User login
Flu vaccine did not protect children with acute leukemia
said April Sykes of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Carmel, Ind., and her associates.
Patients aged 1-21 years being treated for acute leukemia during three successive influenza seasons (2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014) were identified by a retrospective review of EHRs; of those patients, 354 (71%) patients received TIV, and 98 (20%) received a booster dose of flu vaccine.
Also, whether the children and youth received one or two doses of flu vaccine made no difference in the rates of influenza (0.60 vs. 1.02; P = .107), the investigators reported.
These data suggest “that influenza vaccine may be ineffective in children receiving therapy for acute leukemia and that routine administration of TIV may not reflect high-value care,” the researchers said. “Until more immunogenic and protective vaccines are developed, efforts to prevent influenza in high-risk populations should focus on more general strategies, such as avoiding ill persons and practicing good respiratory hygiene in households and health care facilities.”
Read more in the Journal of Pediatrics (2017 Nov 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.071).
said April Sykes of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Carmel, Ind., and her associates.
Patients aged 1-21 years being treated for acute leukemia during three successive influenza seasons (2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014) were identified by a retrospective review of EHRs; of those patients, 354 (71%) patients received TIV, and 98 (20%) received a booster dose of flu vaccine.
Also, whether the children and youth received one or two doses of flu vaccine made no difference in the rates of influenza (0.60 vs. 1.02; P = .107), the investigators reported.
These data suggest “that influenza vaccine may be ineffective in children receiving therapy for acute leukemia and that routine administration of TIV may not reflect high-value care,” the researchers said. “Until more immunogenic and protective vaccines are developed, efforts to prevent influenza in high-risk populations should focus on more general strategies, such as avoiding ill persons and practicing good respiratory hygiene in households and health care facilities.”
Read more in the Journal of Pediatrics (2017 Nov 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.071).
said April Sykes of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Carmel, Ind., and her associates.
Patients aged 1-21 years being treated for acute leukemia during three successive influenza seasons (2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014) were identified by a retrospective review of EHRs; of those patients, 354 (71%) patients received TIV, and 98 (20%) received a booster dose of flu vaccine.
Also, whether the children and youth received one or two doses of flu vaccine made no difference in the rates of influenza (0.60 vs. 1.02; P = .107), the investigators reported.
These data suggest “that influenza vaccine may be ineffective in children receiving therapy for acute leukemia and that routine administration of TIV may not reflect high-value care,” the researchers said. “Until more immunogenic and protective vaccines are developed, efforts to prevent influenza in high-risk populations should focus on more general strategies, such as avoiding ill persons and practicing good respiratory hygiene in households and health care facilities.”
Read more in the Journal of Pediatrics (2017 Nov 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.071).
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
System helps predict RFS, OS in BCP-ALL
Researchers say they have developed a more accurate risk scoring system for children with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) who are typically thought to have standard- or medium-risk disease.
The scoring system includes 3 factors associated with higher-risk BCP-ALL—the presence of high-risk ALL gene microdeletions, having minimal residual disease (MRD) greater than 5 x 10-5 at day 33, and being high-risk according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) classification.
The researchers found that children with 2 or more of these characteristics were most likely to relapse or die within 7 years of treatment initiation.
On the other hand, children without any of the 3 characteristics had high rates of relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
Rosemary Sutton, PhD, of Children’s Cancer Institute in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, and her colleagues devised this risk scoring system and described it in the British Journal of Haematology.
The researchers created their system with the help of data from 475 patients (ages 1 to 18) who had BCP-ALL and were considered non-high-risk. The patients were enrolled on the ANZCHOG ALL8 trial.
Dr Sutton and her colleagues noted that children with standard- or medium-risk BCP-ALL typically receive less intensive treatment than children with high-risk BCP-ALL. However, some of the standard- and medium-risk patients do relapse.
“For the standard- to medium-risk group, we needed more information to get a better handle on the biology of the child’s cancer to better determine their risk,” Dr Sutton said. “So we supplemented MRD results with 2 other pieces of patient information—the presence or absence of specific gene microdeletions and a score called the NCI risk, based on age and white blood cell count.”
“We tested for microdeletions in 9 genes involved in leukemia and found that 2 of the genes—IKZF1 and P2RY8-CRLF2—were important predictors of relapse.”
The researchers combined patients with IKZF1 intragenic deletions, P2RY8-CRLF2 gene fusion, or both into a “high-risk deletion group.”
