast, Black patients, those with AML, and individuals over the age of 75 years experienced the lowest improvement in survival.
Studies have found that Hispanics have increased rates of ALL and acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), but lower rates of AML, as compared to Whites. They also tend to be diagnosed at a younger age and have poorer overall survival.3
Demographics may also play a role, as Hispanics born outside the United States had a higher incidence rate of APL versus U.S.-born Hispanics (incidence rate ratio, 1.79; 1.11-2.94). Thus, the higher incidence rates of increased B-cell ALL may be due to heritable genetic factors, while APL may also be attributable to environmental exposures.4
Hispanics living on the Texas-Mexico border were also found to have a higher incidence of chronic myeloid leukemia (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51; P = .02) and acute myeloid leukemia (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .0009) as compared with Hispanics living elsewhere in Texas5 AML and CML were more likely to be observed in patients who resided in this border region, and those with ALL, AML, and CML had worse outcomes compared with Hispanics living elsewhere in Texas. In addition, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients along the border have a worse prognosis for ALL than patients in other areas of Texas.
“We don’t yet understand if the differences are due to nonbiologic factors, or if biology plays a role because of the more aggressive disease that we’re seeing,” said study author Anna Eiring, PhD, an assistant professor at Texas Tech University, El Paso. “This is a medically underserved region, and even though we are a safety net hospital, many of the Hispanic patients don’t have health insurance.”
They also tend to have worse socioeconomic status compared with non-Hispanic populations, and there may also be lifestyle and environmental factors. “Exposure to environmental toxins may also play a role, as many work in jobs that could put them at risk,” she said. “Lifestyle factors may also play a role.”
AML is a hematopoietic disorder that is characterized by numerous cytogenetic and molecular aberrations, with poor overall survival. Researchers found that Black patients had shorter survival than White patients, based on an analysis of Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program data, and performing and performed mutational profiling of 1,339 patients with AML treated on frontline Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols.6 The disparity was especially pronounced in Black patients under 60 years old, after adjustment for socioeconomic (SEER) and molecular (Alliance) factors. Black race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival.
“Based on our analyses in Black and White AML patients under the age of 60 years, we believe that a differential impact of molecular aberrations, specifically AML-associated gene mutations, contribute to the observed survival disparities,” said study author Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld, MD, an assistant professor in the division of hematology at the Ohio State University, Columbus, and a member of the leukemia research program at the university’s comprehensive cancer center, the James. “For example, NPM1 mutations seem to lack the known positive prognostic impact we are used to seeing in previous studies with White AML patients.”
She noted that when looking at molecular prognosticators just within Black AML patients, researchers found that FLT3-ITD and also IDH2 mutations were associated with poor overall survival. “While FLT3-ITD is a known adverse prognosticator, the significant impact of IDH2 mutations was surprising to us and is currently being further explored,” said Dr. Eisfeld.
“In general, however, it can’t be highlighted enough that while this study suggests an impact of somatic tumor genomics that needs a lot more attention and investigation and ideally, also prospective studies, structural racism and its impact is still the problem,” she emphasized. “It’s the ‘elephant in the room’ and the major factor that needs to be addressed in order to improve and overcome these survival disparities.”
Disparities in lymphoma
Similar to leukemia, lymphomas are a heterogenous and diverse group of malignancies that range from indolent to highly aggressive. The two main types are listed below:
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the most common subtype, with about 80,000 new cases a year in the United States. There are more than 90 types of NHL, the most common being B-cell lymphomas, which include diffuse large B cell, primary mediastinal B cell, follicular, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia; marginal zone, mantle zone, and Burkitt lymphomas; and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.
Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), less common than NHL, with about 9,000 people diagnosed every year. There are five types of HL, and it is primarily seen in children and young adults.
Disparities in incidence, age at diagnosis, and overall survival have been observed in lymphoma, which, aside from marginal zone and follicular lymphoma, are more common among men. The incidence of most lymphoma subtypes is generally lower in racial and ethnic minority groups, although Black and Hispanic patients tend to be diagnosed at a younger age, and in Black patients, at a more advanced stage and the lymphomas have higher risk features at initial presentation.7
One study that looked at racial disparities in Hodgkin lymphoma found that HL was significantly more common in Hispanics versus Whites under the age of 65 years. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year overall survival rates were also inferior for Blacks and Hispanics compared with Whites (P less than 0.005 and P less than 0.001, respectively).8
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, comprising approximately one-third of lymphomas diagnosed in adults (Lee et al. 2020). In one study that examined ancestry and tumor genomics, recurrent somatic mutations in established driver genes, such as ATM, MGA, SETD2, TET2, DNMT3A, and MLL3, were observed more frequently in patients with African ancestry versus those of European ancestry.9 Other data suggest a variety of disparities in receipt of treatment. For example, patients with localized disease who were Black, uninsured/Medicaid insured, or of lower socioeconomic status were less likely to receive any form of chemotherapy (all P less than 0.0001), and Black race was also associated with being less likely to receive chemoimmunotherapy.
Leveling the field of disparities is complex and requires a multifaceted approach. But one facility found that they could help minority patients overcome some of the hurdles related to nonbiologic factors by the support of a nurse navigator in addition to therapy.10 Their study included 204 patients with DLBCL (47 minority patients and 157 White patients) and following the initiation of the nurse navigator program, virtually all patients received frontline chemotherapy (98% versus 96%). The incidence of relapsed/refractory disease was similar (40% versus 38%) and in the relapsed/refractory population, similar proportions of patients underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (32% versus 29%) or received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (16% versus 19%). The 2-year overall survival rates were 81% and 76% for minorities and Whites, respectively, and 2-year progression-free survival rates were 62% and 65%, respectively.
“We found that the minority patients often needed more help to get care, and they utilized the nurse navigator more intensively,” said study author Bei Hu, MD, who is with the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders, Levine Cancer Institute/Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. “The nurse navigator was able to help them with things like finances, transportation, and insurance.”
Minorities tended to face more barriers than White patients. “Even something as simple as needing money for gas to get to the clinic can be a barrier to care,” said Dr. Hu. “And many of the patients are often uncomfortable discussing these things with their physician – plus a lot is covered in our appointments and we focus on the cancer. So, they may be more comfortable discussing these issues with the nurse.”
Disparities in multiple myeloma
Multiple myeloma is the malignant clonal proliferation of plasma B cells in the bone marrow and, despite the advent of new therapies, remains incurable and generally fatal. It progresses from the more common but often subclinical precursor states of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) to overt and symptomatic multiple myeloma. Racial disparities have been observed in all stages of the disease, and as compared with Whites, individuals who are Black have a higher risk of MGUS and myeloma and a higher mortality rate.11 They have not experienced the same survival gains seen in White patients.
Some research suggests that these disparities may be more related to socioeconomic status as opposed to race. One analysis of 562 patients found that those with higher socioeconomic status had a median overall survival of 62.8 months compared with 53.7 and 48.6 months for middle and low socioeconomic status (P = 0.015).12
After controlling for confounders including race, patients with low socioeconomic status had a 54% increase in mortality rate relative to those with high status. The authors then performed a similar analysis of 45,505 patients with multiple myeloma from the S
“In some homogeneous health systems, such as the VA, we are seeing that Black patients do as well or better than White patients,” said Catherine Marinac, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Survival is equal or better, as long as treatment is not delayed and they receive the standard of care.”
Black patients generally have a more indolent disease subtype and may experience less aggressive disease, but they have not experienced the same magnitude in survival as White patients following the introduction of new therapeutics. This disparity lends support to the influence of socioeconomic factors, such as unequal access to novel therapies and/or differences in treatment response, and lower rates of autologous stem cell transplantation.13
However, there are racial/ethnic differences in risk for both myeloma and its premalignant conditions, as well as incidence. Blacks have a twofold increased risk of myeloma compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at younger ages. Differences in myeloma incidence is less marked in other racial/ethnic groups, such as Hispanics, where it is only slightly higher than in Whites at 6.7 per 100,00.11 In contrast, the incidence of myeloma is markedly lower in Asians as compared with non-Hispanic Whites (incidence rate of 3.8 versus 6.2 per 100,000). Black persons also have a markedly higher prevalence of MGUS, and these differences suggest that biology, and clinical characteristics, differ by race or ancestry.
“Mortality among Black patients is also higher,” said Dr. Marinac, who is also on the faculty in the division of population sciences at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, also in Boston. “The higher mortality rate is driven by the higher incidence.”
There are also differences in the prevalence of immunoglobulin isotypes observed across racial/ethnic groups of MGUS patients, Dr. Marinac explained, which is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a biological basis for disparities arising in precursor lesions.
“What we are looking at now is cancer prevention and early intervention,” she said. “There are well-defined precursors to myeloma, and Blacks are three times more likely to have a precursor condition.”
Early detection of precursors followed by preventing progression to full-blown multiple myeloma is one way of addressing disparities, but right now, there are no real screening guidelines. “Most patients now are diagnosed incidentally, and then the only intervention is to monitor them,” Dr. Marinac said. “At Dana Farber, we are now looking to see if we can refine screening, and then see who may need additional monitoring.”
The Promise study, being conducted at Dana Farber, is recruiting participants to examine the molecular changes that occur when precursor conditions develop into full-blown multiple myeloma and is open to individuals considered to be at high risk: Black race and/or have a first-degree relative with multiple myeloma or one of its precursor conditions.
Dr. Marinac also pointed out that there are ongoing clinical trials that are looking at low-risk early interventions in patients with precursor conditions. “We are now looking at lifestyle and metformin,” she said. “The thought is that if we treat them now, we can prevent myeloma from developing.”
Lessening barriers to care
When trying to tease out the strongest/most prominent reasons for the disparities that have been observed in the care of patients with blood cancers, Stephanie Lee, M.D., M.P.H, professor and associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, thinks that the problem is truly multifactorial.
“Access has been cited many times because some studies show that if access is equitable, sometimes racial/ethnic minorities do the same as non-Hispanic Whites,” she said. “Same thing with quality of care – if all people are treated on clinical trials, sometimes the outcomes are the same.”
That said, many things have to go right to get the best outcomes, and if one factor isn’t optimal, then treatment may never achieve the success that is possible, she noted.
