Hematology News

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

Incorporating lymphopenia into the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) can improve prognostication, according to researchers.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The team added lymphopenia as a point in a revised FLIPI scoring system, called FLIPI-L, and found the new system could better predict overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and histologic transformation in patients with follicular lymphoma.

George Yang, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., and his colleagues described results with the FLIPI-L in a letter published in Blood Cancer Journal.

“Prior studies have demonstrated that lymphopenia was associated with worsened OS in [follicular lymphoma],” Dr. Yang and his colleagues wrote. “Therefore, we hypothesized that lymphopenia may be integrated with existing FLIPI to better stratify long-term survival outcomes and predict for transformation.”

The researchers tested this theory in 736 follicular lymphoma patients who were followed for a median of 72 months (range, 2-211 months). The 5-year OS in this cohort was 81.3%, the 10-year OS was 67.3%, and 18% of patients experienced transformation to high-grade lymphoma.

The researchers defined absolute lymphopenia as less than 1.0 × 10⁹ lymphocytes per liter. In multivariate analyses, lymphopenia was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio, 1.74; P less than .01) and transformation (odds ratio, 2.1; P less than .01).

To incorporate lymphopenia into the FLIPI, the researchers created a model in which 1 point was given for each of the standard FLIPI components (age, Ann Arbor stage, number of nodal areas, lactate dehydrogenase, and hemoglobin level), and one point was given for the presence of lymphopenia. Patients in the low-risk FLIPI-L category had 0-1 points, those in the intermediate-risk category had 2-3 points, and patients in the high-risk FLIPI-L category had 4-6 points.

Using the original FLIPI, the 5-year OS was 91% in the low-risk group (0-1), 82.7% in the intermediate-risk group (2), and 66% in the high-risk group (3-5). The 10-year OS was 80.4%, 66%, and 45.8%, respectively.

Using the FLIPI-L, the 5-year OS was 94.5% in the low-risk group (0-1), 89% in the intermediate-risk group (2-3), and 61% in the high-risk group (4-6). The 10-year OS was 83.9%, 68.5%, and 34.5%, respectively.

In a univariate Cox regression analysis of OS, each point increase in FLIPI-L score was associated with a significant increase in hazard ratio. For example, the hazard ratio was 3.4 for patients with a FLIPI-L score of 1 and 30.9 for those with a FLIPI-L score of 6 (P less than .02 for all FLIPI-L scores). Conversely, increases in hazard ratio were not significant with the original FLIPI (P greater than .05 for all FLIPI scores).

The FLIPI-L was prognostic for OS in different treatment groups. In patients who received rituximab alone, radiation alone, or rituximab plus chemotherapy, the scoring system differentiated low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (P less than .04). In patients under observation, the FLIPI-L distinguished low/intermediate-risk and high-risk groups (P less than .01).

For patients who progressed within 24 months, the FLIPI-L was more predictive of progression-free survival (P = .05) than was the original FLIPI (P = .11).

Increasing FLIPI-L was an independent predictor of transformation, both when assessed as a continuous variable (P less than .01) and stepwise for FLIPI-L 3-5 (P = .004-.01). The original FLIPI, on the other hand, was not an independent predictor of transformation.

“Our analysis of a lymphopenia cutoff as an addition to the original FLIPI is simple yet improves risk stratification to differentiate between prognostic groups and, importantly, to predict transformation,” Dr. Yang and his colleagues wrote.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yang G et al. Blood Cancer J. 2020 Jan 2;9(12):104. doi: 10.1038/s41408-019-0269-6.

Incorporating lymphopenia into the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) can improve prognostication, according to researchers.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The team added lymphopenia as a point in a revised FLIPI scoring system, called FLIPI-L, and found the new system could better predict overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and histologic transformation in patients with follicular lymphoma.

George Yang, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., and his colleagues described results with the FLIPI-L in a letter published in Blood Cancer Journal.

“Prior studies have demonstrated that lymphopenia was associated with worsened OS in [follicular lymphoma],” Dr. Yang and his colleagues wrote. “Therefore, we hypothesized that lymphopenia may be integrated with existing FLIPI to better stratify long-term survival outcomes and predict for transformation.”

The researchers tested this theory in 736 follicular lymphoma patients who were followed for a median of 72 months (range, 2-211 months). The 5-year OS in this cohort was 81.3%, the 10-year OS was 67.3%, and 18% of patients experienced transformation to high-grade lymphoma.

The researchers defined absolute lymphopenia as less than 1.0 × 10⁹ lymphocytes per liter. In multivariate analyses, lymphopenia was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio, 1.74; P less than .01) and transformation (odds ratio, 2.1; P less than .01).

To incorporate lymphopenia into the FLIPI, the researchers created a model in which 1 point was given for each of the standard FLIPI components (age, Ann Arbor stage, number of nodal areas, lactate dehydrogenase, and hemoglobin level), and one point was given for the presence of lymphopenia. Patients in the low-risk FLIPI-L category had 0-1 points, those in the intermediate-risk category had 2-3 points, and patients in the high-risk FLIPI-L category had 4-6 points.

Using the original FLIPI, the 5-year OS was 91% in the low-risk group (0-1), 82.7% in the intermediate-risk group (2), and 66% in the high-risk group (3-5). The 10-year OS was 80.4%, 66%, and 45.8%, respectively.

Using the FLIPI-L, the 5-year OS was 94.5% in the low-risk group (0-1), 89% in the intermediate-risk group (2-3), and 61% in the high-risk group (4-6). The 10-year OS was 83.9%, 68.5%, and 34.5%, respectively.

In a univariate Cox regression analysis of OS, each point increase in FLIPI-L score was associated with a significant increase in hazard ratio. For example, the hazard ratio was 3.4 for patients with a FLIPI-L score of 1 and 30.9 for those with a FLIPI-L score of 6 (P less than .02 for all FLIPI-L scores). Conversely, increases in hazard ratio were not significant with the original FLIPI (P greater than .05 for all FLIPI scores).

The FLIPI-L was prognostic for OS in different treatment groups. In patients who received rituximab alone, radiation alone, or rituximab plus chemotherapy, the scoring system differentiated low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (P less than .04). In patients under observation, the FLIPI-L distinguished low/intermediate-risk and high-risk groups (P less than .01).

For patients who progressed within 24 months, the FLIPI-L was more predictive of progression-free survival (P = .05) than was the original FLIPI (P = .11).

Increasing FLIPI-L was an independent predictor of transformation, both when assessed as a continuous variable (P less than .01) and stepwise for FLIPI-L 3-5 (P = .004-.01). The original FLIPI, on the other hand, was not an independent predictor of transformation.

“Our analysis of a lymphopenia cutoff as an addition to the original FLIPI is simple yet improves risk stratification to differentiate between prognostic groups and, importantly, to predict transformation,” Dr. Yang and his colleagues wrote.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yang G et al. Blood Cancer J. 2020 Jan 2;9(12):104. doi: 10.1038/s41408-019-0269-6.

Incorporating lymphopenia into the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) can improve prognostication, according to researchers.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The team added lymphopenia as a point in a revised FLIPI scoring system, called FLIPI-L, and found the new system could better predict overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and histologic transformation in patients with follicular lymphoma.

George Yang, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., and his colleagues described results with the FLIPI-L in a letter published in Blood Cancer Journal.