And the team based the scoring system on 3 factors—the high-risk deletion group, MRD >5 x 10-5 at day 33, and high risk according to NCI risk classification. Patients received 1 point for each of these factors.
The RFS rate was 93% for patients with a score of 0, 78% for those with a score of 1, and 49% for patients with a score of 2 or 3. The OS rate was 99%, 91%, and 71%, respectively.
The researchers said their scoring system provided greater discrimination than MRD-based risk stratification into a standard-risk group—which had an RFS of 89% and an OS of 96%—and a medium-risk group—which had an RFS of 79% and an OS of 91%.
Study author Toby Trahair, MBBS, PhD, of Sydney Children’s Hospital in Randwick, New South Wales, said this scoring system could make a big difference to the success of BCP-ALL treatment.
“We are always trying to improve how we diagnose and treat children with this most common childhood cancer,” Dr Trahair said. “This risk score will mean doctors can fine tune a child’s risk category and so fine tune their treatment. It will mean more kids can conquer this horrible disease, which, only 50 years ago, had survival rates of close to 0.”
Researchers say they have developed a more accurate risk scoring system for children with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) who are typically thought to have standard- or medium-risk disease.
The scoring system includes 3 factors associated with higher-risk BCP-ALL—the presence of high-risk ALL gene microdeletions, having minimal residual disease (MRD) greater than 5 x 10-5 at day 33, and being high-risk according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) classification.
The researchers found that children with 2 or more of these characteristics were most likely to relapse or die within 7 years of treatment initiation.
On the other hand, children without any of the 3 characteristics had high rates of relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
Rosemary Sutton, PhD, of Children’s Cancer Institute in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, and her colleagues devised this risk scoring system and described it in the British Journal of Haematology.
The researchers created their system with the help of data from 475 patients (ages 1 to 18) who had BCP-ALL and were considered non-high-risk. The patients were enrolled on the ANZCHOG ALL8 trial.
Dr Sutton and her colleagues noted that children with standard- or medium-risk BCP-ALL typically receive less intensive treatment than children with high-risk BCP-ALL. However, some of the standard- and medium-risk patients do relapse.
“For the standard- to medium-risk group, we needed more information to get a better handle on the biology of the child’s cancer to better determine their risk,” Dr Sutton said. “So we supplemented MRD results with 2 other pieces of patient information—the presence or absence of specific gene microdeletions and a score called the NCI risk, based on age and white blood cell count.”
“We tested for microdeletions in 9 genes involved in leukemia and found that 2 of the genes—IKZF1 and P2RY8-CRLF2—were important predictors of relapse.”
The researchers combined patients with IKZF1 intragenic deletions, P2RY8-CRLF2 gene fusion, or both into a “high-risk deletion group.”
And the team based the scoring system on 3 factors—the high-risk deletion group, MRD >5 x 10-5 at day 33, and high risk according to NCI risk classification. Patients received 1 point for each of these factors.
The RFS rate was 93% for patients with a score of 0, 78% for those with a score of 1, and 49% for patients with a score of 2 or 3. The OS rate was 99%, 91%, and 71%, respectively.
The researchers said their scoring system provided greater discrimination than MRD-based risk stratification into a standard-risk group—which had an RFS of 89% and an OS of 96%—and a medium-risk group—which had an RFS of 79% and an OS of 91%.
Study author Toby Trahair, MBBS, PhD, of Sydney Children’s Hospital in Randwick, New South Wales, said this scoring system could make a big difference to the success of BCP-ALL treatment.
“We are always trying to improve how we diagnose and treat children with this most common childhood cancer,” Dr Trahair said. “This risk score will mean doctors can fine tune a child’s risk category and so fine tune their treatment. It will mean more kids can conquer this horrible disease, which, only 50 years ago, had survival rates of close to 0.”
Researchers say they have developed a more accurate risk scoring system for children with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) who are typically thought to have standard- or medium-risk disease.
The scoring system includes 3 factors associated with higher-risk BCP-ALL—the presence of high-risk ALL gene microdeletions, having minimal residual disease (MRD) greater than 5 x 10-5 at day 33, and being high-risk according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) classification.
The researchers found that children with 2 or more of these characteristics were most likely to relapse or die within 7 years of treatment initiation.
On the other hand, children without any of the 3 characteristics had high rates of relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
Rosemary Sutton, PhD, of Children’s Cancer Institute in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, and her colleagues devised this risk scoring system and described it in the British Journal of Haematology.
