Video

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – A five-drug regimen was deemed safe in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and it appeared to be effective regardless of patients’ FLT3 status.

Researchers tested this regimen – sorafenib plus granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF), cladribine, high-dose cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (GCLAM) – in a phase 1 trial.

Kelsey-Leigh Garcia, a clinical research coordinator at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and her colleagues presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“The background for doing this study was our institutional results of GCLAM [Leukemia. 2018 Nov;32(11):2352-62] that showed a higher minimal residual disease–negative complete response rate than 7+3 [cytarabine continuously for 7 days, along with short infusions of an anthracycline on each of the first 3 days] and an international study by Röllig that showed the addition of sorafenib to 7+3 increased event-free survival versus [7+3 and] placebo [Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1691-9],” Ms. Garcia said.

“GCLAM is the standard backbone at our institution, and we wanted to ask the question, ‘If we add sorafenib, can this improve upon the results of GCLAM?’ ” said Anna Halpern, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle and principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

The trial (NCT02728050) included 47 patients, 39 with AML and 8 with MDS. Patients were aged 60 years or younger and had a median age of 48. They had a median treatment-related mortality score of 1.76 (range, 0.19-12.26). A total of 11 patients (23%) had FLT3-ITD, and 4 (9%) had FLT3-TKD.

Treatment and toxicity

For induction, patients received G-CSF at 5 mcg/kg on days 0-5, cladribine at 5 mg/m² on days 1-5, and cytarabine at 2 g/m² on days 1-5. Mitoxantrone was given at 10 mg/m², 12 mg/m², 15 mg/m², or 18 mg/m² on days 1-3. Sorafenib was given at 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg in the morning and 200 mg in the afternoon, or 400 mg b.i.d. on days 10-19.

For consolidation, patients could receive up to four cycles of G-CSF, cladribine, and cytarabine plus sorafenib on days 8-27. Patients who did not proceed to transplant could receive 12 months of sorafenib as maintenance therapy.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities.

• Grade 4 intracranial hemorrhage with mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 prolonged count recovery with mitoxantrone at 15 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 sepsis, Sweet syndrome, and Bell’s palsy with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 3 cardiomyopathy and acute pericarditis with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 400 mg b.i.d.

However, these toxicities did not define the maximum-tolerated dose. Therefore, the recommended phase 2 dose of mitoxantrone is 18 mg/m², and the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib is 400 mg b.i.d.

There were no grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events included febrile neutropenia (90%), maculopapular rash (20%), infections (10%), hand-foot syndrome (2%), and diarrhea (1%). Grade 4 events included sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage, and oral mucositis (all 1%).

Response and survival

Among the 46 evaluable patients, 83% achieved a complete response, 78% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response, and 4% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response with incomplete count recovery. A morphological leukemia-free state was achieved by 4% of patients, and 8% had resistant disease.

Fifty-nine percent of patients went on to transplant. The median overall survival had not been reached at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The researchers compared outcomes in this trial with outcomes in a cohort of patients who had received GCLAM alone, and there were no significant differences in overall survival or event-free survival.

“The trial wasn’t powered, necessarily, for efficacy, but we compared these results to our historical cohort of medically matched and age-matched patients treated with GCLAM alone and, so far, found no differences in survival between the two groups,” Dr. Halpern said.

She noted, however, that follow-up was short in the sorafenib trial, and it included patients treated with all dose levels of sorafenib and mitoxantrone.

A phase 2 study of sorafenib plus GCLAM in newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS is now underway.

Dr. Halpern and Ms. Garcia reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The phase 1 trial was sponsored by the University of Washington in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, and funding was provided by Bayer.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – A five-drug regimen was deemed safe in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and it appeared to be effective regardless of patients’ FLT3 status.

Researchers tested this regimen – sorafenib plus granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF), cladribine, high-dose cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (GCLAM) – in a phase 1 trial.

Kelsey-Leigh Garcia, a clinical research coordinator at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and her colleagues presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“The background for doing this study was our institutional results of GCLAM [Leukemia. 2018 Nov;32(11):2352-62] that showed a higher minimal residual disease–negative complete response rate than 7+3 [cytarabine continuously for 7 days, along with short infusions of an anthracycline on each of the first 3 days] and an international study by Röllig that showed the addition of sorafenib to 7+3 increased event-free survival versus [7+3 and] placebo [Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1691-9],” Ms. Garcia said.