“Prior studies have demonstrated that lymphopenia was associated with worsened OS in [follicular lymphoma],” Dr. Yang and his colleagues wrote. “Therefore, we hypothesized that lymphopenia may be integrated with existing FLIPI to better stratify long-term survival outcomes and predict for transformation.”

The researchers tested this theory in 736 follicular lymphoma patients who were followed for a median of 72 months (range, 2-211 months). The 5-year OS in this cohort was 81.3%, the 10-year OS was 67.3%, and 18% of patients experienced transformation to high-grade lymphoma.

The researchers defined absolute lymphopenia as less than 1.0 × 10⁹ lymphocytes per liter. In multivariate analyses, lymphopenia was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio, 1.74; P less than .01) and transformation (odds ratio, 2.1; P less than .01).

To incorporate lymphopenia into the FLIPI, the researchers created a model in which 1 point was given for each of the standard FLIPI components (age, Ann Arbor stage, number of nodal areas, lactate dehydrogenase, and hemoglobin level), and one point was given for the presence of lymphopenia. Patients in the low-risk FLIPI-L category had 0-1 points, those in the intermediate-risk category had 2-3 points, and patients in the high-risk FLIPI-L category had 4-6 points.

Using the original FLIPI, the 5-year OS was 91% in the low-risk group (0-1), 82.7% in the intermediate-risk group (2), and 66% in the high-risk group (3-5). The 10-year OS was 80.4%, 66%, and 45.8%, respectively.

Using the FLIPI-L, the 5-year OS was 94.5% in the low-risk group (0-1), 89% in the intermediate-risk group (2-3), and 61% in the high-risk group (4-6). The 10-year OS was 83.9%, 68.5%, and 34.5%, respectively.

In a univariate Cox regression analysis of OS, each point increase in FLIPI-L score was associated with a significant increase in hazard ratio. For example, the hazard ratio was 3.4 for patients with a FLIPI-L score of 1 and 30.9 for those with a FLIPI-L score of 6 (P less than .02 for all FLIPI-L scores). Conversely, increases in hazard ratio were not significant with the original FLIPI (P greater than .05 for all FLIPI scores).

The FLIPI-L was prognostic for OS in different treatment groups. In patients who received rituximab alone, radiation alone, or rituximab plus chemotherapy, the scoring system differentiated low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (P less than .04). In patients under observation, the FLIPI-L distinguished low/intermediate-risk and high-risk groups (P less than .01).

For patients who progressed within 24 months, the FLIPI-L was more predictive of progression-free survival (P = .05) than was the original FLIPI (P = .11).

Increasing FLIPI-L was an independent predictor of transformation, both when assessed as a continuous variable (P less than .01) and stepwise for FLIPI-L 3-5 (P = .004-.01). The original FLIPI, on the other hand, was not an independent predictor of transformation.

“Our analysis of a lymphopenia cutoff as an addition to the original FLIPI is simple yet improves risk stratification to differentiate between prognostic groups and, importantly, to predict transformation,” Dr. Yang and his colleagues wrote.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yang G et al. Blood Cancer J. 2020 Jan 2;9(12):104. doi: 10.1038/s41408-019-0269-6.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

A security firm identified several vulnerabilities in the GE devices that allow attackers to remotely take control of the medical device, silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.

The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.

No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.

“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

A security firm identified several vulnerabilities in the GE devices that allow attackers to remotely take control of the medical device, silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.

The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.

No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.

“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

A security firm identified several vulnerabilities in the GE devices that allow attackers to remotely take control of the medical device, silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.

The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.

No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.

“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.

[email protected]

LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.

That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”

Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”

Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.

“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.

“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”

During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.

“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”

“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”

The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.

[email protected]

LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.

That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”

Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”

Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.

“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.

“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”

During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.

“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”

“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”

The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.

[email protected]

LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.

That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”

Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”

Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.

“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.

“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”

During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.

“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”

“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”

The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – A dasatinib-based two-step treatment regimen before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) for Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) reduces relapse and toxicity and improves survival versus an imatinib-based approach, according to findings from the phase 2 Ph+ALL213 study.

Of 78 evaluable patients aged 15-64 years with newly diagnosed BCR/ABL1-positive ALL in the single-arm, multicenter study conducted by the Japanese Adult Leukemia Study Group (JALSG), all but one experienced complete remission (CR or CRi) after dasatinib induction (step 1), and 56% achieved molecular complete response (MCR) after intensive consolidation (IC; step 2), Isamu Sugiura, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The MCR rate increased to 66.2% after the first cycle of consolidation, which included high-dose methotrexate/cytarabine followed by 21 days of 100-mg dasatinib (C1), said Dr. Sugiura of the division of hematology and oncology, Toyohashi Municipal Hospital, Japan.

After all cycles of treatment, the MCR rates before and at 30 and 100 days after transplant were 75.9%, 92.7%, and 93.6%, respectively, he added.

The current standard of care of Ph+ALL is tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based chemotherapy followed by alloHCT in the first CR, he said noting that deeper MCR at the time of transplant is associated with the best prognosis.

However, early therapy-related mortality, relapse, and non-relapse mortality remain problematic, he said.

JALSG previously reported results from the Ph+ALL202 and Ph+ALL208 studies, which successfully introduced the TKI imatinib into IC followed by alloHCT for newly diagnosed PH+ALL, establishing the standard of care in Japan, Dr. Sugiura said.

“As the next step, Ph+ALL213 was started to evaluate the introduction of dasatinib and two-step chemotherapy,” he said, explaining that 30%-40% of patients in the prior studies were unable to undergo alloHCT at the first CR because of older age, early relapse, or therapy-related death; benefits in Ph+ALL202, for example, were largely seen in patients younger than age 55 years.

Ph+ALL213 was designed to assess to ability of dasatinib to improve efficacy and reduce toxicity in those settings.

Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-3 and sufficient organ function were enrolled and underwent step 1 (induction), which targeted hematologic complete response (HCR) by day 28 of dasatinib at a dose of 140 mg daily and day 14 of 60 mg/m² of prednisone, followed by step 2 (IC), which targeted MCR by day 28 of 100-mg dasatinib in combination with CALGB BFM-like intensive chemotherapy, Dr. Sugiura said.

Consolidation included four cycles alternating between the C1 methotrexate/cytarabine/dasatinib regimen and a CHOP-like regimen using vincristine/cyclophosphamide/daunorubicin followed by 21 days of 100-mg dasatinib (C2). Maintenance therapy included 12 cycles of 24 days of 100 mg DA with vincristine/prednisone.

Patients who achieved HCR and had an appropriate donor proceeded to alloHCT after the first cycle of C1 (C1-1), and in those who were minimal residual disease (MRD)–positive just before transplantation, 100 mg dasatinib was given for 10 cycles after alloHCT, whereas MRD-negative patients underwent observation.

Toxicities associated with dasatinib included liver dysfunction in 11 patients (14.1%), and pneumonitis with severe allergic reaction in 1 patient, Dr. Sugiura said, adding that no therapy-related mortality was reported.

Overall, 74.4% of patients underwent transplant, which was significantly greater than the 59.6% who did so in the JALSG Ph+ALL202 trial. Other significant differences between the Ph+ALL213 and 202 trials included the rates of related donor transplants (29.3% vs. 50.8%) and use of reduced-intensity conditioning (31.0% vs. 10.2%), respectively, he said.