Considering how complex the issue of disparities is, addressing it can seem daunting. Dr. Lee points out that the place to begin is with clinical trials. “I would like to see more studies that test interventions to correct disparities,” said Dr. Lee. “But I have actually seen in my own work that racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to participate in studies, even survey and observational studies where physical risks are low or nonexistent.”
People are studying how to increase minority participation in clinical trials, but thus far, there isn’t one solution. “As with routine care, there are probably a lot of logistical barriers to trial participation that disproportionately affect minority populations,” she noted. “There is also greater distrust of studies.”
But for now, there are some steps that clinicians can take to start to improve these disparities. “I think we can start inquiring about and documenting barriers to care and clinical trial participation, just like we document other aspects of the social history,” Dr. Lee explained. “Truly understanding the problem is the first step toward trying to solve it.”
References
1. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. 2021. www.lls.org/facts-and-statistics/facts-and-statistics-overview.
2. Utuama O et al. PLoS One. 2019 Aug 19;14(8):e0220864.
3. Pollyea DA et al. J Cancer Prev Curr Res. 2014;1(1):14-19.
4. Bencomo-Alvarez AE et al. Cancer. 2021 Apr 1;127(7):1068-79.
5. Nabhan C et al. Cancer. 2012 Oct 1;118(19):4842-50.
6. Bhatnagar B et al. Blood. 2020;136(Suppl 1):5-7.
7. Shenoy PJ et al. Cancer. 2011;117:2530-40.
8. Evens AM et al. Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug 1;23(8):2128-37.
9. Lee MJ et al. Cancer. 2020;126:3493-3503.
10. Hu B et al. Cancer. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33779.
11. Marinac CR et al. Blood Cancer J. 2020 Feb 17;10(2):19.
12. Fiala MA et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(9):2643-9.
13. Costa LJ et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015 Apr;21(4):701-6.
As compared with White individuals, minorities often face higher barriers to cancer care. Racial and ethnic disparities in patients with solid tumors, particularly those of the prostate and breast, have been well documented. Hematologic malignancies are less common, but an increasing number of studies have documented disparities within this subgroup of cancer, particularly among Black and non-White Hispanics. An increasing armamentarium of therapeutics, including novel chemotherapy agents and targeted molecular, cellular, and immunologic therapies, has highlighted the need for understanding and exploring the differences in care as well as biology, which may lead to disparate outcomes.
Overall, an estimated 186,400 people living in the United States are expected to be diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma in 2021, and new cases of hematologic malignancies are expected to account for 9.8% of the estimated 1,898,160 new cancer cases diagnosed this year.1
The underlying reasons for disparities are highly complex and multifactorial, and clinicians must consider how the biologic, clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics of their patients interact. All of these factors can play a role in prognosis and/or access to care.
Disparities in leukemia
Leukemia is a heterogeneous group of diseases affecting both children and adults, but during the past few decades survival rates have steadily improved, particularly among children. Response to therapy and prognosis do vary among leukemia types, but one large analysis reported that there were overall improvements in survival seen across racial/ethnic groups, most age groups, and genders during a 40-year period.2
From 1973 through 2014, survival trends were assessed across four leukemia types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL). After stratifying survival for each leukemia type by race/ethnicity, improvement rates were not uniform among all groups.
For example, there were substantial improvements of leukemia-specific survival in 2010-2014 among Black (81.0%) and Asian (80.0%) patients with CML, as well as younger patients (20-49 years) with CLL (96.0%). But in contrast, Black patients, those with AML, and individuals over the age of 75 years experienced the lowest improvement in survival.
Studies have found that Hispanics have increased rates of ALL and acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), but lower rates of AML, as compared to Whites. They also tend to be diagnosed at a younger age and have poorer overall survival.3
Demographics may also play a role, as Hispanics born outside the United States had a higher incidence rate of APL versus U.S.-born Hispanics (incidence rate ratio, 1.79; 1.11-2.94). Thus, the higher incidence rates of increased B-cell ALL may be due to heritable genetic factors, while APL may also be attributable to environmental exposures.4
Hispanics living on the Texas-Mexico border were also found to have a higher incidence of chronic myeloid leukemia (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51; P = .02) and acute myeloid leukemia (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .0009) as compared with Hispanics living elsewhere in Texas5 AML and CML were more likely to be observed in patients who resided in this border region, and those with ALL, AML, and CML had worse outcomes compared with Hispanics living elsewhere in Texas. In addition, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients along the border have a worse prognosis for ALL than patients in other areas of Texas.
“We don’t yet understand if the differences are due to nonbiologic factors, or if biology plays a role because of the more aggressive disease that we’re seeing,” said study author Anna Eiring, PhD, an assistant professor at Texas Tech University, El Paso. “This is a medically underserved region, and even though we are a safety net hospital, many of the Hispanic patients don’t have health insurance.”
They also tend to have worse socioeconomic status compared with non-Hispanic populations, and there may also be lifestyle and environmental factors. “Exposure to environmental toxins may also play a role, as many work in jobs that could put them at risk,” she said. “Lifestyle factors may also play a role.”
AML is a hematopoietic disorder that is characterized by numerous cytogenetic and molecular aberrations, with poor overall survival. Researchers found that Black patients had shorter survival than White patients, based on an analysis of Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program data, and performing and performed mutational profiling of 1,339 patients with AML treated on frontline Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols.6 The disparity was especially pronounced in Black patients under 60 years old, after adjustment for socioeconomic (SEER) and molecular (Alliance) factors. Black race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival.
“Based on our analyses in Black and White AML patients under the age of 60 years, we believe that a differential impact of molecular aberrations, specifically AML-associated gene mutations, contribute to the observed survival disparities,” said study author Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld, MD, an assistant professor in the division of hematology at the Ohio State University, Columbus, and a member of the leukemia research program at the university’s comprehensive cancer center, the James. “For example, NPM1 mutations seem to lack the known positive prognostic impact we are used to seeing in previous studies with White AML patients.”
She noted that when looking at molecular prognosticators just within Black AML patients, researchers found that FLT3-ITD and also IDH2 mutations were associated with poor overall survival. “While FLT3-ITD is a known adverse prognosticator, the significant impact of IDH2 mutations was surprising to us and is currently being further explored,” said Dr. Eisfeld.
“In general, however, it can’t be highlighted enough that while this study suggests an impact of somatic tumor genomics that needs a lot more attention and investigation and ideally, also prospective studies, structural racism and its impact is still the problem,” she emphasized. “It’s the ‘elephant in the room’ and the major factor that needs to be addressed in order to improve and overcome these survival disparities.”
Disparities in lymphoma
Similar to leukemia, lymphomas are a heterogenous and diverse group of malignancies that range from indolent to highly aggressive. The two main types are listed below:
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the most common subtype, with about 80,000 new cases a year in the United States. There are more than 90 types of NHL, the most common being B-cell lymphomas, which include diffuse large B cell, primary mediastinal B cell, follicular, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia; marginal zone, mantle zone, and Burkitt lymphomas; and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.
Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), less common than NHL, with about 9,000 people diagnosed every year. There are five types of HL, and it is primarily seen in children and young adults.
Disparities in incidence, age at diagnosis, and overall survival have been observed in lymphoma, which, aside from marginal zone and follicular lymphoma, are more common among men. The incidence of most lymphoma subtypes is generally lower in racial and ethnic minority groups, although Black and Hispanic patients tend to be diagnosed at a younger age, and in Black patients, at a more advanced stage and the lymphomas have higher risk features at initial presentation.7
One study that looked at racial disparities in Hodgkin lymphoma found that HL was significantly more common in Hispanics versus Whites under the age of 65 years. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year overall survival rates were also inferior for Blacks and Hispanics compared with Whites (P less than 0.005 and P less than 0.001, respectively).8
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, comprising approximately one-third of lymphomas diagnosed in adults (Lee et al. 2020). In one study that examined ancestry and tumor genomics, recurrent somatic mutations in established driver genes, such as ATM, MGA, SETD2, TET2, DNMT3A, and MLL3, were observed more frequently in patients with African ancestry versus those of European ancestry.9 Other data suggest a variety of disparities in receipt of treatment. For example, patients with localized disease who were Black, uninsured/Medicaid insured, or of lower socioeconomic status were less likely to receive any form of chemotherapy (all P less than 0.0001), and Black race was also associated with being less likely to receive chemoimmunotherapy.
Leveling the field of disparities is complex and requires a multifaceted approach. But one facility found that they could help minority patients overcome some of the hurdles related to nonbiologic factors by the support of a nurse navigator in addition to therapy.10 Their study included 204 patients with DLBCL (47 minority patients and 157 White patients) and following the initiation of the nurse navigator program, virtually all patients received frontline chemotherapy (98% versus 96%). The incidence of relapsed/refractory disease was similar (40% versus 38%) and in the relapsed/refractory population, similar proportions of patients underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (32% versus 29%) or received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (16% versus 19%). The 2-year overall survival rates were 81% and 76% for minorities and Whites, respectively, and 2-year progression-free survival rates were 62% and 65%, respectively.
“We found that the minority patients often needed more help to get care, and they utilized the nurse navigator more intensively,” said study author Bei Hu, MD, who is with the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders, Levine Cancer Institute/Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. “The nurse navigator was able to help them with things like finances, transportation, and insurance.”
Minorities tended to face more barriers than White patients. “Even something as simple as needing money for gas to get to the clinic can be a barrier to care,” said Dr. Hu. “And many of the patients are often uncomfortable discussing these things with their physician – plus a lot is covered in our appointments and we focus on the cancer. So, they may be more comfortable discussing these issues with the nurse.”
Disparities in multiple myeloma
Multiple myeloma is the malignant clonal proliferation of plasma B cells in the bone marrow and, despite the advent of new therapies, remains incurable and generally fatal. It progresses from the more common but often subclinical precursor states of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) to overt and symptomatic multiple myeloma. Racial disparities have been observed in all stages of the disease, and as compared with Whites, individuals who are Black have a higher risk of MGUS and myeloma and a higher mortality rate.11 They have not experienced the same survival gains seen in White patients.