“GCLAM is the standard backbone at our institution, and we wanted to ask the question, ‘If we add sorafenib, can this improve upon the results of GCLAM?’ ” said Anna Halpern, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle and principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

The trial (NCT02728050) included 47 patients, 39 with AML and 8 with MDS. Patients were aged 60 years or younger and had a median age of 48. They had a median treatment-related mortality score of 1.76 (range, 0.19-12.26). A total of 11 patients (23%) had FLT3-ITD, and 4 (9%) had FLT3-TKD.

Treatment and toxicity

For induction, patients received G-CSF at 5 mcg/kg on days 0-5, cladribine at 5 mg/m² on days 1-5, and cytarabine at 2 g/m² on days 1-5. Mitoxantrone was given at 10 mg/m², 12 mg/m², 15 mg/m², or 18 mg/m² on days 1-3. Sorafenib was given at 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg in the morning and 200 mg in the afternoon, or 400 mg b.i.d. on days 10-19.

For consolidation, patients could receive up to four cycles of G-CSF, cladribine, and cytarabine plus sorafenib on days 8-27. Patients who did not proceed to transplant could receive 12 months of sorafenib as maintenance therapy.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities.

• Grade 4 intracranial hemorrhage with mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 prolonged count recovery with mitoxantrone at 15 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 sepsis, Sweet syndrome, and Bell’s palsy with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 3 cardiomyopathy and acute pericarditis with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 400 mg b.i.d.

However, these toxicities did not define the maximum-tolerated dose. Therefore, the recommended phase 2 dose of mitoxantrone is 18 mg/m², and the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib is 400 mg b.i.d.

There were no grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events included febrile neutropenia (90%), maculopapular rash (20%), infections (10%), hand-foot syndrome (2%), and diarrhea (1%). Grade 4 events included sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage, and oral mucositis (all 1%).

Response and survival

Among the 46 evaluable patients, 83% achieved a complete response, 78% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response, and 4% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response with incomplete count recovery. A morphological leukemia-free state was achieved by 4% of patients, and 8% had resistant disease.

Fifty-nine percent of patients went on to transplant. The median overall survival had not been reached at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The researchers compared outcomes in this trial with outcomes in a cohort of patients who had received GCLAM alone, and there were no significant differences in overall survival or event-free survival.

“The trial wasn’t powered, necessarily, for efficacy, but we compared these results to our historical cohort of medically matched and age-matched patients treated with GCLAM alone and, so far, found no differences in survival between the two groups,” Dr. Halpern said.

She noted, however, that follow-up was short in the sorafenib trial, and it included patients treated with all dose levels of sorafenib and mitoxantrone.

A phase 2 study of sorafenib plus GCLAM in newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS is now underway.

Dr. Halpern and Ms. Garcia reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The phase 1 trial was sponsored by the University of Washington in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, and funding was provided by Bayer.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – A five-drug regimen was deemed safe in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and it appeared to be effective regardless of patients’ FLT3 status.

Researchers tested this regimen – sorafenib plus granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF), cladribine, high-dose cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (GCLAM) – in a phase 1 trial.

Kelsey-Leigh Garcia, a clinical research coordinator at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and her colleagues presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“The background for doing this study was our institutional results of GCLAM [Leukemia. 2018 Nov;32(11):2352-62] that showed a higher minimal residual disease–negative complete response rate than 7+3 [cytarabine continuously for 7 days, along with short infusions of an anthracycline on each of the first 3 days] and an international study by Röllig that showed the addition of sorafenib to 7+3 increased event-free survival versus [7+3 and] placebo [Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1691-9],” Ms. Garcia said.

“GCLAM is the standard backbone at our institution, and we wanted to ask the question, ‘If we add sorafenib, can this improve upon the results of GCLAM?’ ” said Anna Halpern, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle and principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

The trial (NCT02728050) included 47 patients, 39 with AML and 8 with MDS. Patients were aged 60 years or younger and had a median age of 48. They had a median treatment-related mortality score of 1.76 (range, 0.19-12.26). A total of 11 patients (23%) had FLT3-ITD, and 4 (9%) had FLT3-TKD.