At a median follow-up of 48.1 months, 3-year event-free survival in the current trial was 66.2%, and overall survival (OS) was 80.5%, and in the 58 patients who underwent transplant at the first CR, the rates, respectively, were 74.1% and 84.5%. In those with MCR they were 79.5% and 90.9%.

Of note, the presence of additional cytogenetic abnormalities at presentation was associated with worse OS (P = .0346), and the effect was greatest when derivative 22 syndrome was present (P = .00174), Dr. Sugiura said.

MRD state at the time of transplant in first CR also was associated with outcomes; 3-year event-free survival was 79.5% in 44 MRD-negative patients, compared with 57.1% in 14 MRD-positive patients, and 3-year overall survival was 90.9% vs. 64.3%, respectively.

“Survival curves for MRD-positive patients were inferior to those for MRD-negative patients not because of hematological relapse, but because of transplant-related mortality caused by therapy-related complications and gastrointestinal acute [graft-versus-host] disease,” he said.

The findings demonstrate that dasatinib-based two-step induction was highly effective and safe as pretransplant therapy, he said, noting that transplant was “maximally used,” and although 16% of patients relapsed, both relapse- and non-relapse-related mortality were minimized, with rates of 8.6% and 10.3%, respectively, after transplant.

Longer observation and a larger study are required to confirm these findings, Dr. Sugiura said, noting that the phase 2 JALSG Ph+ALL219 study will look at the potential for further improving outcomes with the addition of the multitargeted TKI ponatinib in patients who are MRD-positive after IC.

This study was funded by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan. Dr. Sugiura reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sugiura I et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 743.

ORLANDO – A dasatinib-based two-step treatment regimen before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) for Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) reduces relapse and toxicity and improves survival versus an imatinib-based approach, according to findings from the phase 2 Ph+ALL213 study.

Of 78 evaluable patients aged 15-64 years with newly diagnosed BCR/ABL1-positive ALL in the single-arm, multicenter study conducted by the Japanese Adult Leukemia Study Group (JALSG), all but one experienced complete remission (CR or CRi) after dasatinib induction (step 1), and 56% achieved molecular complete response (MCR) after intensive consolidation (IC; step 2), Isamu Sugiura, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The MCR rate increased to 66.2% after the first cycle of consolidation, which included high-dose methotrexate/cytarabine followed by 21 days of 100-mg dasatinib (C1), said Dr. Sugiura of the division of hematology and oncology, Toyohashi Municipal Hospital, Japan.

After all cycles of treatment, the MCR rates before and at 30 and 100 days after transplant were 75.9%, 92.7%, and 93.6%, respectively, he added.

The current standard of care of Ph+ALL is tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based chemotherapy followed by alloHCT in the first CR, he said noting that deeper MCR at the time of transplant is associated with the best prognosis.

However, early therapy-related mortality, relapse, and non-relapse mortality remain problematic, he said.

JALSG previously reported results from the Ph+ALL202 and Ph+ALL208 studies, which successfully introduced the TKI imatinib into IC followed by alloHCT for newly diagnosed PH+ALL, establishing the standard of care in Japan, Dr. Sugiura said.

“As the next step, Ph+ALL213 was started to evaluate the introduction of dasatinib and two-step chemotherapy,” he said, explaining that 30%-40% of patients in the prior studies were unable to undergo alloHCT at the first CR because of older age, early relapse, or therapy-related death; benefits in Ph+ALL202, for example, were largely seen in patients younger than age 55 years.

Ph+ALL213 was designed to assess to ability of dasatinib to improve efficacy and reduce toxicity in those settings.

Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-3 and sufficient organ function were enrolled and underwent step 1 (induction), which targeted hematologic complete response (HCR) by day 28 of dasatinib at a dose of 140 mg daily and day 14 of 60 mg/m² of prednisone, followed by step 2 (IC), which targeted MCR by day 28 of 100-mg dasatinib in combination with CALGB BFM-like intensive chemotherapy, Dr. Sugiura said.

Consolidation included four cycles alternating between the C1 methotrexate/cytarabine/dasatinib regimen and a CHOP-like regimen using vincristine/cyclophosphamide/daunorubicin followed by 21 days of 100-mg dasatinib (C2). Maintenance therapy included 12 cycles of 24 days of 100 mg DA with vincristine/prednisone.

Patients who achieved HCR and had an appropriate donor proceeded to alloHCT after the first cycle of C1 (C1-1), and in those who were minimal residual disease (MRD)–positive just before transplantation, 100 mg dasatinib was given for 10 cycles after alloHCT, whereas MRD-negative patients underwent observation.

Toxicities associated with dasatinib included liver dysfunction in 11 patients (14.1%), and pneumonitis with severe allergic reaction in 1 patient, Dr. Sugiura said, adding that no therapy-related mortality was reported.

Overall, 74.4% of patients underwent transplant, which was significantly greater than the 59.6% who did so in the JALSG Ph+ALL202 trial. Other significant differences between the Ph+ALL213 and 202 trials included the rates of related donor transplants (29.3% vs. 50.8%) and use of reduced-intensity conditioning (31.0% vs. 10.2%), respectively, he said.

At a median follow-up of 48.1 months, 3-year event-free survival in the current trial was 66.2%, and overall survival (OS) was 80.5%, and in the 58 patients who underwent transplant at the first CR, the rates, respectively, were 74.1% and 84.5%. In those with MCR they were 79.5% and 90.9%.

Of note, the presence of additional cytogenetic abnormalities at presentation was associated with worse OS (P = .0346), and the effect was greatest when derivative 22 syndrome was present (P = .00174), Dr. Sugiura said.

MRD state at the time of transplant in first CR also was associated with outcomes; 3-year event-free survival was 79.5% in 44 MRD-negative patients, compared with 57.1% in 14 MRD-positive patients, and 3-year overall survival was 90.9% vs. 64.3%, respectively.

“Survival curves for MRD-positive patients were inferior to those for MRD-negative patients not because of hematological relapse, but because of transplant-related mortality caused by therapy-related complications and gastrointestinal acute [graft-versus-host] disease,” he said.

The findings demonstrate that dasatinib-based two-step induction was highly effective and safe as pretransplant therapy, he said, noting that transplant was “maximally used,” and although 16% of patients relapsed, both relapse- and non-relapse-related mortality were minimized, with rates of 8.6% and 10.3%, respectively, after transplant.

Longer observation and a larger study are required to confirm these findings, Dr. Sugiura said, noting that the phase 2 JALSG Ph+ALL219 study will look at the potential for further improving outcomes with the addition of the multitargeted TKI ponatinib in patients who are MRD-positive after IC.

This study was funded by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan. Dr. Sugiura reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sugiura I et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 743.

ORLANDO – A dasatinib-based two-step treatment regimen before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) for Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) reduces relapse and toxicity and improves survival versus an imatinib-based approach, according to findings from the phase 2 Ph+ALL213 study.