The researchers created their system with the help of data from 475 patients (ages 1 to 18) who had BCP-ALL and were considered non-high-risk. The patients were enrolled on the ANZCHOG ALL8 trial.
Dr Sutton and her colleagues noted that children with standard- or medium-risk BCP-ALL typically receive less intensive treatment than children with high-risk BCP-ALL. However, some of the standard- and medium-risk patients do relapse.
“For the standard- to medium-risk group, we needed more information to get a better handle on the biology of the child’s cancer to better determine their risk,” Dr Sutton said. “So we supplemented MRD results with 2 other pieces of patient information—the presence or absence of specific gene microdeletions and a score called the NCI risk, based on age and white blood cell count.”
“We tested for microdeletions in 9 genes involved in leukemia and found that 2 of the genes—IKZF1 and P2RY8-CRLF2—were important predictors of relapse.”
The researchers combined patients with IKZF1 intragenic deletions, P2RY8-CRLF2 gene fusion, or both into a “high-risk deletion group.”
And the team based the scoring system on 3 factors—the high-risk deletion group, MRD >5 x 10-5 at day 33, and high risk according to NCI risk classification. Patients received 1 point for each of these factors.
The RFS rate was 93% for patients with a score of 0, 78% for those with a score of 1, and 49% for patients with a score of 2 or 3. The OS rate was 99%, 91%, and 71%, respectively.
The researchers said their scoring system provided greater discrimination than MRD-based risk stratification into a standard-risk group—which had an RFS of 89% and an OS of 96%—and a medium-risk group—which had an RFS of 79% and an OS of 91%.
Study author Toby Trahair, MBBS, PhD, of Sydney Children’s Hospital in Randwick, New South Wales, said this scoring system could make a big difference to the success of BCP-ALL treatment.
“We are always trying to improve how we diagnose and treat children with this most common childhood cancer,” Dr Trahair said. “This risk score will mean doctors can fine tune a child’s risk category and so fine tune their treatment. It will mean more kids can conquer this horrible disease, which, only 50 years ago, had survival rates of close to 0.”
Antimalarial could aid treatment of ALL
An antimalarial drug and a BH3 mimetic have demonstrated promise for treating BCR-ABL-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to work published in Clinical Cancer Research.
Investigators found the widely used antimalarial dihydroartemisinin (DHA) sensitized BCR-ABL+ ALL to the BH3 mimetic navitoclax (formerly ABT-263).
The combination therapy had a synergistic effect on mouse and human BCR-ABL+ leukemic cell death and extended the lives of mice with BCR-ABL+ ALL.
“Survival rates for children and adults with this leukemia still lag, highlighting the urgent need for new therapies,” said study author Joseph Opferman, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.
“Our findings suggest that combining DHA with ABT-263 can significantly improve treatment response.”
As opposed to mice that received navitoclax alone, there was no evidence of navitoclax resistance in mice treated with navitoclax and DHA.
The investigators determined that DHA worked by repressing production of MCL-1, a protein that is elevated in many cancers and helps malignant cells resist BH3 mimetics.
“MCL-1 is widely recognized as an important survival molecule in many normal cell types as well as cancer,” Dr Opferman said. “MCL-1 inhibitors are in development, but none are currently available for treating patients.”
“And because MCL-1 is essential for proper functioning of many normal cell types, there is concern about potential toxicity. We sought to identify drugs that are available now to augment treatment of BCR-ABL+ ALL.”
The search for a drug to sensitize BCR-ABL+ ALL to navitoclax and related compounds led Dr Opferman and his colleagues to DHA. A drug screen showed that DHA killed BCR-ABL+ ALL cells from mice.
The investigators showed how DHA induced expression of the protein CHOP, which is a key regulator of the endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway in cells. CHOP expression triggered the stress pathway in BCR-ABL+ ALL cells from mice and led to the suppression of MCL-1.
“MCL-1 has a short half-life, so the cell’s MCL-1 stores are rapidly depleted if the protein’s translation is repressed,” said study author Amit Budhraja, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Dr Opferman’s lab.
Now, the investigators are studying the mechanism in human BCR-ABL+ leukemic cells as well as in other cancers.
“Identifying the mechanism will allow us to study the pathway in detail for other points to target for anticancer drug development,” Dr Opferman said.
An antimalarial drug and a BH3 mimetic have demonstrated promise for treating BCR-ABL-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to work published in Clinical Cancer Research.