Treatment and toxicity

For induction, patients received G-CSF at 5 mcg/kg on days 0-5, cladribine at 5 mg/m² on days 1-5, and cytarabine at 2 g/m² on days 1-5. Mitoxantrone was given at 10 mg/m², 12 mg/m², 15 mg/m², or 18 mg/m² on days 1-3. Sorafenib was given at 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg in the morning and 200 mg in the afternoon, or 400 mg b.i.d. on days 10-19.

For consolidation, patients could receive up to four cycles of G-CSF, cladribine, and cytarabine plus sorafenib on days 8-27. Patients who did not proceed to transplant could receive 12 months of sorafenib as maintenance therapy.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities.

• Grade 4 intracranial hemorrhage with mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 prolonged count recovery with mitoxantrone at 15 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 sepsis, Sweet syndrome, and Bell’s palsy with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 3 cardiomyopathy and acute pericarditis with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 400 mg b.i.d.

However, these toxicities did not define the maximum-tolerated dose. Therefore, the recommended phase 2 dose of mitoxantrone is 18 mg/m², and the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib is 400 mg b.i.d.

There were no grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events included febrile neutropenia (90%), maculopapular rash (20%), infections (10%), hand-foot syndrome (2%), and diarrhea (1%). Grade 4 events included sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage, and oral mucositis (all 1%).

Response and survival

Among the 46 evaluable patients, 83% achieved a complete response, 78% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response, and 4% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response with incomplete count recovery. A morphological leukemia-free state was achieved by 4% of patients, and 8% had resistant disease.

Fifty-nine percent of patients went on to transplant. The median overall survival had not been reached at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The researchers compared outcomes in this trial with outcomes in a cohort of patients who had received GCLAM alone, and there were no significant differences in overall survival or event-free survival.

“The trial wasn’t powered, necessarily, for efficacy, but we compared these results to our historical cohort of medically matched and age-matched patients treated with GCLAM alone and, so far, found no differences in survival between the two groups,” Dr. Halpern said.

She noted, however, that follow-up was short in the sorafenib trial, and it included patients treated with all dose levels of sorafenib and mitoxantrone.

A phase 2 study of sorafenib plus GCLAM in newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS is now underway.

Dr. Halpern and Ms. Garcia reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The phase 1 trial was sponsored by the University of Washington in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, and funding was provided by Bayer.

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

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Douglas S. Paauw, MD, discussed why it’s been a bad year for antihypertensives, and provided updates on the side effects of statins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Dr. Paauw, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, began by discussing some of the issues that occurred with antihypertensive drugs in the past year. These included the link between hydrochlorothiazide use and the increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancers, the recalls of many drug lots of angiotensin II receptor blockers, and a study that found an increased risk of lung cancer in people who were taking ACE inhibitors.

He then described the findings of studies that examined the links between statins and muscle pain and other new research on these drugs.

He also warned physicians to be particularity cautious about prescribing sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors to certain kinds of patients.

Dr. Paauw concluded by explaining why clarithromycin is his most hated drug.

Dr. Paauw is also the Rathmann Family Foundation Endowed Chair for Patient-Centered Clinical Education and the medicine clerkship director at the University of Washington.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Douglas S. Paauw, MD, discussed why it’s been a bad year for antihypertensives, and provided updates on the side effects of statins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Dr. Paauw, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, began by discussing some of the issues that occurred with antihypertensive drugs in the past year. These included the link between hydrochlorothiazide use and the increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancers, the recalls of many drug lots of angiotensin II receptor blockers, and a study that found an increased risk of lung cancer in people who were taking ACE inhibitors.

He then described the findings of studies that examined the links between statins and muscle pain and other new research on these drugs.

He also warned physicians to be particularity cautious about prescribing sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors to certain kinds of patients.

Dr. Paauw concluded by explaining why clarithromycin is his most hated drug.