Of 78 evaluable patients aged 15-64 years with newly diagnosed BCR/ABL1-positive ALL in the single-arm, multicenter study conducted by the Japanese Adult Leukemia Study Group (JALSG), all but one experienced complete remission (CR or CRi) after dasatinib induction (step 1), and 56% achieved molecular complete response (MCR) after intensive consolidation (IC; step 2), Isamu Sugiura, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The MCR rate increased to 66.2% after the first cycle of consolidation, which included high-dose methotrexate/cytarabine followed by 21 days of 100-mg dasatinib (C1), said Dr. Sugiura of the division of hematology and oncology, Toyohashi Municipal Hospital, Japan.

After all cycles of treatment, the MCR rates before and at 30 and 100 days after transplant were 75.9%, 92.7%, and 93.6%, respectively, he added.

The current standard of care of Ph+ALL is tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based chemotherapy followed by alloHCT in the first CR, he said noting that deeper MCR at the time of transplant is associated with the best prognosis.

However, early therapy-related mortality, relapse, and non-relapse mortality remain problematic, he said.

JALSG previously reported results from the Ph+ALL202 and Ph+ALL208 studies, which successfully introduced the TKI imatinib into IC followed by alloHCT for newly diagnosed PH+ALL, establishing the standard of care in Japan, Dr. Sugiura said.

“As the next step, Ph+ALL213 was started to evaluate the introduction of dasatinib and two-step chemotherapy,” he said, explaining that 30%-40% of patients in the prior studies were unable to undergo alloHCT at the first CR because of older age, early relapse, or therapy-related death; benefits in Ph+ALL202, for example, were largely seen in patients younger than age 55 years.

Ph+ALL213 was designed to assess to ability of dasatinib to improve efficacy and reduce toxicity in those settings.

Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-3 and sufficient organ function were enrolled and underwent step 1 (induction), which targeted hematologic complete response (HCR) by day 28 of dasatinib at a dose of 140 mg daily and day 14 of 60 mg/m² of prednisone, followed by step 2 (IC), which targeted MCR by day 28 of 100-mg dasatinib in combination with CALGB BFM-like intensive chemotherapy, Dr. Sugiura said.

Consolidation included four cycles alternating between the C1 methotrexate/cytarabine/dasatinib regimen and a CHOP-like regimen using vincristine/cyclophosphamide/daunorubicin followed by 21 days of 100-mg dasatinib (C2). Maintenance therapy included 12 cycles of 24 days of 100 mg DA with vincristine/prednisone.

Patients who achieved HCR and had an appropriate donor proceeded to alloHCT after the first cycle of C1 (C1-1), and in those who were minimal residual disease (MRD)–positive just before transplantation, 100 mg dasatinib was given for 10 cycles after alloHCT, whereas MRD-negative patients underwent observation.

Toxicities associated with dasatinib included liver dysfunction in 11 patients (14.1%), and pneumonitis with severe allergic reaction in 1 patient, Dr. Sugiura said, adding that no therapy-related mortality was reported.

Overall, 74.4% of patients underwent transplant, which was significantly greater than the 59.6% who did so in the JALSG Ph+ALL202 trial. Other significant differences between the Ph+ALL213 and 202 trials included the rates of related donor transplants (29.3% vs. 50.8%) and use of reduced-intensity conditioning (31.0% vs. 10.2%), respectively, he said.

At a median follow-up of 48.1 months, 3-year event-free survival in the current trial was 66.2%, and overall survival (OS) was 80.5%, and in the 58 patients who underwent transplant at the first CR, the rates, respectively, were 74.1% and 84.5%. In those with MCR they were 79.5% and 90.9%.

Of note, the presence of additional cytogenetic abnormalities at presentation was associated with worse OS (P = .0346), and the effect was greatest when derivative 22 syndrome was present (P = .00174), Dr. Sugiura said.

MRD state at the time of transplant in first CR also was associated with outcomes; 3-year event-free survival was 79.5% in 44 MRD-negative patients, compared with 57.1% in 14 MRD-positive patients, and 3-year overall survival was 90.9% vs. 64.3%, respectively.

“Survival curves for MRD-positive patients were inferior to those for MRD-negative patients not because of hematological relapse, but because of transplant-related mortality caused by therapy-related complications and gastrointestinal acute [graft-versus-host] disease,” he said.

The findings demonstrate that dasatinib-based two-step induction was highly effective and safe as pretransplant therapy, he said, noting that transplant was “maximally used,” and although 16% of patients relapsed, both relapse- and non-relapse-related mortality were minimized, with rates of 8.6% and 10.3%, respectively, after transplant.

Longer observation and a larger study are required to confirm these findings, Dr. Sugiura said, noting that the phase 2 JALSG Ph+ALL219 study will look at the potential for further improving outcomes with the addition of the multitargeted TKI ponatinib in patients who are MRD-positive after IC.

This study was funded by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan. Dr. Sugiura reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sugiura I et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 743.

The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.

“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.

The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.

The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.

The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.

The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.

The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.

The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.

“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.

The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.

The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.

The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.

The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.

The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.

The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.

“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.

The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.

The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.

The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.

The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.

The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.

Adding cannabinoids to opioids does not appear to improve control of cancer-related pain in adults with late-stage disease, authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis contend.

Among 1,442 participants in five randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity scores, reported Elaine G. Boland, MD, PhD, of Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in Cottingham, England, and colleagues.

“For a medication to be useful, there needs to be a net overall benefit, with the positive effects (analgesia) outweighing adverse effects. None of the included phase III studies show benefit of cannabinoids,” they wrote. Their report is in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care.

According to NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 33 U.S. states currently have legalized medical use of marijuana or cannabinoids, and Dr. Boland and coauthors report that medical marijuana is legal in some 40 nations worldwide.

Survey data and a randomized sample of urine tests from a cancer center in Washington State, were marijuana is legal, show that cannabis or cannabinoid use is common among cancer patients. Despite its widespread use, good quality evidence of the efficacy of cannabis for control of cancer pain is sparse, the investigators said.-

They designed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify randomized controlled trials with a low risk for bias, eventually settling on five with a total of 1,442 patients. Four of the studies evaluated nabiximols (Sativex), an oromucosal formulation of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD), and one tested THC:CBD or THC abstract vs. placebo.

To bolster confidence in their results, the investigators contacted the authors of the included studies to obtain additional findings and information about each study’s design.

They found that in the pooled data there was no significant difference between cannabinoids and placebo for the difference in average pain on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The mean difference was –0.21 (P = .14) and did not reach significance when the analysis was restricted to phase 3 trials (mean difference –.02, P = .80).

For the secondary outcomes of adverse events and dropouts, they found that cannabinoids were associated with significantly higher risk for somnolence (odds ratio [OR] 2.69, P less than .001) and dizziness (OR 1.58, P = .05), and that dropouts due to adverse events were more frequent in the cannabinoid arms.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by its reliance on the NRS pain score “as this simple instrument does not capture the complexity of pain especially when it has been [a] long-standing problem,” and by the possibility that vagaries in the use of the oromucosal spray might affect the absorption and efficacy of the cannabinoids.

The authors did not report a funding source. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Boland EG et al. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002032.

Adding cannabinoids to opioids does not appear to improve control of cancer-related pain in adults with late-stage disease, authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis contend.

Among 1,442 participants in five randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity scores, reported Elaine G. Boland, MD, PhD, of Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in Cottingham, England, and colleagues.