Some research suggests that these disparities may be more related to socioeconomic status as opposed to race. One analysis of 562 patients found that those with higher socioeconomic status had a median overall survival of 62.8 months compared with 53.7 and 48.6 months for middle and low socioeconomic status (P = 0.015).12
After controlling for confounders including race, patients with low socioeconomic status had a 54% increase in mortality rate relative to those with high status. The authors then performed a similar analysis of 45,505 patients with multiple myeloma from the S
“In some homogeneous health systems, such as the VA, we are seeing that Black patients do as well or better than White patients,” said Catherine Marinac, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Survival is equal or better, as long as treatment is not delayed and they receive the standard of care.”
Black patients generally have a more indolent disease subtype and may experience less aggressive disease, but they have not experienced the same magnitude in survival as White patients following the introduction of new therapeutics. This disparity lends support to the influence of socioeconomic factors, such as unequal access to novel therapies and/or differences in treatment response, and lower rates of autologous stem cell transplantation.13
However, there are racial/ethnic differences in risk for both myeloma and its premalignant conditions, as well as incidence. Blacks have a twofold increased risk of myeloma compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at younger ages. Differences in myeloma incidence is less marked in other racial/ethnic groups, such as Hispanics, where it is only slightly higher than in Whites at 6.7 per 100,00.11 In contrast, the incidence of myeloma is markedly lower in Asians as compared with non-Hispanic Whites (incidence rate of 3.8 versus 6.2 per 100,000). Black persons also have a markedly higher prevalence of MGUS, and these differences suggest that biology, and clinical characteristics, differ by race or ancestry.
“Mortality among Black patients is also higher,” said Dr. Marinac, who is also on the faculty in the division of population sciences at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, also in Boston. “The higher mortality rate is driven by the higher incidence.”
There are also differences in the prevalence of immunoglobulin isotypes observed across racial/ethnic groups of MGUS patients, Dr. Marinac explained, which is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a biological basis for disparities arising in precursor lesions.
“What we are looking at now is cancer prevention and early intervention,” she said. “There are well-defined precursors to myeloma, and Blacks are three times more likely to have a precursor condition.”
Early detection of precursors followed by preventing progression to full-blown multiple myeloma is one way of addressing disparities, but right now, there are no real screening guidelines. “Most patients now are diagnosed incidentally, and then the only intervention is to monitor them,” Dr. Marinac said. “At Dana Farber, we are now looking to see if we can refine screening, and then see who may need additional monitoring.”
The Promise study, being conducted at Dana Farber, is recruiting participants to examine the molecular changes that occur when precursor conditions develop into full-blown multiple myeloma and is open to individuals considered to be at high risk: Black race and/or have a first-degree relative with multiple myeloma or one of its precursor conditions.
Dr. Marinac also pointed out that there are ongoing clinical trials that are looking at low-risk early interventions in patients with precursor conditions. “We are now looking at lifestyle and metformin,” she said. “The thought is that if we treat them now, we can prevent myeloma from developing.”
Lessening barriers to care
When trying to tease out the strongest/most prominent reasons for the disparities that have been observed in the care of patients with blood cancers, Stephanie Lee, M.D., M.P.H, professor and associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, thinks that the problem is truly multifactorial.
“Access has been cited many times because some studies show that if access is equitable, sometimes racial/ethnic minorities do the same as non-Hispanic Whites,” she said. “Same thing with quality of care – if all people are treated on clinical trials, sometimes the outcomes are the same.”
That said, many things have to go right to get the best outcomes, and if one factor isn’t optimal, then treatment may never achieve the success that is possible, she noted.
Considering how complex the issue of disparities is, addressing it can seem daunting. Dr. Lee points out that the place to begin is with clinical trials. “I would like to see more studies that test interventions to correct disparities,” said Dr. Lee. “But I have actually seen in my own work that racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to participate in studies, even survey and observational studies where physical risks are low or nonexistent.”
People are studying how to increase minority participation in clinical trials, but thus far, there isn’t one solution. “As with routine care, there are probably a lot of logistical barriers to trial participation that disproportionately affect minority populations,” she noted. “There is also greater distrust of studies.”
But for now, there are some steps that clinicians can take to start to improve these disparities. “I think we can start inquiring about and documenting barriers to care and clinical trial participation, just like we document other aspects of the social history,” Dr. Lee explained. “Truly understanding the problem is the first step toward trying to solve it.”
References
1. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. 2021. www.lls.org/facts-and-statistics/facts-and-statistics-overview.
2. Utuama O et al. PLoS One. 2019 Aug 19;14(8):e0220864.
3. Pollyea DA et al. J Cancer Prev Curr Res. 2014;1(1):14-19.
4. Bencomo-Alvarez AE et al. Cancer. 2021 Apr 1;127(7):1068-79.
5. Nabhan C et al. Cancer. 2012 Oct 1;118(19):4842-50.
6. Bhatnagar B et al. Blood. 2020;136(Suppl 1):5-7.
7. Shenoy PJ et al. Cancer. 2011;117:2530-40.
8. Evens AM et al. Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug 1;23(8):2128-37.
9. Lee MJ et al. Cancer. 2020;126:3493-3503.
10. Hu B et al. Cancer. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33779.
11. Marinac CR et al. Blood Cancer J. 2020 Feb 17;10(2):19.
12. Fiala MA et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(9):2643-9.
13. Costa LJ et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015 Apr;21(4):701-6.
As compared with White individuals, minorities often face higher barriers to cancer care. Racial and ethnic disparities in patients with solid tumors, particularly those of the prostate and breast, have been well documented. Hematologic malignancies are less common, but an increasing number of studies have documented disparities within this subgroup of cancer, particularly among Black and non-White Hispanics. An increasing armamentarium of therapeutics, including novel chemotherapy agents and targeted molecular, cellular, and immunologic therapies, has highlighted the need for understanding and exploring the differences in care as well as biology, which may lead to disparate outcomes.
Overall, an estimated 186,400 people living in the United States are expected to be diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma in 2021, and new cases of hematologic malignancies are expected to account for 9.8% of the estimated 1,898,160 new cancer cases diagnosed this year.1
The underlying reasons for disparities are highly complex and multifactorial, and clinicians must consider how the biologic, clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics of their patients interact. All of these factors can play a role in prognosis and/or access to care.
Disparities in leukemia
Leukemia is a heterogeneous group of diseases affecting both children and adults, but during the past few decades survival rates have steadily improved, particularly among children. Response to therapy and prognosis do vary among leukemia types, but one large analysis reported that there were overall improvements in survival seen across racial/ethnic groups, most age groups, and genders during a 40-year period.2
From 1973 through 2014, survival trends were assessed across four leukemia types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL). After stratifying survival for each leukemia type by race/ethnicity, improvement rates were not uniform among all groups.
For example, there were substantial improvements of leukemia-specific survival in 2010-2014 among Black (81.0%) and Asian (80.0%) patients with CML, as well as younger patients (20-49 years) with CLL (96.0%). But in contrast, Black patients, those with AML, and individuals over the age of 75 years experienced the lowest improvement in survival.
Studies have found that Hispanics have increased rates of ALL and acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), but lower rates of AML, as compared to Whites. They also tend to be diagnosed at a younger age and have poorer overall survival.3
Demographics may also play a role, as Hispanics born outside the United States had a higher incidence rate of APL versus U.S.-born Hispanics (incidence rate ratio, 1.79; 1.11-2.94). Thus, the higher incidence rates of increased B-cell ALL may be due to heritable genetic factors, while APL may also be attributable to environmental exposures.4
Hispanics living on the Texas-Mexico border were also found to have a higher incidence of chronic myeloid leukemia (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51; P = .02) and acute myeloid leukemia (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .0009) as compared with Hispanics living elsewhere in Texas5 AML and CML were more likely to be observed in patients who resided in this border region, and those with ALL, AML, and CML had worse outcomes compared with Hispanics living elsewhere in Texas. In addition, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients along the border have a worse prognosis for ALL than patients in other areas of Texas.
“We don’t yet understand if the differences are due to nonbiologic factors, or if biology plays a role because of the more aggressive disease that we’re seeing,” said study author Anna Eiring, PhD, an assistant professor at Texas Tech University, El Paso. “This is a medically underserved region, and even though we are a safety net hospital, many of the Hispanic patients don’t have health insurance.”
They also tend to have worse socioeconomic status compared with non-Hispanic populations, and there may also be lifestyle and environmental factors. “Exposure to environmental toxins may also play a role, as many work in jobs that could put them at risk,” she said. “Lifestyle factors may also play a role.”
AML is a hematopoietic disorder that is characterized by numerous cytogenetic and molecular aberrations, with poor overall survival. Researchers found that Black patients had shorter survival than White patients, based on an analysis of Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program data, and performing and performed mutational profiling of 1,339 patients with AML treated on frontline Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols.6 The disparity was especially pronounced in Black patients under 60 years old, after adjustment for socioeconomic (SEER) and molecular (Alliance) factors. Black race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival.
“Based on our analyses in Black and White AML patients under the age of 60 years, we believe that a differential impact of molecular aberrations, specifically AML-associated gene mutations, contribute to the observed survival disparities,” said study author Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld, MD, an assistant professor in the division of hematology at the Ohio State University, Columbus, and a member of the leukemia research program at the university’s comprehensive cancer center, the James. “For example, NPM1 mutations seem to lack the known positive prognostic impact we are used to seeing in previous studies with White AML patients.”
She noted that when looking at molecular prognosticators just within Black AML patients, researchers found that FLT3-ITD and also IDH2 mutations were associated with poor overall survival. “While FLT3-ITD is a known adverse prognosticator, the significant impact of IDH2 mutations was surprising to us and is currently being further explored,” said Dr. Eisfeld.
“In general, however, it can’t be highlighted enough that while this study suggests an impact of somatic tumor genomics that needs a lot more attention and investigation and ideally, also prospective studies, structural racism and its impact is still the problem,” she emphasized. “It’s the ‘elephant in the room’ and the major factor that needs to be addressed in order to improve and overcome these survival disparities.”
Disparities in lymphoma
Similar to leukemia, lymphomas are a heterogenous and diverse group of malignancies that range from indolent to highly aggressive. The two main types are listed below:
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the most common subtype, with about 80,000 new cases a year in the United States. There are more than 90 types of NHL, the most common being B-cell lymphomas, which include diffuse large B cell, primary mediastinal B cell, follicular, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia; marginal zone, mantle zone, and Burkitt lymphomas; and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.
Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), less common than NHL, with about 9,000 people diagnosed every year. There are five types of HL, and it is primarily seen in children and young adults.
Disparities in incidence, age at diagnosis, and overall survival have been observed in lymphoma, which, aside from marginal zone and follicular lymphoma, are more common among men. The incidence of most lymphoma subtypes is generally lower in racial and ethnic minority groups, although Black and Hispanic patients tend to be diagnosed at a younger age, and in Black patients, at a more advanced stage and the lymphomas have higher risk features at initial presentation.7
One study that looked at racial disparities in Hodgkin lymphoma found that HL was significantly more common in Hispanics versus Whites under the age of 65 years. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year overall survival rates were also inferior for Blacks and Hispanics compared with Whites (P less than 0.005 and P less than 0.001, respectively).8
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, comprising approximately one-third of lymphomas diagnosed in adults (Lee et al. 2020). In one study that examined ancestry and tumor genomics, recurrent somatic mutations in established driver genes, such as ATM, MGA, SETD2, TET2, DNMT3A, and MLL3, were observed more frequently in patients with African ancestry versus those of European ancestry.9 Other data suggest a variety of disparities in receipt of treatment. For example, patients with localized disease who were Black, uninsured/Medicaid insured, or of lower socioeconomic status were less likely to receive any form of chemotherapy (all P less than 0.0001), and Black race was also associated with being less likely to receive chemoimmunotherapy.
Leveling the field of disparities is complex and requires a multifaceted approach. But one facility found that they could help minority patients overcome some of the hurdles related to nonbiologic factors by the support of a nurse navigator in addition to therapy.10 Their study included 204 patients with DLBCL (47 minority patients and 157 White patients) and following the initiation of the nurse navigator program, virtually all patients received frontline chemotherapy (98% versus 96%). The incidence of relapsed/refractory disease was similar (40% versus 38%) and in the relapsed/refractory population, similar proportions of patients underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (32% versus 29%) or received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (16% versus 19%). The 2-year overall survival rates were 81% and 76% for minorities and Whites, respectively, and 2-year progression-free survival rates were 62% and 65%, respectively.
“We found that the minority patients often needed more help to get care, and they utilized the nurse navigator more intensively,” said study author Bei Hu, MD, who is with the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders, Levine Cancer Institute/Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. “The nurse navigator was able to help them with things like finances, transportation, and insurance.”
Minorities tended to face more barriers than White patients. “Even something as simple as needing money for gas to get to the clinic can be a barrier to care,” said Dr. Hu. “And many of the patients are often uncomfortable discussing these things with their physician – plus a lot is covered in our appointments and we focus on the cancer. So, they may be more comfortable discussing these issues with the nurse.”
Disparities in multiple myeloma
Multiple myeloma is the malignant clonal proliferation of plasma B cells in the bone marrow and, despite the advent of new therapies, remains incurable and generally fatal. It progresses from the more common but often subclinical precursor states of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) to overt and symptomatic multiple myeloma. Racial disparities have been observed in all stages of the disease, and as compared with Whites, individuals who are Black have a higher risk of MGUS and myeloma and a higher mortality rate.11 They have not experienced the same survival gains seen in White patients.
Some research suggests that these disparities may be more related to socioeconomic status as opposed to race. One analysis of 562 patients found that those with higher socioeconomic status had a median overall survival of 62.8 months compared with 53.7 and 48.6 months for middle and low socioeconomic status (P = 0.015).12
After controlling for confounders including race, patients with low socioeconomic status had a 54% increase in mortality rate relative to those with high status. The authors then performed a similar analysis of 45,505 patients with multiple myeloma from the S
“In some homogeneous health systems, such as the VA, we are seeing that Black patients do as well or better than White patients,” said Catherine Marinac, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Survival is equal or better, as long as treatment is not delayed and they receive the standard of care.”
Black patients generally have a more indolent disease subtype and may experience less aggressive disease, but they have not experienced the same magnitude in survival as White patients following the introduction of new therapeutics. This disparity lends support to the influence of socioeconomic factors, such as unequal access to novel therapies and/or differences in treatment response, and lower rates of autologous stem cell transplantation.13
However, there are racial/ethnic differences in risk for both myeloma and its premalignant conditions, as well as incidence. Blacks have a twofold increased risk of myeloma compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at younger ages. Differences in myeloma incidence is less marked in other racial/ethnic groups, such as Hispanics, where it is only slightly higher than in Whites at 6.7 per 100,00.11 In contrast, the incidence of myeloma is markedly lower in Asians as compared with non-Hispanic Whites (incidence rate of 3.8 versus 6.2 per 100,000). Black persons also have a markedly higher prevalence of MGUS, and these differences suggest that biology, and clinical characteristics, differ by race or ancestry.
“Mortality among Black patients is also higher,” said Dr. Marinac, who is also on the faculty in the division of population sciences at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, also in Boston. “The higher mortality rate is driven by the higher incidence.”
There are also differences in the prevalence of immunoglobulin isotypes observed across racial/ethnic groups of MGUS patients, Dr. Marinac explained, which is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a biological basis for disparities arising in precursor lesions.
“What we are looking at now is cancer prevention and early intervention,” she said. “There are well-defined precursors to myeloma, and Blacks are three times more likely to have a precursor condition.”
Early detection of precursors followed by preventing progression to full-blown multiple myeloma is one way of addressing disparities, but right now, there are no real screening guidelines. “Most patients now are diagnosed incidentally, and then the only intervention is to monitor them,” Dr. Marinac said. “At Dana Farber, we are now looking to see if we can refine screening, and then see who may need additional monitoring.”
The Promise study, being conducted at Dana Farber, is recruiting participants to examine the molecular changes that occur when precursor conditions develop into full-blown multiple myeloma and is open to individuals considered to be at high risk: Black race and/or have a first-degree relative with multiple myeloma or one of its precursor conditions.
Dr. Marinac also pointed out that there are ongoing clinical trials that are looking at low-risk early interventions in patients with precursor conditions. “We are now looking at lifestyle and metformin,” she said. “The thought is that if we treat them now, we can prevent myeloma from developing.”
Lessening barriers to care
When trying to tease out the strongest/most prominent reasons for the disparities that have been observed in the care of patients with blood cancers, Stephanie Lee, M.D., M.P.H, professor and associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, thinks that the problem is truly multifactorial.
“Access has been cited many times because some studies show that if access is equitable, sometimes racial/ethnic minorities do the same as non-Hispanic Whites,” she said. “Same thing with quality of care – if all people are treated on clinical trials, sometimes the outcomes are the same.”
That said, many things have to go right to get the best outcomes, and if one factor isn’t optimal, then treatment may never achieve the success that is possible, she noted.
Considering how complex the issue of disparities is, addressing it can seem daunting. Dr. Lee points out that the place to begin is with clinical trials. “I would like to see more studies that test interventions to correct disparities,” said Dr. Lee. “But I have actually seen in my own work that racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to participate in studies, even survey and observational studies where physical risks are low or nonexistent.”
People are studying how to increase minority participation in clinical trials, but thus far, there isn’t one solution. “As with routine care, there are probably a lot of logistical barriers to trial participation that disproportionately affect minority populations,” she noted. “There is also greater distrust of studies.”
But for now, there are some steps that clinicians can take to start to improve these disparities. “I think we can start inquiring about and documenting barriers to care and clinical trial participation, just like we document other aspects of the social history,” Dr. Lee explained. “Truly understanding the problem is the first step toward trying to solve it.”
References
1. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. 2021. www.lls.org/facts-and-statistics/facts-and-statistics-overview.
2. Utuama O et al. PLoS One. 2019 Aug 19;14(8):e0220864.
3. Pollyea DA et al. J Cancer Prev Curr Res. 2014;1(1):14-19.
4. Bencomo-Alvarez AE et al. Cancer. 2021 Apr 1;127(7):1068-79.
5. Nabhan C et al. Cancer. 2012 Oct 1;118(19):4842-50.
6. Bhatnagar B et al. Blood. 2020;136(Suppl 1):5-7.
7. Shenoy PJ et al. Cancer. 2011;117:2530-40.
8. Evens AM et al. Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug 1;23(8):2128-37.
9. Lee MJ et al. Cancer. 2020;126:3493-3503.
10. Hu B et al. Cancer. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33779.
11. Marinac CR et al. Blood Cancer J. 2020 Feb 17;10(2):19.
12. Fiala MA et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(9):2643-9.
13. Costa LJ et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015 Apr;21(4):701-6.
12 state boards have disciplined docs for COVID misinformation
, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).
The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.
“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.
The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.
The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.
Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”
This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.
Misinformation policies a new battleground
The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.
The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.
The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.
In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.
Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.
The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.
They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.
Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.
The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.
Who’s being disciplined, who’s not
Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.
Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.
In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.
Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.
The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.
The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.
The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.
New FSMB guidance coming
The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.
The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.
In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”
“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).
The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.
“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.
The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.
The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.
Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”
This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.
Misinformation policies a new battleground
The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.
The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.
The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.
In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.
Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.
The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.
They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.
Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.
The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.
Who’s being disciplined, who’s not
Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.
Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.
In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.
Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.
The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.
The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.
The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.
New FSMB guidance coming
The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.
The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.
In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”
“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).
The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.
“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.
The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.
The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.
Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”
This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.
Misinformation policies a new battleground
The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.
The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.
The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.
In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.
Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.
The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.
They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.
Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.
The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.
Who’s being disciplined, who’s not
Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.
Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.
In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.
Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.
The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.
The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.
The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.
New FSMB guidance coming
The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.
The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.
In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”
“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
Isatuximab added to RVd boosts response in new myeloma
ATLANTA -
The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.
Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).
Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.
Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.
“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.
“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.
Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).
“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.
“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.
He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.
Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.
“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
MRD vs. CR?
Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”
Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
GMMG-7 results
For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.
Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.
As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).
Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.
Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).
The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.
The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATLANTA -
The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.
Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).
Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.
Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.
“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.
“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.
Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).
“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.
“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.
He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.
Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.
“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
MRD vs. CR?
Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”
Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
GMMG-7 results
For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.
Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.
As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).
Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.
Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).
The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.
The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATLANTA -
The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.
Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).
Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.
Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.
“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.
“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.
Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).
“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.
“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.
He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.
Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.
“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
MRD vs. CR?
Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”
Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
GMMG-7 results
For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.
Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.
As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).
Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.
Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).
The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.
The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASH 2021
Major COVID-19 case growth expected in coming weeks
by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.
“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.
Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.
During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.
The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.
Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.
The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.
Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.
Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.
The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.
“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.
“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.
Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.
During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.
The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.
Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.
The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.
Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.
Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.
The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.
“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.
“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.
Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.
During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.
The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.
Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.
The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.
Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.
Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.
The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.
“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Talk early to patients with high-risk AML about end-of-life decisions
The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.
Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.
Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.
When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.
He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.
Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.
“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”
Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.
As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”
“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.
Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.
Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.
The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.
There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.
[email protected]
The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.
Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.
Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.
When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.
He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.
Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.
“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”
Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.
As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”
“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.
Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.
Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.
The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.
There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.
[email protected]
The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.
Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.
Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.
When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.
He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.
Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.
“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”
Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.
As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”
“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.
Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.
Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.
The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.
There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.
[email protected]
FROM ASH 2021
Coping with a shattered immune system: COVID and beyond
The co-opting and weakening of the immune system by hematologic malignancies and many of their treatments – and the blunting of the immune system’s response to vaccines – may be more salient during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before.
Hematologic malignancies have been associated in large cancer-and-COVID-19 registries with more severe COVID-19 outcomes than solid tumors, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have yielded suboptimal responses across multiple studies. Clinicians and researchers have no shortage of questions, like what is the optimal timing of vaccines relative to cancer-directed therapy? What is the durability and impact of the immune response? What is the status of the immune system in patients who do not produce antispike antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination?
Moreover, will there be novel nonvaccine strategies – such as antibody cocktails or convalescent plasma – to ensure protection against COVID-19 and other future viral threats? And what really defines immunocompromise today and moving forward?
“We don’t know what we don’t know,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, associate professor of medicine (hematology/oncology) and biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cofounder of the international COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. “The immune system is incredibly complex and there are numerous defenses, in addition to the humoral response that we routinely measure.”
Another of the pressing pandemic-time questions for infectious disease specialists working in cancer centers concerns a different infectious threat: measles. “There is a lot of concern in this space about the reported drop in childhood vaccinations and the possibility of measles outbreaks as a follow-up to COVID-19,” said Steven A. Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division and the clinical research division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Whether recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy should be revaccinated earlier than 2 years post treatment is a question worthy of preemptive discussion, he said.
What about timing?
“A silver lining of the pandemic is that it’s improving our understanding of response to vaccinations and outcomes with respiratory viruses in patients with hematologic malignancies,” said Samuel Rubinstein, MD, of the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re going to learn a lot more about how to ensure that our patients are optimally protected from respiratory viruses.”
Dr. Rubinstein focuses on plasma cell disorders, mostly multiple myeloma, and routinely explains to patients consenting to use daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, or a BCMA-directed therapy, that these therapies “in particular probably do impair vaccine immune response.”
He has handled the timing of the COVID-19 vaccines – currently boosters, in most cases – as he has with influenza and other immunizations such as the pneumococcal vaccine, administering the vaccines agnostic to therapy unless the patient is about to start daratumumab or a BCMA-directed therapy. In this case, he considers vaccinating and waiting 2 weeks (for an immune response to occur) before starting therapy.
However, “if I have any concern that a delay will result in suboptimal cancer control, then I don’t wait,” Dr. Rubinstein said. Poor control of a primary malignancy has been consistently associated with worse COVID-19–specific outcomes in cancer–COVID-19 studies, he said, including an analysis of almost 5,000 patients recorded to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium .1
(The analysis also documented that patients with a hematologic malignancy had an odds ratio of higher COVID-19 severity of 1.7, compared with patients with a solid tumor, and an odds ratio of 30-day mortality of 1.44.)
Ideally, said Dr. Warner, patients will get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines or others, “before starting on any cytotoxic chemotherapy and when they do not have low blood counts or perhaps autoimmune complications of immunotherapy.” However, “perfect being the enemy of good, it’s better to get vaccinated than to wait for the exact ideal time.”
Peter Paul Yu, MD, physician-in-chief at Hartford (Conn.) Healthcare Cancer Institute, said that for most patients, there’s no evidence to support an optimal timing of vaccine administration during the chemotherapy cycle. “We looked into that [to guide administration of the COVID-19 vaccines], thinking there might be some data about influenza vaccination,” he said. “But there isn’t much. … And if we make things more complicated than the evidence suggests, we may have fewer people getting vaccinations.”
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network offered several timing recommendations in its August 2021 COVID-19 vaccination guidance – mainly that patients receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy (such as those on cytarabine/anthracycline-based induction regimens for acute myeloid leukemia) delay COVID-19 vaccination until absolute neutrophil count recovery, and that patients on long-term maintenance therapy (for instance, targeted agents for chronic lymphocytic leukemia or myeloproliferative neoplasms) be vaccinated as soon as possible.
Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months, the NCCN noted, following HCT or engineered cell therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T cells) “in order to maximize vaccine efficacy.”
More known unknowns
The tempered efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies “has been shown in multiple studies of multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and other malignancies, and we know it’s true in transplant,” said Dr. Pergam.
In a study of 67 patients with hematologic malignancies at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, for instance, 46.3% did not generate IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor–binding domain after completing their two-dose mRNA vaccine series. Patients with B-cell CLL were especially unlikely to develop antibodies.2A much larger study of more than 1,400 patients from investigators at the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minn., and Jacksonville, Fla., found that approximately 25% of all patients with hematologic malignancies did not produce antispike IgG antibodies, and that those with the most common B-cell malignancies had the lowest rate of seropositivity (44%-79%).3There’s a clear but challenging delineation between antibody testing in the research space and in clinical practice, however. Various national and cancer societies recommended earlier this year against routine postvaccine serological monitoring outside of clinical trials, and the sources interviewed for this story all emphasized that antibody titer measurements should not guide decisions about boosters or about the precautions advised for patients.
Titers checked at a single point in time do not capture the kinetics, multidimensional nature, or durability of an immune response, Dr. Warner said. “There are papers out there that say zero patients with CCL seroconverted … but they do still have some immunity, and maybe even a lot of immunity.”
Antibody testing can create a false sense of security, or a false sense of dread, he said. Yet in practice, the use of serological monitoring “has been all over the place [with] no consistency … and decisions probably being made at the individual clinic level or health system level,” he said.
To a lesser degree, so have definitions of what composes significant immunocompromise in the context of COVID-19 vaccine eligibility. “The question comes up, what does immunocompromised really mean?” said Dr. Yu, whose institution is a member of the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance.
As of September, the MSK Cancer Center had taken a more granular approach to describing moderate to severe immunocompromise than did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC said this level of immunocompromise includes people receiving active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood, and those who’ve received a stem cell transplant within the past 2 years. MSK extended the recommendation, as it concerns hematologic malignancies, to patients who are within 12 months after treatment with B-cell depleting drugs, patients who have been treated for blood cancers within the last 6 months, and patients who received CAR T therapy within the past 2 years.
Dr. Yu, who was not involved in creating the MSK recommendations for third COVID-19 vaccines, said that he has been thinking more broadly during the pandemic about the notion of immunocompetence. “It’s my opinion that patients with hematologic malignancies, even if they’re not on treatment, are not fully immune competent,” he said. This includes patients with CLL stage 0 and patients with plasma cell dyscrasias who don’t yet meet the criteria for multiple myeloma but have a monoclonal gammopathy, and those with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, he said.
“We’re seeing [variable] recommendations based on expert opinion, and I think that’s justifiable in such a dynamic situation,” Dr. Yu said. “I would [even] argue it’s desirable so we can learn from different approaches” and collect more rigorous observational data.
Immunocompetence needs to be “viewed in the context of the threat,” he added. “COVID changes the equation. … What’s immunocompromised in my mind has changed [from prepandemic times].”
Preparing for measles
Measles lit up on Dr. Pergam’s radar screen in 2019, when an outbreak occurred in nearby Clark County, Wash. This and other outbreaks in New York, California, and other states highlighted declines in measles herd immunity in the United States and prompted him to investigate the seroprevalence of measles antibodies in the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s outpatient population.
Of 959 consecutive patients seen at the center, they found, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. For patients with hematologic malignancies and those with a history of HCT, seroprevalence was worse: 37% and 54%, respectively, were without the IgG antibodies.4 Measles “is the most contagious human virus we have at the moment,” he said, and “revaccinating people is hard when it comes to cancer because it is a live virus vaccine.”
Vaccine hesitancy, a rise in nonmedical exemptions, and other factors were threatening herd immunity before the pandemic began. Now, with declines in routine childhood medical visits and other vaccination opportunities and resources here and in other countries – and declining immunization rates documented by the CDC in May 2021 – the pandemic has made measles outbreaks more likely, he said. (Measles outbreaks in West Africa on the tail end of the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 caused more deaths in children than Ebola, he noted.)
The first priority is vaccination “cocooning,” a strategy that has long been important for patients with hematologic malignancies. But it also possible, Dr. Pergam said, that in the setting of any future community transmission, revaccination for HCT recipients could occur earlier than the standard 2-year post-transplantation recommendation.
In a 2019 position statement endorsed by the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Pergam and other infectious disease physicians and oncologists provide criteria for considering early revaccination on a case-by-case basis for patients on minimal immunosuppressive therapy who are at least 1-year post transplantation.5
“Our thinking was that there may be lower-risk patients to whom we could offer the vaccine” – patients for whom the risk of developing measles might outweigh the risk of potential vaccine-related complications, he said.
And if there were community cases, he added, there might be a place for testing antibody levels in post-transplant patients, however imperfect the window to immunity may be. “We’re thinking through potential scenarios,” he said. “Oncologists should think about measles again and have it on their back burner.”
References
1. Grivas P et al. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jun;32(6):787-800.
2. Agha ME et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 July;8(7):ofab353.
3. Greenberger LM et al. Cancer Cell. 2021 Aug 9;39(8):1031-3.
4. Marquis SR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 July;4(7):e2118508.
5. Pergam SA et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Nov;25:e321-30.
The co-opting and weakening of the immune system by hematologic malignancies and many of their treatments – and the blunting of the immune system’s response to vaccines – may be more salient during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before.