Dr. Paauw is also the Rathmann Family Foundation Endowed Chair for Patient-Centered Clinical Education and the medicine clerkship director at the University of Washington.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Douglas S. Paauw, MD, discussed why it’s been a bad year for antihypertensives, and provided updates on the side effects of statins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Dr. Paauw, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, began by discussing some of the issues that occurred with antihypertensive drugs in the past year. These included the link between hydrochlorothiazide use and the increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancers, the recalls of many drug lots of angiotensin II receptor blockers, and a study that found an increased risk of lung cancer in people who were taking ACE inhibitors.

He then described the findings of studies that examined the links between statins and muscle pain and other new research on these drugs.

He also warned physicians to be particularity cautious about prescribing sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors to certain kinds of patients.

Dr. Paauw concluded by explaining why clarithromycin is his most hated drug.

Dr. Paauw is also the Rathmann Family Foundation Endowed Chair for Patient-Centered Clinical Education and the medicine clerkship director at the University of Washington.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The evolving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was highlighted at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

In a video interview, Martin Tallman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed several meeting presentations on the treatment of AML.

In his presentation, Craig Jordan, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explained how the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine appears to target leukemic stem cells in AML.

Courtney DiNardo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, presented information on novel agents for AML, including antibody-drug conjugates; bispecific therapies; checkpoint inhibitors; and inhibitors of IDH1/2, MCL1, and MDM2.

Richard Larson, MD, of the University of Chicago, explored the possibility of an individualized approach to postremission therapy in AML.

Frederick Appelbaum, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, showed that various maintenance therapies given after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have not proven beneficial for AML patients.

Richard Jones, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, presented data showing that post-HSCT cyclophosphamide has made haploidentical transplants safer and more effective for AML patients.

And James Ferrara, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, detailed research showing that biomarkers of graft-versus-host disease can predict nonrelapse mortality after HSCT.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The evolving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was highlighted at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

In a video interview, Martin Tallman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed several meeting presentations on the treatment of AML.

In his presentation, Craig Jordan, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explained how the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine appears to target leukemic stem cells in AML.

Courtney DiNardo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, presented information on novel agents for AML, including antibody-drug conjugates; bispecific therapies; checkpoint inhibitors; and inhibitors of IDH1/2, MCL1, and MDM2.

Richard Larson, MD, of the University of Chicago, explored the possibility of an individualized approach to postremission therapy in AML.

Frederick Appelbaum, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, showed that various maintenance therapies given after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have not proven beneficial for AML patients.

Richard Jones, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, presented data showing that post-HSCT cyclophosphamide has made haploidentical transplants safer and more effective for AML patients.

And James Ferrara, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, detailed research showing that biomarkers of graft-versus-host disease can predict nonrelapse mortality after HSCT.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The evolving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was highlighted at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

In a video interview, Martin Tallman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed several meeting presentations on the treatment of AML.

In his presentation, Craig Jordan, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explained how the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine appears to target leukemic stem cells in AML.

Courtney DiNardo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, presented information on novel agents for AML, including antibody-drug conjugates; bispecific therapies; checkpoint inhibitors; and inhibitors of IDH1/2, MCL1, and MDM2.

Richard Larson, MD, of the University of Chicago, explored the possibility of an individualized approach to postremission therapy in AML.

Frederick Appelbaum, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, showed that various maintenance therapies given after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have not proven beneficial for AML patients.

Richard Jones, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, presented data showing that post-HSCT cyclophosphamide has made haploidentical transplants safer and more effective for AML patients.

And James Ferrara, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, detailed research showing that biomarkers of graft-versus-host disease can predict nonrelapse mortality after HSCT.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine will not proceed to a phase 3 trial in patients with accelerated or blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).

The combination demonstrated activity and tolerability in a phase 2 trial, but outcomes were not optimal, according to Raajit K. Rampal, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“[P]erhaps the outcomes might be favorable compared to standard induction chemotherapy regimens,” Dr. Rampal said. “Nonetheless, it’s clear that we still have a lot of work to do, and the outcomes are not optimal in these patients.”

However, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues are investigating the possibility of combining ruxolitinib and decitabine with other agents to treat patients with accelerated or blast phase MPNs.

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues presented results from the phase 2 trial in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The trial (NCT02076191) enrolled 25 patients, 10 with accelerated phase MPN (10%-19% blasts) and 15 with blast phase MPN (at least 20% blasts). The patients’ median age was 71 years.