“For a medication to be useful, there needs to be a net overall benefit, with the positive effects (analgesia) outweighing adverse effects. None of the included phase III studies show benefit of cannabinoids,” they wrote. Their report is in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care.

According to NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 33 U.S. states currently have legalized medical use of marijuana or cannabinoids, and Dr. Boland and coauthors report that medical marijuana is legal in some 40 nations worldwide.

Survey data and a randomized sample of urine tests from a cancer center in Washington State, were marijuana is legal, show that cannabis or cannabinoid use is common among cancer patients. Despite its widespread use, good quality evidence of the efficacy of cannabis for control of cancer pain is sparse, the investigators said.-

They designed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify randomized controlled trials with a low risk for bias, eventually settling on five with a total of 1,442 patients. Four of the studies evaluated nabiximols (Sativex), an oromucosal formulation of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD), and one tested THC:CBD or THC abstract vs. placebo.

To bolster confidence in their results, the investigators contacted the authors of the included studies to obtain additional findings and information about each study’s design.

They found that in the pooled data there was no significant difference between cannabinoids and placebo for the difference in average pain on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The mean difference was –0.21 (P = .14) and did not reach significance when the analysis was restricted to phase 3 trials (mean difference –.02, P = .80).

For the secondary outcomes of adverse events and dropouts, they found that cannabinoids were associated with significantly higher risk for somnolence (odds ratio [OR] 2.69, P less than .001) and dizziness (OR 1.58, P = .05), and that dropouts due to adverse events were more frequent in the cannabinoid arms.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by its reliance on the NRS pain score “as this simple instrument does not capture the complexity of pain especially when it has been [a] long-standing problem,” and by the possibility that vagaries in the use of the oromucosal spray might affect the absorption and efficacy of the cannabinoids.

The authors did not report a funding source. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Boland EG et al. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002032.

Adding cannabinoids to opioids does not appear to improve control of cancer-related pain in adults with late-stage disease, authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis contend.

Among 1,442 participants in five randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity scores, reported Elaine G. Boland, MD, PhD, of Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in Cottingham, England, and colleagues.

“For a medication to be useful, there needs to be a net overall benefit, with the positive effects (analgesia) outweighing adverse effects. None of the included phase III studies show benefit of cannabinoids,” they wrote. Their report is in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care.

According to NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 33 U.S. states currently have legalized medical use of marijuana or cannabinoids, and Dr. Boland and coauthors report that medical marijuana is legal in some 40 nations worldwide.

Survey data and a randomized sample of urine tests from a cancer center in Washington State, were marijuana is legal, show that cannabis or cannabinoid use is common among cancer patients. Despite its widespread use, good quality evidence of the efficacy of cannabis for control of cancer pain is sparse, the investigators said.-

They designed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify randomized controlled trials with a low risk for bias, eventually settling on five with a total of 1,442 patients. Four of the studies evaluated nabiximols (Sativex), an oromucosal formulation of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD), and one tested THC:CBD or THC abstract vs. placebo.

To bolster confidence in their results, the investigators contacted the authors of the included studies to obtain additional findings and information about each study’s design.

They found that in the pooled data there was no significant difference between cannabinoids and placebo for the difference in average pain on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The mean difference was –0.21 (P = .14) and did not reach significance when the analysis was restricted to phase 3 trials (mean difference –.02, P = .80).

For the secondary outcomes of adverse events and dropouts, they found that cannabinoids were associated with significantly higher risk for somnolence (odds ratio [OR] 2.69, P less than .001) and dizziness (OR 1.58, P = .05), and that dropouts due to adverse events were more frequent in the cannabinoid arms.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by its reliance on the NRS pain score “as this simple instrument does not capture the complexity of pain especially when it has been [a] long-standing problem,” and by the possibility that vagaries in the use of the oromucosal spray might affect the absorption and efficacy of the cannabinoids.

The authors did not report a funding source. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Boland EG et al. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002032.

ORLANDO – There’s now mature data surrounding the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in lymphoma, and the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology brought forth additional information from real-world studies, insights about what is driving relapse, and promising data on mantle cell lymphoma.

Vidyard Video

During a video roundtable at the meeting, experts discussed some of the CAR T-cell studies presented at ASH and what those findings mean in practice. The roundtable participants included Brian Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center; Frederick L. Locke, MD, of the Moffit Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.; and Peter Riedell, MD, of the University of Chicago.

Among the studies highlighted by the panel was the Transcend NHL 001 study (Abstract 241), which looked at third-line use of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma, and other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. More than 300 patients were enrolled, and liso-cel met all primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, with an overall response rate of more than 70%. The notable take-home point from the study was the safety profile, Dr. Riedell noted. Liso-cel was associated with a lower rate of cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, compared with the currently approved products.

Since patients in the study had a lower incidence and later onset of cytokine release syndrome, liso-cel could be a candidate for outpatient administration, Dr. Locke said. However, doing that would require “significant infrastructure” in hospitals and clinics to properly support patients, especially given that the treatment-related mortality on the study was similar to approved CAR T-cell products at about 3%. “You have to be ready to admit the patient to the hospital very rapidly, and you have to have the providers and the nurses who are vigilant when the patient is not in the hospital,” he said.

Another notable study presented at ASH examined the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving bridging therapy while awaiting treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 245). This real-world study adds interesting information to the field because, in some of the studies that were pivotal to the approval of CAR T-cell therapy, bridging therapy was not allowed, Dr. Locke said.

In this analysis, researchers found that the overall survival was worse among patients who received bridging. This finding suggests that patients who received bridging therapy had a different biology or that the therapy itself may have had an effect on the host or tumor microenvironment that affected the efficacy of the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers reported.

The panel also highlighted the Zuma-2 study, which looked at KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, among more than 70 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who had failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Abstract 754). “This was, I thought, kind of a sleeper study at ASH,” said Dr. Hill, who was one of the authors of the study.

The overall response rate was 93% with about two-thirds of patients achieving a complete response. Researchers found that the response was consistent across subgroups, including Ki-67 and patients with prior use of steroids or bridging therapy. Dr. Locke, who was also a study author, said the results are a “game changer.”

“I’m very excited about it,” Dr. Riedell said, noting that these are patients without a lot of treatment options.

The panel also discussed other studies from ASH, including an analysis of tumor tissue samples from patients in the ZUMA-1 trial who had responded and subsequently relapsed (Abstract 203); a multicenter prospective analysis of circulating tumor DNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who had relapsed after treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 884); and the early use of corticosteroids to prevent toxicities in patients in cohort 4 of the ZUMA-1 trial (Abstract 243).

Dr. Hill reported consulting with Juno/Celgene/BMS and Novartis and research and consulting for Kite/Gilead. Dr. Locke reported consulting for Cellular Biomedicine Group and being a scientific adviser to Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Celgene/BMS, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Calibr, and Allogene. Dr. Riedell reported consulting for Bayer and Verastem, consulting for and research funding from Novartis and BMS/Celgene, and consulting for, research funding from, and speaking for Kite.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – There’s now mature data surrounding the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in lymphoma, and the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology brought forth additional information from real-world studies, insights about what is driving relapse, and promising data on mantle cell lymphoma.

Vidyard Video

During a video roundtable at the meeting, experts discussed some of the CAR T-cell studies presented at ASH and what those findings mean in practice. The roundtable participants included Brian Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center; Frederick L. Locke, MD, of the Moffit Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.; and Peter Riedell, MD, of the University of Chicago.