Investigators found the widely used antimalarial dihydroartemisinin (DHA) sensitized BCR-ABL+ ALL to the BH3 mimetic navitoclax (formerly ABT-263).
The combination therapy had a synergistic effect on mouse and human BCR-ABL+ leukemic cell death and extended the lives of mice with BCR-ABL+ ALL.
“Survival rates for children and adults with this leukemia still lag, highlighting the urgent need for new therapies,” said study author Joseph Opferman, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.
“Our findings suggest that combining DHA with ABT-263 can significantly improve treatment response.”
As opposed to mice that received navitoclax alone, there was no evidence of navitoclax resistance in mice treated with navitoclax and DHA.
The investigators determined that DHA worked by repressing production of MCL-1, a protein that is elevated in many cancers and helps malignant cells resist BH3 mimetics.
“MCL-1 is widely recognized as an important survival molecule in many normal cell types as well as cancer,” Dr Opferman said. “MCL-1 inhibitors are in development, but none are currently available for treating patients.”
“And because MCL-1 is essential for proper functioning of many normal cell types, there is concern about potential toxicity. We sought to identify drugs that are available now to augment treatment of BCR-ABL+ ALL.”
The search for a drug to sensitize BCR-ABL+ ALL to navitoclax and related compounds led Dr Opferman and his colleagues to DHA. A drug screen showed that DHA killed BCR-ABL+ ALL cells from mice.
The investigators showed how DHA induced expression of the protein CHOP, which is a key regulator of the endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway in cells. CHOP expression triggered the stress pathway in BCR-ABL+ ALL cells from mice and led to the suppression of MCL-1.
“MCL-1 has a short half-life, so the cell’s MCL-1 stores are rapidly depleted if the protein’s translation is repressed,” said study author Amit Budhraja, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Dr Opferman’s lab.
Now, the investigators are studying the mechanism in human BCR-ABL+ leukemic cells as well as in other cancers.
“Identifying the mechanism will allow us to study the pathway in detail for other points to target for anticancer drug development,” Dr Opferman said.
An antimalarial drug and a BH3 mimetic have demonstrated promise for treating BCR-ABL-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to work published in Clinical Cancer Research.
Investigators found the widely used antimalarial dihydroartemisinin (DHA) sensitized BCR-ABL+ ALL to the BH3 mimetic navitoclax (formerly ABT-263).
The combination therapy had a synergistic effect on mouse and human BCR-ABL+ leukemic cell death and extended the lives of mice with BCR-ABL+ ALL.
“Survival rates for children and adults with this leukemia still lag, highlighting the urgent need for new therapies,” said study author Joseph Opferman, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.
“Our findings suggest that combining DHA with ABT-263 can significantly improve treatment response.”
As opposed to mice that received navitoclax alone, there was no evidence of navitoclax resistance in mice treated with navitoclax and DHA.
The investigators determined that DHA worked by repressing production of MCL-1, a protein that is elevated in many cancers and helps malignant cells resist BH3 mimetics.
“MCL-1 is widely recognized as an important survival molecule in many normal cell types as well as cancer,” Dr Opferman said. “MCL-1 inhibitors are in development, but none are currently available for treating patients.”
“And because MCL-1 is essential for proper functioning of many normal cell types, there is concern about potential toxicity. We sought to identify drugs that are available now to augment treatment of BCR-ABL+ ALL.”
The search for a drug to sensitize BCR-ABL+ ALL to navitoclax and related compounds led Dr Opferman and his colleagues to DHA. A drug screen showed that DHA killed BCR-ABL+ ALL cells from mice.
The investigators showed how DHA induced expression of the protein CHOP, which is a key regulator of the endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway in cells. CHOP expression triggered the stress pathway in BCR-ABL+ ALL cells from mice and led to the suppression of MCL-1.
“MCL-1 has a short half-life, so the cell’s MCL-1 stores are rapidly depleted if the protein’s translation is repressed,” said study author Amit Budhraja, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Dr Opferman’s lab.
Now, the investigators are studying the mechanism in human BCR-ABL+ leukemic cells as well as in other cancers.
“Identifying the mechanism will allow us to study the pathway in detail for other points to target for anticancer drug development,” Dr Opferman said.
Method identifies effective treatments for leukemias, lymphomas
An ex vivo drug screening method can reveal optimal therapies for patients with hematologic malignancies, according to research published in The Lancet Haematology.