Hematologic malignancies have been associated in large cancer-and-COVID-19 registries with more severe COVID-19 outcomes than solid tumors, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have yielded suboptimal responses across multiple studies. Clinicians and researchers have no shortage of questions, like what is the optimal timing of vaccines relative to cancer-directed therapy? What is the durability and impact of the immune response? What is the status of the immune system in patients who do not produce antispike antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination?
Moreover, will there be novel nonvaccine strategies – such as antibody cocktails or convalescent plasma – to ensure protection against COVID-19 and other future viral threats? And what really defines immunocompromise today and moving forward?
“We don’t know what we don’t know,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, associate professor of medicine (hematology/oncology) and biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cofounder of the international COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. “The immune system is incredibly complex and there are numerous defenses, in addition to the humoral response that we routinely measure.”
Another of the pressing pandemic-time questions for infectious disease specialists working in cancer centers concerns a different infectious threat: measles. “There is a lot of concern in this space about the reported drop in childhood vaccinations and the possibility of measles outbreaks as a follow-up to COVID-19,” said Steven A. Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division and the clinical research division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Whether recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy should be revaccinated earlier than 2 years post treatment is a question worthy of preemptive discussion, he said.
What about timing?
“A silver lining of the pandemic is that it’s improving our understanding of response to vaccinations and outcomes with respiratory viruses in patients with hematologic malignancies,” said Samuel Rubinstein, MD, of the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re going to learn a lot more about how to ensure that our patients are optimally protected from respiratory viruses.”
Dr. Rubinstein focuses on plasma cell disorders, mostly multiple myeloma, and routinely explains to patients consenting to use daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, or a BCMA-directed therapy, that these therapies “in particular probably do impair vaccine immune response.”
He has handled the timing of the COVID-19 vaccines – currently boosters, in most cases – as he has with influenza and other immunizations such as the pneumococcal vaccine, administering the vaccines agnostic to therapy unless the patient is about to start daratumumab or a BCMA-directed therapy. In this case, he considers vaccinating and waiting 2 weeks (for an immune response to occur) before starting therapy.
However, “if I have any concern that a delay will result in suboptimal cancer control, then I don’t wait,” Dr. Rubinstein said. Poor control of a primary malignancy has been consistently associated with worse COVID-19–specific outcomes in cancer–COVID-19 studies, he said, including an analysis of almost 5,000 patients recorded to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium .1
(The analysis also documented that patients with a hematologic malignancy had an odds ratio of higher COVID-19 severity of 1.7, compared with patients with a solid tumor, and an odds ratio of 30-day mortality of 1.44.)
Ideally, said Dr. Warner, patients will get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines or others, “before starting on any cytotoxic chemotherapy and when they do not have low blood counts or perhaps autoimmune complications of immunotherapy.” However, “perfect being the enemy of good, it’s better to get vaccinated than to wait for the exact ideal time.”
Peter Paul Yu, MD, physician-in-chief at Hartford (Conn.) Healthcare Cancer Institute, said that for most patients, there’s no evidence to support an optimal timing of vaccine administration during the chemotherapy cycle. “We looked into that [to guide administration of the COVID-19 vaccines], thinking there might be some data about influenza vaccination,” he said. “But there isn’t much. … And if we make things more complicated than the evidence suggests, we may have fewer people getting vaccinations.”
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network offered several timing recommendations in its August 2021 COVID-19 vaccination guidance – mainly that patients receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy (such as those on cytarabine/anthracycline-based induction regimens for acute myeloid leukemia) delay COVID-19 vaccination until absolute neutrophil count recovery, and that patients on long-term maintenance therapy (for instance, targeted agents for chronic lymphocytic leukemia or myeloproliferative neoplasms) be vaccinated as soon as possible.
Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months, the NCCN noted, following HCT or engineered cell therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T cells) “in order to maximize vaccine efficacy.”
More known unknowns
The tempered efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies “has been shown in multiple studies of multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and other malignancies, and we know it’s true in transplant,” said Dr. Pergam.
In a study of 67 patients with hematologic malignancies at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, for instance, 46.3% did not generate IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor–binding domain after completing their two-dose mRNA vaccine series. Patients with B-cell CLL were especially unlikely to develop antibodies.2A much larger study of more than 1,400 patients from investigators at the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minn., and Jacksonville, Fla., found that approximately 25% of all patients with hematologic malignancies did not produce antispike IgG antibodies, and that those with the most common B-cell malignancies had the lowest rate of seropositivity (44%-79%).3There’s a clear but challenging delineation between antibody testing in the research space and in clinical practice, however. Various national and cancer societies recommended earlier this year against routine postvaccine serological monitoring outside of clinical trials, and the sources interviewed for this story all emphasized that antibody titer measurements should not guide decisions about boosters or about the precautions advised for patients.
Titers checked at a single point in time do not capture the kinetics, multidimensional nature, or durability of an immune response, Dr. Warner said. “There are papers out there that say zero patients with CCL seroconverted … but they do still have some immunity, and maybe even a lot of immunity.”
Antibody testing can create a false sense of security, or a false sense of dread, he said. Yet in practice, the use of serological monitoring “has been all over the place [with] no consistency … and decisions probably being made at the individual clinic level or health system level,” he said.
To a lesser degree, so have definitions of what composes significant immunocompromise in the context of COVID-19 vaccine eligibility. “The question comes up, what does immunocompromised really mean?” said Dr. Yu, whose institution is a member of the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance.
As of September, the MSK Cancer Center had taken a more granular approach to describing moderate to severe immunocompromise than did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC said this level of immunocompromise includes people receiving active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood, and those who’ve received a stem cell transplant within the past 2 years. MSK extended the recommendation, as it concerns hematologic malignancies, to patients who are within 12 months after treatment with B-cell depleting drugs, patients who have been treated for blood cancers within the last 6 months, and patients who received CAR T therapy within the past 2 years.
Dr. Yu, who was not involved in creating the MSK recommendations for third COVID-19 vaccines, said that he has been thinking more broadly during the pandemic about the notion of immunocompetence. “It’s my opinion that patients with hematologic malignancies, even if they’re not on treatment, are not fully immune competent,” he said. This includes patients with CLL stage 0 and patients with plasma cell dyscrasias who don’t yet meet the criteria for multiple myeloma but have a monoclonal gammopathy, and those with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, he said.
“We’re seeing [variable] recommendations based on expert opinion, and I think that’s justifiable in such a dynamic situation,” Dr. Yu said. “I would [even] argue it’s desirable so we can learn from different approaches” and collect more rigorous observational data.
Immunocompetence needs to be “viewed in the context of the threat,” he added. “COVID changes the equation. … What’s immunocompromised in my mind has changed [from prepandemic times].”
Preparing for measles
Measles lit up on Dr. Pergam’s radar screen in 2019, when an outbreak occurred in nearby Clark County, Wash. This and other outbreaks in New York, California, and other states highlighted declines in measles herd immunity in the United States and prompted him to investigate the seroprevalence of measles antibodies in the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s outpatient population.
Of 959 consecutive patients seen at the center, they found, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. For patients with hematologic malignancies and those with a history of HCT, seroprevalence was worse: 37% and 54%, respectively, were without the IgG antibodies.4 Measles “is the most contagious human virus we have at the moment,” he said, and “revaccinating people is hard when it comes to cancer because it is a live virus vaccine.”
Vaccine hesitancy, a rise in nonmedical exemptions, and other factors were threatening herd immunity before the pandemic began. Now, with declines in routine childhood medical visits and other vaccination opportunities and resources here and in other countries – and declining immunization rates documented by the CDC in May 2021 – the pandemic has made measles outbreaks more likely, he said. (Measles outbreaks in West Africa on the tail end of the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 caused more deaths in children than Ebola, he noted.)
The first priority is vaccination “cocooning,” a strategy that has long been important for patients with hematologic malignancies. But it also possible, Dr. Pergam said, that in the setting of any future community transmission, revaccination for HCT recipients could occur earlier than the standard 2-year post-transplantation recommendation.
In a 2019 position statement endorsed by the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Pergam and other infectious disease physicians and oncologists provide criteria for considering early revaccination on a case-by-case basis for patients on minimal immunosuppressive therapy who are at least 1-year post transplantation.5
“Our thinking was that there may be lower-risk patients to whom we could offer the vaccine” – patients for whom the risk of developing measles might outweigh the risk of potential vaccine-related complications, he said.
And if there were community cases, he added, there might be a place for testing antibody levels in post-transplant patients, however imperfect the window to immunity may be. “We’re thinking through potential scenarios,” he said. “Oncologists should think about measles again and have it on their back burner.”
References
1. Grivas P et al. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jun;32(6):787-800.
2. Agha ME et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 July;8(7):ofab353.
3. Greenberger LM et al. Cancer Cell. 2021 Aug 9;39(8):1031-3.
4. Marquis SR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 July;4(7):e2118508.
5. Pergam SA et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Nov;25:e321-30.
The co-opting and weakening of the immune system by hematologic malignancies and many of their treatments – and the blunting of the immune system’s response to vaccines – may be more salient during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before.
Hematologic malignancies have been associated in large cancer-and-COVID-19 registries with more severe COVID-19 outcomes than solid tumors, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have yielded suboptimal responses across multiple studies. Clinicians and researchers have no shortage of questions, like what is the optimal timing of vaccines relative to cancer-directed therapy? What is the durability and impact of the immune response? What is the status of the immune system in patients who do not produce antispike antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination?
Moreover, will there be novel nonvaccine strategies – such as antibody cocktails or convalescent plasma – to ensure protection against COVID-19 and other future viral threats? And what really defines immunocompromise today and moving forward?
“We don’t know what we don’t know,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, associate professor of medicine (hematology/oncology) and biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cofounder of the international COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. “The immune system is incredibly complex and there are numerous defenses, in addition to the humoral response that we routinely measure.”
Another of the pressing pandemic-time questions for infectious disease specialists working in cancer centers concerns a different infectious threat: measles. “There is a lot of concern in this space about the reported drop in childhood vaccinations and the possibility of measles outbreaks as a follow-up to COVID-19,” said Steven A. Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division and the clinical research division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Whether recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy should be revaccinated earlier than 2 years post treatment is a question worthy of preemptive discussion, he said.
What about timing?