Patients had a median disease duration of 72.9 months. Six patients (25%) had received prior ruxolitinib, and two (8.3%) had received prior decitabine.

Treatment and safety

For the first cycle, patients received decitabine at 20 mg/m² per day on days 8-12 and ruxolitinib at 25 mg twice a day on days 1-35. For subsequent cycles, patients received the same dose of decitabine on days 1-5 and ruxolitinib at 10 mg twice a day on days 6-28. Patients were treated until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

“The adverse events we saw in this study were typical for this population, including fevers, mostly neutropenic fevers, as well as anemia and thrombocytopenia,” Dr. Rampal said.

Nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) included fatigue, abdominal pain, pneumonia, diarrhea, dizziness, and constipation. Hematologic AEs included anemia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and survival

Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. Four patients were not evaluable because they withdrew from the study due to secondary AEs and completed one cycle of therapy or less, two patients did not have circulating blasts at baseline, and one patient refused further treatment.

Among the evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved a partial response, including four patients with accelerated phase MPN and five with blast phase MPN.

Two patients (11.1%), one with accelerated phase MPN and one with blast phase MPN, achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery.

The remaining seven patients (38.9%), five with blast phase MPN and two with accelerated phase MPN, did not respond.

The median overall survival was 7.6 months for the entire cohort, 9.7 months for patients with blast phase MPN, and 5.8 months for patients with accelerated phase MPN.

Based on these results, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues theorized that ruxolitinib plus decitabine might be improved by the addition of other agents. The researchers are currently investigating this possibility.

“The work for this trial really came out of preclinical work in the laboratory where we combined these drugs and saw efficacy in murine models,” Dr. Rampal said. “So we’re going back to the drawing board and looking at those again to see, ‘Can we come up with new rational combinations?’ ”

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest. Their study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and Incyte Corporation.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine will not proceed to a phase 3 trial in patients with accelerated or blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).

The combination demonstrated activity and tolerability in a phase 2 trial, but outcomes were not optimal, according to Raajit K. Rampal, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“[P]erhaps the outcomes might be favorable compared to standard induction chemotherapy regimens,” Dr. Rampal said. “Nonetheless, it’s clear that we still have a lot of work to do, and the outcomes are not optimal in these patients.”

However, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues are investigating the possibility of combining ruxolitinib and decitabine with other agents to treat patients with accelerated or blast phase MPNs.

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues presented results from the phase 2 trial in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The trial (NCT02076191) enrolled 25 patients, 10 with accelerated phase MPN (10%-19% blasts) and 15 with blast phase MPN (at least 20% blasts). The patients’ median age was 71 years.

Patients had a median disease duration of 72.9 months. Six patients (25%) had received prior ruxolitinib, and two (8.3%) had received prior decitabine.

Treatment and safety

For the first cycle, patients received decitabine at 20 mg/m² per day on days 8-12 and ruxolitinib at 25 mg twice a day on days 1-35. For subsequent cycles, patients received the same dose of decitabine on days 1-5 and ruxolitinib at 10 mg twice a day on days 6-28. Patients were treated until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

“The adverse events we saw in this study were typical for this population, including fevers, mostly neutropenic fevers, as well as anemia and thrombocytopenia,” Dr. Rampal said.

Nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) included fatigue, abdominal pain, pneumonia, diarrhea, dizziness, and constipation. Hematologic AEs included anemia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and survival

Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. Four patients were not evaluable because they withdrew from the study due to secondary AEs and completed one cycle of therapy or less, two patients did not have circulating blasts at baseline, and one patient refused further treatment.

Among the evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved a partial response, including four patients with accelerated phase MPN and five with blast phase MPN.

Two patients (11.1%), one with accelerated phase MPN and one with blast phase MPN, achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery.

The remaining seven patients (38.9%), five with blast phase MPN and two with accelerated phase MPN, did not respond.

The median overall survival was 7.6 months for the entire cohort, 9.7 months for patients with blast phase MPN, and 5.8 months for patients with accelerated phase MPN.

Based on these results, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues theorized that ruxolitinib plus decitabine might be improved by the addition of other agents. The researchers are currently investigating this possibility.