Researchers used a method called pharmacoscopy to measure single-cell responses to possible treatments in samples from patients with leukemias and lymphomas.
The team then used these results to guide treatment decisions and found that pharmacoscopy-guided treatment greatly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS).
“Having a robust, fast, and reliable predictive test at our disposal during the patient treatment process, especially at the time of relapse where a new intervention must be selected quickly, will change how medical doctors prioritize drugs to use for late-stage patients,” said study author Philipp Staber, MD, of Medical University of Vienna in Austria.
With pharmacoscopy, hundreds of drug options can be pre-tested ex vivo in small liquid biopsy samples collected from individual patients. The effects of each drug on the individual cells are quantified using high-throughput and high-content automated confocal microscopy.
In combination with specially developed analysis methods, machine learning, and other algorithms, pharmacoscopy allows quantification of never-before visualized phenotypes. The method was first described last April in Nature Chemical Biology.
Now, Dr Staber and his colleagues have reported, in The Lancet Haematology, an interim analysis of the first clinical trial testing pharmacoscopy-guided treatment.
There were 17 evaluable patients, all of whom had aggressive hematologic malignancies. This included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=6), acute myeloid leukemia (n=3), B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n=2), precursor B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), peripheral T-cell lymphoma (n=1), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (n=1), T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), follicular lymphoma (n=1), and T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (n=1).
The researchers compared outcomes with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment to outcomes with the most recent regimen on which the patient had progressed.
The overall response rate was 88% with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment and 24% with the patients’ most recent previous treatment regimen (odds ratio=24.38; 95%, CI 3.99–125.4; P=0.0013).
None of the patients had progressive disease as their best overall response when they received pharmacoscopy-guided treatment. However, 7 patients had progressive disease in response to their most recent prior regimen.
At the time of analysis, 8 patients (47%) still had ongoing responses after pharmacoscopy-guided treatment.
In addition, pharmacoscopy-guided treatment significantly improved PFS. The median PFS was 22.6 weeks with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment and 5.7 weeks with the most recent prior regimen (hazard ratio=3.14; 95%, CI 1.37–7.22; P=0.0075).
“Evidence that the pharmacoscopy approach is helpful for clinical evaluation of therapy is wonderful,” said study author Giulio Superti-Furga, PhD, of CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine in Vienna, Austria.
“Single-cell functional analysis of primary material gives unprecedented resolution and precision that we are sure to further develop in the future to address yet more diseases.”
An ex vivo drug screening method can reveal optimal therapies for patients with hematologic malignancies, according to research published in The Lancet Haematology.
Researchers used a method called pharmacoscopy to measure single-cell responses to possible treatments in samples from patients with leukemias and lymphomas.
The team then used these results to guide treatment decisions and found that pharmacoscopy-guided treatment greatly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS).
“Having a robust, fast, and reliable predictive test at our disposal during the patient treatment process, especially at the time of relapse where a new intervention must be selected quickly, will change how medical doctors prioritize drugs to use for late-stage patients,” said study author Philipp Staber, MD, of Medical University of Vienna in Austria.
With pharmacoscopy, hundreds of drug options can be pre-tested ex vivo in small liquid biopsy samples collected from individual patients. The effects of each drug on the individual cells are quantified using high-throughput and high-content automated confocal microscopy.
In combination with specially developed analysis methods, machine learning, and other algorithms, pharmacoscopy allows quantification of never-before visualized phenotypes. The method was first described last April in Nature Chemical Biology.
Now, Dr Staber and his colleagues have reported, in The Lancet Haematology, an interim analysis of the first clinical trial testing pharmacoscopy-guided treatment.
There were 17 evaluable patients, all of whom had aggressive hematologic malignancies. This included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=6), acute myeloid leukemia (n=3), B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n=2), precursor B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), peripheral T-cell lymphoma (n=1), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (n=1), T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), follicular lymphoma (n=1), and T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (n=1).
The researchers compared outcomes with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment to outcomes with the most recent regimen on which the patient had progressed.
The overall response rate was 88% with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment and 24% with the patients’ most recent previous treatment regimen (odds ratio=24.38; 95%, CI 3.99–125.4; P=0.0013).
None of the patients had progressive disease as their best overall response when they received pharmacoscopy-guided treatment. However, 7 patients had progressive disease in response to their most recent prior regimen.
At the time of analysis, 8 patients (47%) still had ongoing responses after pharmacoscopy-guided treatment.