“A silver lining of the pandemic is that it’s improving our understanding of response to vaccinations and outcomes with respiratory viruses in patients with hematologic malignancies,” said Samuel Rubinstein, MD, of the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re going to learn a lot more about how to ensure that our patients are optimally protected from respiratory viruses.”
Dr. Rubinstein focuses on plasma cell disorders, mostly multiple myeloma, and routinely explains to patients consenting to use daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, or a BCMA-directed therapy, that these therapies “in particular probably do impair vaccine immune response.”
He has handled the timing of the COVID-19 vaccines – currently boosters, in most cases – as he has with influenza and other immunizations such as the pneumococcal vaccine, administering the vaccines agnostic to therapy unless the patient is about to start daratumumab or a BCMA-directed therapy. In this case, he considers vaccinating and waiting 2 weeks (for an immune response to occur) before starting therapy.
However, “if I have any concern that a delay will result in suboptimal cancer control, then I don’t wait,” Dr. Rubinstein said. Poor control of a primary malignancy has been consistently associated with worse COVID-19–specific outcomes in cancer–COVID-19 studies, he said, including an analysis of almost 5,000 patients recorded to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium .1
(The analysis also documented that patients with a hematologic malignancy had an odds ratio of higher COVID-19 severity of 1.7, compared with patients with a solid tumor, and an odds ratio of 30-day mortality of 1.44.)
Ideally, said Dr. Warner, patients will get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines or others, “before starting on any cytotoxic chemotherapy and when they do not have low blood counts or perhaps autoimmune complications of immunotherapy.” However, “perfect being the enemy of good, it’s better to get vaccinated than to wait for the exact ideal time.”
Peter Paul Yu, MD, physician-in-chief at Hartford (Conn.) Healthcare Cancer Institute, said that for most patients, there’s no evidence to support an optimal timing of vaccine administration during the chemotherapy cycle. “We looked into that [to guide administration of the COVID-19 vaccines], thinking there might be some data about influenza vaccination,” he said. “But there isn’t much. … And if we make things more complicated than the evidence suggests, we may have fewer people getting vaccinations.”
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network offered several timing recommendations in its August 2021 COVID-19 vaccination guidance – mainly that patients receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy (such as those on cytarabine/anthracycline-based induction regimens for acute myeloid leukemia) delay COVID-19 vaccination until absolute neutrophil count recovery, and that patients on long-term maintenance therapy (for instance, targeted agents for chronic lymphocytic leukemia or myeloproliferative neoplasms) be vaccinated as soon as possible.
Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months, the NCCN noted, following HCT or engineered cell therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T cells) “in order to maximize vaccine efficacy.”
More known unknowns
The tempered efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies “has been shown in multiple studies of multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and other malignancies, and we know it’s true in transplant,” said Dr. Pergam.
In a study of 67 patients with hematologic malignancies at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, for instance, 46.3% did not generate IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor–binding domain after completing their two-dose mRNA vaccine series. Patients with B-cell CLL were especially unlikely to develop antibodies.2A much larger study of more than 1,400 patients from investigators at the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minn., and Jacksonville, Fla., found that approximately 25% of all patients with hematologic malignancies did not produce antispike IgG antibodies, and that those with the most common B-cell malignancies had the lowest rate of seropositivity (44%-79%).3There’s a clear but challenging delineation between antibody testing in the research space and in clinical practice, however. Various national and cancer societies recommended earlier this year against routine postvaccine serological monitoring outside of clinical trials, and the sources interviewed for this story all emphasized that antibody titer measurements should not guide decisions about boosters or about the precautions advised for patients.
Titers checked at a single point in time do not capture the kinetics, multidimensional nature, or durability of an immune response, Dr. Warner said. “There are papers out there that say zero patients with CCL seroconverted … but they do still have some immunity, and maybe even a lot of immunity.”
Antibody testing can create a false sense of security, or a false sense of dread, he said. Yet in practice, the use of serological monitoring “has been all over the place [with] no consistency … and decisions probably being made at the individual clinic level or health system level,” he said.
To a lesser degree, so have definitions of what composes significant immunocompromise in the context of COVID-19 vaccine eligibility. “The question comes up, what does immunocompromised really mean?” said Dr. Yu, whose institution is a member of the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance.
As of September, the MSK Cancer Center had taken a more granular approach to describing moderate to severe immunocompromise than did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC said this level of immunocompromise includes people receiving active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood, and those who’ve received a stem cell transplant within the past 2 years. MSK extended the recommendation, as it concerns hematologic malignancies, to patients who are within 12 months after treatment with B-cell depleting drugs, patients who have been treated for blood cancers within the last 6 months, and patients who received CAR T therapy within the past 2 years.
Dr. Yu, who was not involved in creating the MSK recommendations for third COVID-19 vaccines, said that he has been thinking more broadly during the pandemic about the notion of immunocompetence. “It’s my opinion that patients with hematologic malignancies, even if they’re not on treatment, are not fully immune competent,” he said. This includes patients with CLL stage 0 and patients with plasma cell dyscrasias who don’t yet meet the criteria for multiple myeloma but have a monoclonal gammopathy, and those with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, he said.
“We’re seeing [variable] recommendations based on expert opinion, and I think that’s justifiable in such a dynamic situation,” Dr. Yu said. “I would [even] argue it’s desirable so we can learn from different approaches” and collect more rigorous observational data.
Immunocompetence needs to be “viewed in the context of the threat,” he added. “COVID changes the equation. … What’s immunocompromised in my mind has changed [from prepandemic times].”
Preparing for measles
Measles lit up on Dr. Pergam’s radar screen in 2019, when an outbreak occurred in nearby Clark County, Wash. This and other outbreaks in New York, California, and other states highlighted declines in measles herd immunity in the United States and prompted him to investigate the seroprevalence of measles antibodies in the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s outpatient population.
Of 959 consecutive patients seen at the center, they found, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. For patients with hematologic malignancies and those with a history of HCT, seroprevalence was worse: 37% and 54%, respectively, were without the IgG antibodies.4 Measles “is the most contagious human virus we have at the moment,” he said, and “revaccinating people is hard when it comes to cancer because it is a live virus vaccine.”
Vaccine hesitancy, a rise in nonmedical exemptions, and other factors were threatening herd immunity before the pandemic began. Now, with declines in routine childhood medical visits and other vaccination opportunities and resources here and in other countries – and declining immunization rates documented by the CDC in May 2021 – the pandemic has made measles outbreaks more likely, he said. (Measles outbreaks in West Africa on the tail end of the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 caused more deaths in children than Ebola, he noted.)
The first priority is vaccination “cocooning,” a strategy that has long been important for patients with hematologic malignancies. But it also possible, Dr. Pergam said, that in the setting of any future community transmission, revaccination for HCT recipients could occur earlier than the standard 2-year post-transplantation recommendation.
In a 2019 position statement endorsed by the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Pergam and other infectious disease physicians and oncologists provide criteria for considering early revaccination on a case-by-case basis for patients on minimal immunosuppressive therapy who are at least 1-year post transplantation.5
“Our thinking was that there may be lower-risk patients to whom we could offer the vaccine” – patients for whom the risk of developing measles might outweigh the risk of potential vaccine-related complications, he said.
And if there were community cases, he added, there might be a place for testing antibody levels in post-transplant patients, however imperfect the window to immunity may be. “We’re thinking through potential scenarios,” he said. “Oncologists should think about measles again and have it on their back burner.”
References
1. Grivas P et al. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jun;32(6):787-800.
2. Agha ME et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 July;8(7):ofab353.
3. Greenberger LM et al. Cancer Cell. 2021 Aug 9;39(8):1031-3.
4. Marquis SR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 July;4(7):e2118508.
5. Pergam SA et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Nov;25:e321-30.
Precision medicine: A new approach to AML, other blood cancers
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
NORD: Approaching rare cancers through a diversity lens
The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD® ) advocates for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. Since its inception in 1983, NORD has advocated for marginalized individuals – people living with rare diseases, diagnosed and undiagnosed – who were excluded from conventional clinical care, research, and drug development.
People living with rare diseases often experience a long and arduous journey to diagnosis, due to a dearth of information in medical textbooks, lack of knowledge in the clinical setting, lack of research, and lack of FDA-approved treatments. Furthermore, a substantial amount of research has shown inequity in access to and quality of health care for marginalized groups, especially Black, Brown, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC). The barriers to be accurately diagnosed and provided quality care by specialists already poses threats to quality and length of life of the community at large, but the additional barriers faced by BIPOC communities have deadly consequences due to the lack of access to culturally proficient health care and access to rare disease specialists, in addition to socioeconomic considerations (i.e., insurance access and medical literacy).
In addition to further delayed diagnosis and inequities in care, people of color are consistently underrepresented in clinical trials and registries, resulting in a lack of diversity in clinical studies and some mystery in how effective therapies will be across diverse populations of patients. Because many rare diseases are genetic and certain genetic conditions disproportionately affect communities of color, having a vast majority of white participants creates significant knowledge gaps that can affect patient care and drug development and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, when looking at the rare cancer population within the rare disease community, the same problems persist. Of the approximately 7,000 known rare diseases, 1 more than 500 are rare cancers, 2 and combined, all rare cancers account for slightly more than one out of ever four cancer diagnoses each year and one out of every four cancer-related deaths. 3 Black people have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial/ethnic group in the U.S. for most cancers, and Black men have the highest cancer incidence rate. 4 NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition™, including 27 rare cancer member organizations, are committed to shining a light on the causes of these inequities for rare cancer patients, including but not limited to systemic racism, economic disparities, cultural differences, and issues concerning access to quality health care and inclusive research.
To raise awareness of rare cancers and the issues rare cancer patients face throughout the diagnostic odyssey, in seeking and receiving specialized care and in advocating for awareness, and increased research and drug development, NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition spearheaded Rare Cancer Day, observed annually on September 30. Through the universal hashtag campaign #RareCancerDay and our social media toolkit of infographics and messaging, NORD brings together the global community of advocates to promote awareness of rare cancers and provide opportunities to educate patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. NORD hosted a free webinar for the rare disease community, Rare Cancers: Breaking Down Barriers to Diagnosis, Treatment and Research, to explore rare cancer challenges and offer insights to assist those who are impacted. Throughout August and September, NORD highlighted the powerful, important, and inspiring stories of the rare cancer community on the NORD blog.