Among the studies highlighted by the panel was the Transcend NHL 001 study (Abstract 241), which looked at third-line use of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma, and other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. More than 300 patients were enrolled, and liso-cel met all primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, with an overall response rate of more than 70%. The notable take-home point from the study was the safety profile, Dr. Riedell noted. Liso-cel was associated with a lower rate of cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, compared with the currently approved products.

Since patients in the study had a lower incidence and later onset of cytokine release syndrome, liso-cel could be a candidate for outpatient administration, Dr. Locke said. However, doing that would require “significant infrastructure” in hospitals and clinics to properly support patients, especially given that the treatment-related mortality on the study was similar to approved CAR T-cell products at about 3%. “You have to be ready to admit the patient to the hospital very rapidly, and you have to have the providers and the nurses who are vigilant when the patient is not in the hospital,” he said.

Another notable study presented at ASH examined the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving bridging therapy while awaiting treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 245). This real-world study adds interesting information to the field because, in some of the studies that were pivotal to the approval of CAR T-cell therapy, bridging therapy was not allowed, Dr. Locke said.

In this analysis, researchers found that the overall survival was worse among patients who received bridging. This finding suggests that patients who received bridging therapy had a different biology or that the therapy itself may have had an effect on the host or tumor microenvironment that affected the efficacy of the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers reported.

The panel also highlighted the Zuma-2 study, which looked at KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, among more than 70 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who had failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Abstract 754). “This was, I thought, kind of a sleeper study at ASH,” said Dr. Hill, who was one of the authors of the study.

The overall response rate was 93% with about two-thirds of patients achieving a complete response. Researchers found that the response was consistent across subgroups, including Ki-67 and patients with prior use of steroids or bridging therapy. Dr. Locke, who was also a study author, said the results are a “game changer.”

“I’m very excited about it,” Dr. Riedell said, noting that these are patients without a lot of treatment options.

The panel also discussed other studies from ASH, including an analysis of tumor tissue samples from patients in the ZUMA-1 trial who had responded and subsequently relapsed (Abstract 203); a multicenter prospective analysis of circulating tumor DNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who had relapsed after treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 884); and the early use of corticosteroids to prevent toxicities in patients in cohort 4 of the ZUMA-1 trial (Abstract 243).

Dr. Hill reported consulting with Juno/Celgene/BMS and Novartis and research and consulting for Kite/Gilead. Dr. Locke reported consulting for Cellular Biomedicine Group and being a scientific adviser to Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Celgene/BMS, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Calibr, and Allogene. Dr. Riedell reported consulting for Bayer and Verastem, consulting for and research funding from Novartis and BMS/Celgene, and consulting for, research funding from, and speaking for Kite.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – There’s now mature data surrounding the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in lymphoma, and the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology brought forth additional information from real-world studies, insights about what is driving relapse, and promising data on mantle cell lymphoma.

Vidyard Video

During a video roundtable at the meeting, experts discussed some of the CAR T-cell studies presented at ASH and what those findings mean in practice. The roundtable participants included Brian Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center; Frederick L. Locke, MD, of the Moffit Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.; and Peter Riedell, MD, of the University of Chicago.

Among the studies highlighted by the panel was the Transcend NHL 001 study (Abstract 241), which looked at third-line use of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma, and other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. More than 300 patients were enrolled, and liso-cel met all primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, with an overall response rate of more than 70%. The notable take-home point from the study was the safety profile, Dr. Riedell noted. Liso-cel was associated with a lower rate of cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, compared with the currently approved products.

Since patients in the study had a lower incidence and later onset of cytokine release syndrome, liso-cel could be a candidate for outpatient administration, Dr. Locke said. However, doing that would require “significant infrastructure” in hospitals and clinics to properly support patients, especially given that the treatment-related mortality on the study was similar to approved CAR T-cell products at about 3%. “You have to be ready to admit the patient to the hospital very rapidly, and you have to have the providers and the nurses who are vigilant when the patient is not in the hospital,” he said.

Another notable study presented at ASH examined the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving bridging therapy while awaiting treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 245). This real-world study adds interesting information to the field because, in some of the studies that were pivotal to the approval of CAR T-cell therapy, bridging therapy was not allowed, Dr. Locke said.

In this analysis, researchers found that the overall survival was worse among patients who received bridging. This finding suggests that patients who received bridging therapy had a different biology or that the therapy itself may have had an effect on the host or tumor microenvironment that affected the efficacy of the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers reported.

The panel also highlighted the Zuma-2 study, which looked at KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, among more than 70 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who had failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Abstract 754). “This was, I thought, kind of a sleeper study at ASH,” said Dr. Hill, who was one of the authors of the study.

The overall response rate was 93% with about two-thirds of patients achieving a complete response. Researchers found that the response was consistent across subgroups, including Ki-67 and patients with prior use of steroids or bridging therapy. Dr. Locke, who was also a study author, said the results are a “game changer.”

“I’m very excited about it,” Dr. Riedell said, noting that these are patients without a lot of treatment options.

The panel also discussed other studies from ASH, including an analysis of tumor tissue samples from patients in the ZUMA-1 trial who had responded and subsequently relapsed (Abstract 203); a multicenter prospective analysis of circulating tumor DNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who had relapsed after treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 884); and the early use of corticosteroids to prevent toxicities in patients in cohort 4 of the ZUMA-1 trial (Abstract 243).

Dr. Hill reported consulting with Juno/Celgene/BMS and Novartis and research and consulting for Kite/Gilead. Dr. Locke reported consulting for Cellular Biomedicine Group and being a scientific adviser to Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Celgene/BMS, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Calibr, and Allogene. Dr. Riedell reported consulting for Bayer and Verastem, consulting for and research funding from Novartis and BMS/Celgene, and consulting for, research funding from, and speaking for Kite.

[email protected]

For elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and comorbidities, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab may be a safe and effective treatment option, according to a recent phase 2 trial.

Among 32 patients with a median age of 73 years, the overall response rate was 72%, and no grade 4 adverse events occurred, reported lead author Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the University of Torino (Italy) and colleagues.

These findings help fill in a knowledge gap created by clinical trial exclusions, which currently make treatment planning “a significant challenge,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

The study, which was conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, enrolled 34 treatment-naive patients with CLL who were 65 years or older. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or 3, or a Charlson comorbidity index of at least 2. Patients with other serious medical conditions and/or primary malignancies were eligible, given that they were not already receiving anticancer therapy.

More than half of the patients (53%) had advanced-stage disease and almost one-third (29%) had at least one other primary cancer diagnosis. Many patients also had high-risk disease characteristics, including a complex karyotype involving three or more chromosomal abnormalities (15%), and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV, 59%).

Among 32 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, the overall response rate was 72%, of which 53% were partial and 19% were complete. Six percent (6%) of patients achieved minimal residual disease negativity. The benefits of ofatumumab extended to patients with high-risk disease characteristics, including unmutated IGHV (65% response rate) and/or a complex karyotype (60% response rate).

Ofatumumab also demonstrated a favorable safety profile, according to the investigators.