In addition, pharmacoscopy-guided treatment significantly improved PFS. The median PFS was 22.6 weeks with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment and 5.7 weeks with the most recent prior regimen (hazard ratio=3.14; 95%, CI 1.37–7.22; P=0.0075).
“Evidence that the pharmacoscopy approach is helpful for clinical evaluation of therapy is wonderful,” said study author Giulio Superti-Furga, PhD, of CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine in Vienna, Austria.
“Single-cell functional analysis of primary material gives unprecedented resolution and precision that we are sure to further develop in the future to address yet more diseases.”
An ex vivo drug screening method can reveal optimal therapies for patients with hematologic malignancies, according to research published in The Lancet Haematology.
Researchers used a method called pharmacoscopy to measure single-cell responses to possible treatments in samples from patients with leukemias and lymphomas.
The team then used these results to guide treatment decisions and found that pharmacoscopy-guided treatment greatly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS).
“Having a robust, fast, and reliable predictive test at our disposal during the patient treatment process, especially at the time of relapse where a new intervention must be selected quickly, will change how medical doctors prioritize drugs to use for late-stage patients,” said study author Philipp Staber, MD, of Medical University of Vienna in Austria.
With pharmacoscopy, hundreds of drug options can be pre-tested ex vivo in small liquid biopsy samples collected from individual patients. The effects of each drug on the individual cells are quantified using high-throughput and high-content automated confocal microscopy.
In combination with specially developed analysis methods, machine learning, and other algorithms, pharmacoscopy allows quantification of never-before visualized phenotypes. The method was first described last April in Nature Chemical Biology.
Now, Dr Staber and his colleagues have reported, in The Lancet Haematology, an interim analysis of the first clinical trial testing pharmacoscopy-guided treatment.
There were 17 evaluable patients, all of whom had aggressive hematologic malignancies. This included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=6), acute myeloid leukemia (n=3), B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n=2), precursor B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), peripheral T-cell lymphoma (n=1), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (n=1), T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), follicular lymphoma (n=1), and T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (n=1).
The researchers compared outcomes with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment to outcomes with the most recent regimen on which the patient had progressed.
The overall response rate was 88% with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment and 24% with the patients’ most recent previous treatment regimen (odds ratio=24.38; 95%, CI 3.99–125.4; P=0.0013).
None of the patients had progressive disease as their best overall response when they received pharmacoscopy-guided treatment. However, 7 patients had progressive disease in response to their most recent prior regimen.
At the time of analysis, 8 patients (47%) still had ongoing responses after pharmacoscopy-guided treatment.
In addition, pharmacoscopy-guided treatment significantly improved PFS. The median PFS was 22.6 weeks with pharmacoscopy-guided treatment and 5.7 weeks with the most recent prior regimen (hazard ratio=3.14; 95%, CI 1.37–7.22; P=0.0075).
“Evidence that the pharmacoscopy approach is helpful for clinical evaluation of therapy is wonderful,” said study author Giulio Superti-Furga, PhD, of CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine in Vienna, Austria.
“Single-cell functional analysis of primary material gives unprecedented resolution and precision that we are sure to further develop in the future to address yet more diseases.”
CD22 CAR activity in B-ALL highlights promise of multispecific CARs
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A new CD22-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) demonstrated clinical activity in a phase 1 study of adults and children with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), including several who were previously treated with CD19-directed immunotherapy.
In 21 children and adults with B-ALL who were treated with the CD22 CAR, dose-dependent antileukemic activity was observed; complete remission occurred in 11 of 15 (73%) who received bioactive doses (at least 1 x 106 CD22 CAR T-cells per kg of body weight), including 5 of 5 patients with CD19dim or CD19neg B-ALL, Terry J. Fry, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues reported in Nature Medicine (2017 Nov 20. doi: 10.1038.nm.4441).
This study is the first to establish the clinical activity of a CD22 CAR in B-ALL. The investigators developed the CAR in an effort to counter the resistance sometimes seen in patients who receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. CD22 is also expressed in most B-ALL cases – and usually is retained following CD19 loss, they explained.
The findings, when considered in light of efficacy demonstrated in leukemia that is resistant to anti-CD19 immunotherapy, highlights the potential for – and importance of – developing multispecific CARs, Crystal L. Mackall, MD, the senior author of the study, said during an update on CAR T-cell research at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“All in all, once we got to the dose that was appropriate ... this CAR had really impressive activity,” said Dr. Mackall, director of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Stanford (Calif.) University. “In some patients, this was all the patient needed for a prolonged disease-free interval.”