In addition, the 2021 NORD Rare Diseases + Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, held October 18 and 19, featured a breakout session and a follow-up discussion group on Advancing Rare Cancer Awareness & Education Among Healthcare Professionals. These sessions explored educational gaps and approaches for increasing awareness and delivering quality education for healthcare professionals in optimizing care for rare cancer patients, genomic testing, personalized medicine, and collaboration with researchers and patient advocacy groups.
This issue of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers helps us further our mission to foster the identification, treatment, and cure of rare disorders through programs of education, advocacy, research, and patient services, as well as the work of NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition™ which aims to unite NORD member organizations working in rare cancers to collaborate on issues facing the greater rare cancer community.
NORD remains steadfastly committed to advocating for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, gender expression, mental illness, socioeconomic status or background, neuro(a)typicality, or physical appearance. NORD’s work includes advocating for rare cancer patients, raising awareness of rare cancer patients, sharing the stories of people living with rare cancers, and educating patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals about accurate diagnosis, quality care, advancements in research, and available treatment options. Learn more at rarediseases.org.
Rebecca Aune
Director of Education Programs
Debbie Drell
Director of Membership
References
1. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; FAQs About Rare Diseases; 11/30/2017. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases
2. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Rare Cancers; 1/25/2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers, or https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers
3. NIH National Cancer Institute. Rare Cancer Statistics | Did You Know? [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY&t=155s. Published April 5, 2018. Accessed Oct. 20, 2021.
4. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts; Figures for African Americans 2019-2021. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2019. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans-2019-2021.pdf1.
The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD® ) advocates for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. Since its inception in 1983, NORD has advocated for marginalized individuals – people living with rare diseases, diagnosed and undiagnosed – who were excluded from conventional clinical care, research, and drug development.
People living with rare diseases often experience a long and arduous journey to diagnosis, due to a dearth of information in medical textbooks, lack of knowledge in the clinical setting, lack of research, and lack of FDA-approved treatments. Furthermore, a substantial amount of research has shown inequity in access to and quality of health care for marginalized groups, especially Black, Brown, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC). The barriers to be accurately diagnosed and provided quality care by specialists already poses threats to quality and length of life of the community at large, but the additional barriers faced by BIPOC communities have deadly consequences due to the lack of access to culturally proficient health care and access to rare disease specialists, in addition to socioeconomic considerations (i.e., insurance access and medical literacy).
In addition to further delayed diagnosis and inequities in care, people of color are consistently underrepresented in clinical trials and registries, resulting in a lack of diversity in clinical studies and some mystery in how effective therapies will be across diverse populations of patients. Because many rare diseases are genetic and certain genetic conditions disproportionately affect communities of color, having a vast majority of white participants creates significant knowledge gaps that can affect patient care and drug development and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, when looking at the rare cancer population within the rare disease community, the same problems persist. Of the approximately 7,000 known rare diseases, 1 more than 500 are rare cancers, 2 and combined, all rare cancers account for slightly more than one out of ever four cancer diagnoses each year and one out of every four cancer-related deaths. 3 Black people have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial/ethnic group in the U.S. for most cancers, and Black men have the highest cancer incidence rate. 4 NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition™, including 27 rare cancer member organizations, are committed to shining a light on the causes of these inequities for rare cancer patients, including but not limited to systemic racism, economic disparities, cultural differences, and issues concerning access to quality health care and inclusive research.
To raise awareness of rare cancers and the issues rare cancer patients face throughout the diagnostic odyssey, in seeking and receiving specialized care and in advocating for awareness, and increased research and drug development, NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition spearheaded Rare Cancer Day, observed annually on September 30. Through the universal hashtag campaign #RareCancerDay and our social media toolkit of infographics and messaging, NORD brings together the global community of advocates to promote awareness of rare cancers and provide opportunities to educate patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. NORD hosted a free webinar for the rare disease community, Rare Cancers: Breaking Down Barriers to Diagnosis, Treatment and Research, to explore rare cancer challenges and offer insights to assist those who are impacted. Throughout August and September, NORD highlighted the powerful, important, and inspiring stories of the rare cancer community on the NORD blog.
In addition, the 2021 NORD Rare Diseases + Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, held October 18 and 19, featured a breakout session and a follow-up discussion group on Advancing Rare Cancer Awareness & Education Among Healthcare Professionals. These sessions explored educational gaps and approaches for increasing awareness and delivering quality education for healthcare professionals in optimizing care for rare cancer patients, genomic testing, personalized medicine, and collaboration with researchers and patient advocacy groups.
This issue of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers helps us further our mission to foster the identification, treatment, and cure of rare disorders through programs of education, advocacy, research, and patient services, as well as the work of NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition™ which aims to unite NORD member organizations working in rare cancers to collaborate on issues facing the greater rare cancer community.
NORD remains steadfastly committed to advocating for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, gender expression, mental illness, socioeconomic status or background, neuro(a)typicality, or physical appearance. NORD’s work includes advocating for rare cancer patients, raising awareness of rare cancer patients, sharing the stories of people living with rare cancers, and educating patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals about accurate diagnosis, quality care, advancements in research, and available treatment options. Learn more at rarediseases.org.
Rebecca Aune
Director of Education Programs
Debbie Drell
Director of Membership
References
1. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; FAQs About Rare Diseases; 11/30/2017. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases
2. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Rare Cancers; 1/25/2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers, or https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers
3. NIH National Cancer Institute. Rare Cancer Statistics | Did You Know? [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY&t=155s. Published April 5, 2018. Accessed Oct. 20, 2021.
4. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts; Figures for African Americans 2019-2021. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2019. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans-2019-2021.pdf1.
The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD® ) advocates for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. Since its inception in 1983, NORD has advocated for marginalized individuals – people living with rare diseases, diagnosed and undiagnosed – who were excluded from conventional clinical care, research, and drug development.
People living with rare diseases often experience a long and arduous journey to diagnosis, due to a dearth of information in medical textbooks, lack of knowledge in the clinical setting, lack of research, and lack of FDA-approved treatments. Furthermore, a substantial amount of research has shown inequity in access to and quality of health care for marginalized groups, especially Black, Brown, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC). The barriers to be accurately diagnosed and provided quality care by specialists already poses threats to quality and length of life of the community at large, but the additional barriers faced by BIPOC communities have deadly consequences due to the lack of access to culturally proficient health care and access to rare disease specialists, in addition to socioeconomic considerations (i.e., insurance access and medical literacy).
In addition to further delayed diagnosis and inequities in care, people of color are consistently underrepresented in clinical trials and registries, resulting in a lack of diversity in clinical studies and some mystery in how effective therapies will be across diverse populations of patients. Because many rare diseases are genetic and certain genetic conditions disproportionately affect communities of color, having a vast majority of white participants creates significant knowledge gaps that can affect patient care and drug development and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, when looking at the rare cancer population within the rare disease community, the same problems persist. Of the approximately 7,000 known rare diseases, 1 more than 500 are rare cancers, 2 and combined, all rare cancers account for slightly more than one out of ever four cancer diagnoses each year and one out of every four cancer-related deaths. 3 Black people have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial/ethnic group in the U.S. for most cancers, and Black men have the highest cancer incidence rate. 4 NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition™, including 27 rare cancer member organizations, are committed to shining a light on the causes of these inequities for rare cancer patients, including but not limited to systemic racism, economic disparities, cultural differences, and issues concerning access to quality health care and inclusive research.
To raise awareness of rare cancers and the issues rare cancer patients face throughout the diagnostic odyssey, in seeking and receiving specialized care and in advocating for awareness, and increased research and drug development, NORD and the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition spearheaded Rare Cancer Day, observed annually on September 30. Through the universal hashtag campaign #RareCancerDay and our social media toolkit of infographics and messaging, NORD brings together the global community of advocates to promote awareness of rare cancers and provide opportunities to educate patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. NORD hosted a free webinar for the rare disease community, Rare Cancers: Breaking Down Barriers to Diagnosis, Treatment and Research, to explore rare cancer challenges and offer insights to assist those who are impacted. Throughout August and September, NORD highlighted the powerful, important, and inspiring stories of the rare cancer community on the NORD blog.
In addition, the 2021 NORD Rare Diseases + Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, held October 18 and 19, featured a breakout session and a follow-up discussion group on Advancing Rare Cancer Awareness & Education Among Healthcare Professionals. These sessions explored educational gaps and approaches for increasing awareness and delivering quality education for healthcare professionals in optimizing care for rare cancer patients, genomic testing, personalized medicine, and collaboration with researchers and patient advocacy groups.
This issue of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers helps us further our mission to foster the identification, treatment, and cure of rare disorders through programs of education, advocacy, research, and patient services, as well as the work of NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition™ which aims to unite NORD member organizations working in rare cancers to collaborate on issues facing the greater rare cancer community.
NORD remains steadfastly committed to advocating for all rare disease patients, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, gender expression, mental illness, socioeconomic status or background, neuro(a)typicality, or physical appearance. NORD’s work includes advocating for rare cancer patients, raising awareness of rare cancer patients, sharing the stories of people living with rare cancers, and educating patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals about accurate diagnosis, quality care, advancements in research, and available treatment options. Learn more at rarediseases.org.
Rebecca Aune
Director of Education Programs
Debbie Drell
Director of Membership
References
1. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; FAQs About Rare Diseases; 11/30/2017. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases
2. Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Rare Cancers; 1/25/2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers, or https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/diseases-by-category/1/rare-cancers
3. NIH National Cancer Institute. Rare Cancer Statistics | Did You Know? [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES5KylRT1qY&t=155s. Published April 5, 2018. Accessed Oct. 20, 2021.
4. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts; Figures for African Americans 2019-2021. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2019. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans-2019-2021.pdf1.
Myeloid patients respond robustly to Moderna COVID vaccine
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
FROM ASH 2021
‘Outstanding data’: Mosunetuzumab in r/r follicular lymphoma
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.
At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.
In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.
Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.
The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.
If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.
“Outstanding” data
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.
Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.
“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.
Study details
Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.
In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.
Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.
The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.
There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.
The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.
The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.
There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.
Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 12/12/21.
AT ASH 2021