With all 34 patients evaluable for safety data, 19 (56%) experienced a grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reaction, and 1 (3%) experienced a grade 3 infusion-related reaction. Twenty-one grade 2 infections were reported, and one grade 3 infection occurred. Other grade 3 treatment-related adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances, pulmonary embolism, allergic reaction, and hyperglycemia, each of which occurred in one patient. No grade 4 adverse events, or grade 2 or higher hematologic toxicities occurred.

“Our findings show that older patients with poor performance status and comorbidities can safely undergo treatment with ofatumumab,” the investigators concluded. “[The results] also support the possibility of enrolling these patients in clinical trials, so that a larger number of patients will be included and their characteristics will more closely mirror those of typical patients seen in the community.”

The study was funded by Novartis, which markets the antibody. The investigators reported additional relationships with AbbVie, Roche, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Vitale et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.002.

For elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and comorbidities, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab may be a safe and effective treatment option, according to a recent phase 2 trial.

Among 32 patients with a median age of 73 years, the overall response rate was 72%, and no grade 4 adverse events occurred, reported lead author Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the University of Torino (Italy) and colleagues.

These findings help fill in a knowledge gap created by clinical trial exclusions, which currently make treatment planning “a significant challenge,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

The study, which was conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, enrolled 34 treatment-naive patients with CLL who were 65 years or older. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or 3, or a Charlson comorbidity index of at least 2. Patients with other serious medical conditions and/or primary malignancies were eligible, given that they were not already receiving anticancer therapy.

More than half of the patients (53%) had advanced-stage disease and almost one-third (29%) had at least one other primary cancer diagnosis. Many patients also had high-risk disease characteristics, including a complex karyotype involving three or more chromosomal abnormalities (15%), and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV, 59%).

Among 32 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, the overall response rate was 72%, of which 53% were partial and 19% were complete. Six percent (6%) of patients achieved minimal residual disease negativity. The benefits of ofatumumab extended to patients with high-risk disease characteristics, including unmutated IGHV (65% response rate) and/or a complex karyotype (60% response rate).

Ofatumumab also demonstrated a favorable safety profile, according to the investigators.

With all 34 patients evaluable for safety data, 19 (56%) experienced a grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reaction, and 1 (3%) experienced a grade 3 infusion-related reaction. Twenty-one grade 2 infections were reported, and one grade 3 infection occurred. Other grade 3 treatment-related adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances, pulmonary embolism, allergic reaction, and hyperglycemia, each of which occurred in one patient. No grade 4 adverse events, or grade 2 or higher hematologic toxicities occurred.

“Our findings show that older patients with poor performance status and comorbidities can safely undergo treatment with ofatumumab,” the investigators concluded. “[The results] also support the possibility of enrolling these patients in clinical trials, so that a larger number of patients will be included and their characteristics will more closely mirror those of typical patients seen in the community.”

The study was funded by Novartis, which markets the antibody. The investigators reported additional relationships with AbbVie, Roche, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Vitale et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.002.

For elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and comorbidities, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab may be a safe and effective treatment option, according to a recent phase 2 trial.

Among 32 patients with a median age of 73 years, the overall response rate was 72%, and no grade 4 adverse events occurred, reported lead author Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the University of Torino (Italy) and colleagues.

These findings help fill in a knowledge gap created by clinical trial exclusions, which currently make treatment planning “a significant challenge,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

The study, which was conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, enrolled 34 treatment-naive patients with CLL who were 65 years or older. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or 3, or a Charlson comorbidity index of at least 2. Patients with other serious medical conditions and/or primary malignancies were eligible, given that they were not already receiving anticancer therapy.

More than half of the patients (53%) had advanced-stage disease and almost one-third (29%) had at least one other primary cancer diagnosis. Many patients also had high-risk disease characteristics, including a complex karyotype involving three or more chromosomal abnormalities (15%), and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV, 59%).

Among 32 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, the overall response rate was 72%, of which 53% were partial and 19% were complete. Six percent (6%) of patients achieved minimal residual disease negativity. The benefits of ofatumumab extended to patients with high-risk disease characteristics, including unmutated IGHV (65% response rate) and/or a complex karyotype (60% response rate).

Ofatumumab also demonstrated a favorable safety profile, according to the investigators.

With all 34 patients evaluable for safety data, 19 (56%) experienced a grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reaction, and 1 (3%) experienced a grade 3 infusion-related reaction. Twenty-one grade 2 infections were reported, and one grade 3 infection occurred. Other grade 3 treatment-related adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances, pulmonary embolism, allergic reaction, and hyperglycemia, each of which occurred in one patient. No grade 4 adverse events, or grade 2 or higher hematologic toxicities occurred.

“Our findings show that older patients with poor performance status and comorbidities can safely undergo treatment with ofatumumab,” the investigators concluded. “[The results] also support the possibility of enrolling these patients in clinical trials, so that a larger number of patients will be included and their characteristics will more closely mirror those of typical patients seen in the community.”

The study was funded by Novartis, which markets the antibody. The investigators reported additional relationships with AbbVie, Roche, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Vitale et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.002.

Women and racial minorities with multiple myeloma may be at increased risk of delayed treatment, a situation that should be addressed urgently, according to authors of a recent analysis of a clinical oncology database.

By contrast, patients receiving myeloma treatment sooner after diagnosis included patients who were over 80 years of age, had multiple comorbidities, were treated at specialized cancer programs or in areas other than the Northeast, and had Medicaid or did not have private insurance, the authors reported.

Contrary to what was expected, levels of education and income did not significantly affect the timeliness of treatment in this analysis by Vivek Kumar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coinvestigators.

While results of studies to date are “conflicting” as to whether timeliness of myeloma therapy will affect patient outcomes, recent studies in breast cancer and other tumor types suggest earlier treatment intervention may reduce morbidity, improve quality of life, and possibly prolong survival, according to Dr. Kumar and colleagues.

Moreover, the focus of myeloma treatment has shifted toward earlier treatment in light of the superiority of today’s treatment options, which was demonstrated in the 2014 update of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) diagnostic criteria, according to the investigators.

“The definition of active MM [multiple myeloma] has been updated so that patients who may have been considered to have smoldering MM previously are now treated sooner to prevent end-organ damage whenever possible,” said Dr. Kumar and coauthors in their report in JCO Oncology Practice.

The analysis of timely myeloma treatment was based on for 74,722 patients in the National Cancer Database who received a diagnosis of multiple myeloma between 2004 and 2015 and went on to receive systemic treatment within the first year of diagnosis.

Delay in treatment, defined as receiving antimyeloma therapy 40 or more days after diagnosis, occurred in 18,375 of those patients, or about one-quarter of the study cohort. The mean time from diagnosis to start of treatment in that group was 63 days.

Compared with patients who received treatment within 7 days of diagnosis, patients with delays in treatment were more likely to be women (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2) and more likely to be non-Hispanic black (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28), the investigators reported.

A previous analysis of the SEER-Medicare database suggested that certain antimyeloma agents are used later in racial and ethnic minorities, including Hispanic patients, who had the highest median time to first dose of bortezomib, Dr. Kumar and colleagues noted.

However, no report before the present one had looked at the time to overall initial treatment in racial and ethnic minorities, they added.