“The work for this trial really came out of preclinical work in the laboratory where we combined these drugs and saw efficacy in murine models,” Dr. Rampal said. “So we’re going back to the drawing board and looking at those again to see, ‘Can we come up with new rational combinations?’ ”

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest. Their study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and Incyte Corporation.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine will not proceed to a phase 3 trial in patients with accelerated or blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).

The combination demonstrated activity and tolerability in a phase 2 trial, but outcomes were not optimal, according to Raajit K. Rampal, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“[P]erhaps the outcomes might be favorable compared to standard induction chemotherapy regimens,” Dr. Rampal said. “Nonetheless, it’s clear that we still have a lot of work to do, and the outcomes are not optimal in these patients.”

However, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues are investigating the possibility of combining ruxolitinib and decitabine with other agents to treat patients with accelerated or blast phase MPNs.

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues presented results from the phase 2 trial in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The trial (NCT02076191) enrolled 25 patients, 10 with accelerated phase MPN (10%-19% blasts) and 15 with blast phase MPN (at least 20% blasts). The patients’ median age was 71 years.

Patients had a median disease duration of 72.9 months. Six patients (25%) had received prior ruxolitinib, and two (8.3%) had received prior decitabine.

Treatment and safety

For the first cycle, patients received decitabine at 20 mg/m² per day on days 8-12 and ruxolitinib at 25 mg twice a day on days 1-35. For subsequent cycles, patients received the same dose of decitabine on days 1-5 and ruxolitinib at 10 mg twice a day on days 6-28. Patients were treated until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

“The adverse events we saw in this study were typical for this population, including fevers, mostly neutropenic fevers, as well as anemia and thrombocytopenia,” Dr. Rampal said.

Nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) included fatigue, abdominal pain, pneumonia, diarrhea, dizziness, and constipation. Hematologic AEs included anemia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and survival

Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. Four patients were not evaluable because they withdrew from the study due to secondary AEs and completed one cycle of therapy or less, two patients did not have circulating blasts at baseline, and one patient refused further treatment.

Among the evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved a partial response, including four patients with accelerated phase MPN and five with blast phase MPN.

Two patients (11.1%), one with accelerated phase MPN and one with blast phase MPN, achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery.

The remaining seven patients (38.9%), five with blast phase MPN and two with accelerated phase MPN, did not respond.

The median overall survival was 7.6 months for the entire cohort, 9.7 months for patients with blast phase MPN, and 5.8 months for patients with accelerated phase MPN.

Based on these results, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues theorized that ruxolitinib plus decitabine might be improved by the addition of other agents. The researchers are currently investigating this possibility.

“The work for this trial really came out of preclinical work in the laboratory where we combined these drugs and saw efficacy in murine models,” Dr. Rampal said. “So we’re going back to the drawing board and looking at those again to see, ‘Can we come up with new rational combinations?’ ”

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest. Their study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and Incyte Corporation.

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

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Horace DeLisser, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD, described some of the work they have done to provide health care in communities challenged by the social determinants of health, during a panel discussion moderated by Sarah Candler, MD, an internist in Houston.

Dr. Candler, former chair, Council of Resident and Fellow Members, Board of Regents, American College of Physicians, began the discussion by asking Dr. DeLisser, to describe his role in teaching medical students about the social determinants of health, at the annual Internal Medicine meeting of the ACP.

Dr. DeLisser, associate dean for professionalism and humanism at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he focuses on a number of issues, including social medicine, cultural competency, and cultural humility.

“We look at health care disparities and try to do a lot of innovation around service learning that will bring our students into the community, one to learn about these determinants but more importantly to be able to see how these issues can be addressed both on a provider level but also on a more structural systemic level,” he noted.

Dr. Poorman, an internist at the University of Washington, later discussed the importance of practicing cultural humility as it related to her experience providing care to migrant workers while she was a medical school student.

Dr. Candler, an internist in Houston, concluded the discussion by describing some of the ACP’s newest resources designed to address the social determinants of health for specific groups of patients.

The full panel discussion was recorded as a video.
 

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Horace DeLisser, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD, described some of the work they have done to provide health care in communities challenged by the social determinants of health, during a panel discussion moderated by Sarah Candler, MD, an internist in Houston.