Patients diagnosed in more recent years had higher odds of treatment delay, though this could have been caused by an increase in the number of patients diagnosed early; prior to the 2014 IMWG diagnostic criteria revision, many would have been offered therapy only when signs of end-organ damage were present, while patients without end-organ damage would have been said to have smoldering disease, authors said.

Patients 80 years of age and older and those with a higher Charlson comorbidity score had a lower likelihood of treatment delay in this analysis, possibly reflecting the frailty of those patients and an urgent need for treatment, according to investigators.

Uninsured patients and those with Medicaid were less likely than insured patients to experience treatment delay, according to the report.

“This may be associated with the fact that, for these insurances, prior authorization is typically not required before initiating treatment,” said Dr. Kumar and colleagues. “However, this could also depend on several other possible factors, including availability of caregiver support and seeking medical care later.”

Dr. Kumar reported no conflicts of interest related to the analysis. Coauthors reported disclosures with Takeda, Guardant Health, and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Kumar V et al. JCO Oncology Practice. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00309.

Women and racial minorities with multiple myeloma may be at increased risk of delayed treatment, a situation that should be addressed urgently, according to authors of a recent analysis of a clinical oncology database.

By contrast, patients receiving myeloma treatment sooner after diagnosis included patients who were over 80 years of age, had multiple comorbidities, were treated at specialized cancer programs or in areas other than the Northeast, and had Medicaid or did not have private insurance, the authors reported.

Contrary to what was expected, levels of education and income did not significantly affect the timeliness of treatment in this analysis by Vivek Kumar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coinvestigators.

While results of studies to date are “conflicting” as to whether timeliness of myeloma therapy will affect patient outcomes, recent studies in breast cancer and other tumor types suggest earlier treatment intervention may reduce morbidity, improve quality of life, and possibly prolong survival, according to Dr. Kumar and colleagues.

Moreover, the focus of myeloma treatment has shifted toward earlier treatment in light of the superiority of today’s treatment options, which was demonstrated in the 2014 update of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) diagnostic criteria, according to the investigators.

“The definition of active MM [multiple myeloma] has been updated so that patients who may have been considered to have smoldering MM previously are now treated sooner to prevent end-organ damage whenever possible,” said Dr. Kumar and coauthors in their report in JCO Oncology Practice.

The analysis of timely myeloma treatment was based on for 74,722 patients in the National Cancer Database who received a diagnosis of multiple myeloma between 2004 and 2015 and went on to receive systemic treatment within the first year of diagnosis.

Delay in treatment, defined as receiving antimyeloma therapy 40 or more days after diagnosis, occurred in 18,375 of those patients, or about one-quarter of the study cohort. The mean time from diagnosis to start of treatment in that group was 63 days.

Compared with patients who received treatment within 7 days of diagnosis, patients with delays in treatment were more likely to be women (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2) and more likely to be non-Hispanic black (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28), the investigators reported.

A previous analysis of the SEER-Medicare database suggested that certain antimyeloma agents are used later in racial and ethnic minorities, including Hispanic patients, who had the highest median time to first dose of bortezomib, Dr. Kumar and colleagues noted.

However, no report before the present one had looked at the time to overall initial treatment in racial and ethnic minorities, they added.

Patients diagnosed in more recent years had higher odds of treatment delay, though this could have been caused by an increase in the number of patients diagnosed early; prior to the 2014 IMWG diagnostic criteria revision, many would have been offered therapy only when signs of end-organ damage were present, while patients without end-organ damage would have been said to have smoldering disease, authors said.

Patients 80 years of age and older and those with a higher Charlson comorbidity score had a lower likelihood of treatment delay in this analysis, possibly reflecting the frailty of those patients and an urgent need for treatment, according to investigators.

Uninsured patients and those with Medicaid were less likely than insured patients to experience treatment delay, according to the report.

“This may be associated with the fact that, for these insurances, prior authorization is typically not required before initiating treatment,” said Dr. Kumar and colleagues. “However, this could also depend on several other possible factors, including availability of caregiver support and seeking medical care later.”

Dr. Kumar reported no conflicts of interest related to the analysis. Coauthors reported disclosures with Takeda, Guardant Health, and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Kumar V et al. JCO Oncology Practice. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00309.

Women and racial minorities with multiple myeloma may be at increased risk of delayed treatment, a situation that should be addressed urgently, according to authors of a recent analysis of a clinical oncology database.

By contrast, patients receiving myeloma treatment sooner after diagnosis included patients who were over 80 years of age, had multiple comorbidities, were treated at specialized cancer programs or in areas other than the Northeast, and had Medicaid or did not have private insurance, the authors reported.

Contrary to what was expected, levels of education and income did not significantly affect the timeliness of treatment in this analysis by Vivek Kumar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coinvestigators.

While results of studies to date are “conflicting” as to whether timeliness of myeloma therapy will affect patient outcomes, recent studies in breast cancer and other tumor types suggest earlier treatment intervention may reduce morbidity, improve quality of life, and possibly prolong survival, according to Dr. Kumar and colleagues.

Moreover, the focus of myeloma treatment has shifted toward earlier treatment in light of the superiority of today’s treatment options, which was demonstrated in the 2014 update of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) diagnostic criteria, according to the investigators.

“The definition of active MM [multiple myeloma] has been updated so that patients who may have been considered to have smoldering MM previously are now treated sooner to prevent end-organ damage whenever possible,” said Dr. Kumar and coauthors in their report in JCO Oncology Practice.

The analysis of timely myeloma treatment was based on for 74,722 patients in the National Cancer Database who received a diagnosis of multiple myeloma between 2004 and 2015 and went on to receive systemic treatment within the first year of diagnosis.

Delay in treatment, defined as receiving antimyeloma therapy 40 or more days after diagnosis, occurred in 18,375 of those patients, or about one-quarter of the study cohort. The mean time from diagnosis to start of treatment in that group was 63 days.

Compared with patients who received treatment within 7 days of diagnosis, patients with delays in treatment were more likely to be women (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2) and more likely to be non-Hispanic black (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28), the investigators reported.

A previous analysis of the SEER-Medicare database suggested that certain antimyeloma agents are used later in racial and ethnic minorities, including Hispanic patients, who had the highest median time to first dose of bortezomib, Dr. Kumar and colleagues noted.

However, no report before the present one had looked at the time to overall initial treatment in racial and ethnic minorities, they added.

Patients diagnosed in more recent years had higher odds of treatment delay, though this could have been caused by an increase in the number of patients diagnosed early; prior to the 2014 IMWG diagnostic criteria revision, many would have been offered therapy only when signs of end-organ damage were present, while patients without end-organ damage would have been said to have smoldering disease, authors said.

Patients 80 years of age and older and those with a higher Charlson comorbidity score had a lower likelihood of treatment delay in this analysis, possibly reflecting the frailty of those patients and an urgent need for treatment, according to investigators.

Uninsured patients and those with Medicaid were less likely than insured patients to experience treatment delay, according to the report.

“This may be associated with the fact that, for these insurances, prior authorization is typically not required before initiating treatment,” said Dr. Kumar and colleagues. “However, this could also depend on several other possible factors, including availability of caregiver support and seeking medical care later.”

Dr. Kumar reported no conflicts of interest related to the analysis. Coauthors reported disclosures with Takeda, Guardant Health, and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Kumar V et al. JCO Oncology Practice. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00309.