Dr. Candler, former chair, Council of Resident and Fellow Members, Board of Regents, American College of Physicians, began the discussion by asking Dr. DeLisser, to describe his role in teaching medical students about the social determinants of health, at the annual Internal Medicine meeting of the ACP.

Dr. DeLisser, associate dean for professionalism and humanism at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he focuses on a number of issues, including social medicine, cultural competency, and cultural humility.

“We look at health care disparities and try to do a lot of innovation around service learning that will bring our students into the community, one to learn about these determinants but more importantly to be able to see how these issues can be addressed both on a provider level but also on a more structural systemic level,” he noted.

Dr. Poorman, an internist at the University of Washington, later discussed the importance of practicing cultural humility as it related to her experience providing care to migrant workers while she was a medical school student.

Dr. Candler, an internist in Houston, concluded the discussion by describing some of the ACP’s newest resources designed to address the social determinants of health for specific groups of patients.

The full panel discussion was recorded as a video.
 

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Horace DeLisser, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD, described some of the work they have done to provide health care in communities challenged by the social determinants of health, during a panel discussion moderated by Sarah Candler, MD, an internist in Houston.

Dr. Candler, former chair, Council of Resident and Fellow Members, Board of Regents, American College of Physicians, began the discussion by asking Dr. DeLisser, to describe his role in teaching medical students about the social determinants of health, at the annual Internal Medicine meeting of the ACP.

Dr. DeLisser, associate dean for professionalism and humanism at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he focuses on a number of issues, including social medicine, cultural competency, and cultural humility.

“We look at health care disparities and try to do a lot of innovation around service learning that will bring our students into the community, one to learn about these determinants but more importantly to be able to see how these issues can be addressed both on a provider level but also on a more structural systemic level,” he noted.

Dr. Poorman, an internist at the University of Washington, later discussed the importance of practicing cultural humility as it related to her experience providing care to migrant workers while she was a medical school student.

Dr. Candler, an internist in Houston, concluded the discussion by describing some of the ACP’s newest resources designed to address the social determinants of health for specific groups of patients.

The full panel discussion was recorded as a video.
 

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – American College of Physician leaders in governmental affairs discussed a variety of new health law and policy issues they find concerning in a video interview conducted during the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Vidyard Video

Robert B. Doherty, the ACP’s senior vice president, governmental affairs and public policy, and Shari M. Erickson, the organization’s vice president of governmental affairs and medical practice, addressed the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), cuts to the funding of Title X clinics, and the National Rifle Association’s urging of Congress to vote against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

“We’re very, very concerned by a decision by a Texas judge that, if upheld on appeal, would gut the entire ACA and the decision by the administration not to defend any part of the ACA,” said Mr. Doherty.

Ms. Erikson later discussed a final rule released by the administration that she said “significantly impacts access to care for women,” particularly for those in low-income and underserved areas who may be seen by clinics that receive Title X funding.

She also addressed the rule’s effects on federally qualified health centers and other health clinics near Title X–funded clinics that are forced to close.

On a positive note, Mr. Doherty noted that the ACP is supporting legislation that has been introduced in the House to stabilize the current insurance markets.

Mr. Doherty and Ms. Erikson concluded by discussing an ACP initiative focused on reducing administrative burden for ACP members.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – American College of Physician leaders in governmental affairs discussed a variety of new health law and policy issues they find concerning in a video interview conducted during the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Vidyard Video

Robert B. Doherty, the ACP’s senior vice president, governmental affairs and public policy, and Shari M. Erickson, the organization’s vice president of governmental affairs and medical practice, addressed the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), cuts to the funding of Title X clinics, and the National Rifle Association’s urging of Congress to vote against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

“We’re very, very concerned by a decision by a Texas judge that, if upheld on appeal, would gut the entire ACA and the decision by the administration not to defend any part of the ACA,” said Mr. Doherty.

Ms. Erikson later discussed a final rule released by the administration that she said “significantly impacts access to care for women,” particularly for those in low-income and underserved areas who may be seen by clinics that receive Title X funding.

She also addressed the rule’s effects on federally qualified health centers and other health clinics near Title X–funded clinics that are forced to close.

On a positive note, Mr. Doherty noted that the ACP is supporting legislation that has been introduced in the House to stabilize the current insurance markets.

Mr. Doherty and Ms. Erikson concluded by discussing an ACP initiative focused on reducing administrative burden for ACP members.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – American College of Physician leaders in governmental affairs discussed a variety of new health law and policy issues they find concerning in a video interview conducted during the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Vidyard Video

Robert B. Doherty, the ACP’s senior vice president, governmental affairs and public policy, and Shari M. Erickson, the organization’s vice president of governmental affairs and medical practice, addressed the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), cuts to the funding of Title X clinics, and the National Rifle Association’s urging of Congress to vote against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

“We’re very, very concerned by a decision by a Texas judge that, if upheld on appeal, would gut the entire ACA and the decision by the administration not to defend any part of the ACA,” said Mr. Doherty.

Ms. Erikson later discussed a final rule released by the administration that she said “significantly impacts access to care for women,” particularly for those in low-income and underserved areas who may be seen by clinics that receive Title X funding.

She also addressed the rule’s effects on federally qualified health centers and other health clinics near Title X–funded clinics that are forced to close.

On a positive note, Mr. Doherty noted that the ACP is supporting legislation that has been introduced in the House to stabilize the current insurance markets.

Mr. Doherty and Ms. Erikson concluded by discussing an ACP initiative focused on reducing administrative burden for ACP members.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Eileen Barrett, MD, explained why she volunteers and gave examples of ways she has used her physician training and other expertise to help several communities.

“I think what we get out of it is the feeling of our commitment to our sense of purpose and mission, and you just feel great when you’re giving, and then you meet these really remarkable people who do really, really remarkable things. ... It’s tremendously inspiring,” Dr. Barrett said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. She is a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and serves on the ACP Board of Regents.

In addition, Dr. Barrett has done disaster relief work in West Africa, provided patient care to refugees in a hospital on the Thailand side of the Thailand-Myanmar border, and even helped bring organization to a public radio station in rural New Mexico.

She also described some opportunities available to internists who are trying to get their feet wet in volunteering that are available through the organizations, Health Volunteers Overseas and the Maven Project.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Eileen Barrett, MD, explained why she volunteers and gave examples of ways she has used her physician training and other expertise to help several communities.

“I think what we get out of it is the feeling of our commitment to our sense of purpose and mission, and you just feel great when you’re giving, and then you meet these really remarkable people who do really, really remarkable things. ... It’s tremendously inspiring,” Dr. Barrett said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. She is a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and serves on the ACP Board of Regents.

In addition, Dr. Barrett has done disaster relief work in West Africa, provided patient care to refugees in a hospital on the Thailand side of the Thailand-Myanmar border, and even helped bring organization to a public radio station in rural New Mexico.

She also described some opportunities available to internists who are trying to get their feet wet in volunteering that are available through the organizations, Health Volunteers Overseas and the Maven Project.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Eileen Barrett, MD, explained why she volunteers and gave examples of ways she has used her physician training and other expertise to help several communities.

“I think what we get out of it is the feeling of our commitment to our sense of purpose and mission, and you just feel great when you’re giving, and then you meet these really remarkable people who do really, really remarkable things. ... It’s tremendously inspiring,” Dr. Barrett said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. She is a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and serves on the ACP Board of Regents.

In addition, Dr. Barrett has done disaster relief work in West Africa, provided patient care to refugees in a hospital on the Thailand side of the Thailand-Myanmar border, and even helped bring organization to a public radio station in rural New Mexico.

She also described some opportunities available to internists who are trying to get their feet wet in volunteering that are available through the organizations, Health Volunteers Overseas and the Maven Project.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.

Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.

John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
 

Obstacles to development

“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”

A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.

“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.

A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.

And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.

The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
 

UCART7

One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.

The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.

“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”

In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
 

UCART2 and NT-I7

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.

The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.

NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).

Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.

Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.

Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.

John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
 

Obstacles to development

“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”

A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.

“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.

A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.

And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.

The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
 

UCART7

One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.

The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.

“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”

In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
 

UCART2 and NT-I7

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.

The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.

NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).

Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.

Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.

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

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.

Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.

John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
 

Obstacles to development

“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”

A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.

“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.

A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.

And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.

The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
 

UCART7

One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.

The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.

“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”

In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
 

UCART2 and NT-I7

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.

The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.

NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).

Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.

Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.

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

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.