Three patients had ongoing responses, at 21 months, 9 months, and 6 months, she said. There was a high rate of relapse among the study participants, but all patients had previously received at least one bone marrow transplant, and 17 had received CD19-based immunotherapy.
“But nonetheless, the interrogation of these relapses was really essential to understand more about the Achilles heels of these CAR T-cells,” she said. “What we saw is that it was all about the antigen.”
Unlike CD19, which tends to disappear after relapse, CD22-expressing tumors that relapse tend to come back with “simply lower expression of CD22,” she said. The CD22 CAR was unable to control the CD22lo leukemias. This is not unique to the CD22 CAR, she said.
“Every CAR we’ve looked at so far has this exquisite dependence on antigen density for functionality,” she explained, noting that heterogeneity in antigen expression will pose major challenges for the development of therapies, and “maybe has been one of the main reasons we haven’t yet seen the effectiveness of CAR T-cells in solid tumors that we have for hematological malignancies where we’ve typically had targets that are expressed homogenously and at high levels.”
“So we believe very strongly that multispecific CARS are going to be essential for progress, especially as we move into solid tumors,” she added.
Early attempts at developing multispecific CARS suggest that coadministration is not ideal, but two other approaches – coexpression using two vectors or a bicistronic vector, or by creation of a bivalent-bispecific CAR (also known as a tandem CAR) – are both still on the table, she said.
Two clinical first-in-human trials evaluating a CD19/22-bispecific CAR (one in children and one in adults) for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies are underway at Stanford.
“We predict that this is going to be the beginning of a wave of bispecific, trispecific, and maybe even quad CARs,” she said. “There’s a lot of work to do, but this is an area that’s going to be very active in the coming years.”
Dr. Mackall has received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, GSK, Roche, Unum Therapeutics, and Vore Pharmaceuticals; has conducted research for Bluebird Bio; and has ownership interest from Juno Therapeutics.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A new CD22-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) demonstrated clinical activity in a phase 1 study of adults and children with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), including several who were previously treated with CD19-directed immunotherapy.
In 21 children and adults with B-ALL who were treated with the CD22 CAR, dose-dependent antileukemic activity was observed; complete remission occurred in 11 of 15 (73%) who received bioactive doses (at least 1 x 106 CD22 CAR T-cells per kg of body weight), including 5 of 5 patients with CD19dim or CD19neg B-ALL, Terry J. Fry, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues reported in Nature Medicine (2017 Nov 20. doi: 10.1038.nm.4441).
This study is the first to establish the clinical activity of a CD22 CAR in B-ALL. The investigators developed the CAR in an effort to counter the resistance sometimes seen in patients who receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. CD22 is also expressed in most B-ALL cases – and usually is retained following CD19 loss, they explained.
The findings, when considered in light of efficacy demonstrated in leukemia that is resistant to anti-CD19 immunotherapy, highlights the potential for – and importance of – developing multispecific CARs, Crystal L. Mackall, MD, the senior author of the study, said during an update on CAR T-cell research at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“All in all, once we got to the dose that was appropriate ... this CAR had really impressive activity,” said Dr. Mackall, director of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Stanford (Calif.) University. “In some patients, this was all the patient needed for a prolonged disease-free interval.”
Three patients had ongoing responses, at 21 months, 9 months, and 6 months, she said. There was a high rate of relapse among the study participants, but all patients had previously received at least one bone marrow transplant, and 17 had received CD19-based immunotherapy.
“But nonetheless, the interrogation of these relapses was really essential to understand more about the Achilles heels of these CAR T-cells,” she said. “What we saw is that it was all about the antigen.”
Unlike CD19, which tends to disappear after relapse, CD22-expressing tumors that relapse tend to come back with “simply lower expression of CD22,” she said. The CD22 CAR was unable to control the CD22lo leukemias. This is not unique to the CD22 CAR, she said.
“Every CAR we’ve looked at so far has this exquisite dependence on antigen density for functionality,” she explained, noting that heterogeneity in antigen expression will pose major challenges for the development of therapies, and “maybe has been one of the main reasons we haven’t yet seen the effectiveness of CAR T-cells in solid tumors that we have for hematological malignancies where we’ve typically had targets that are expressed homogenously and at high levels.”
“So we believe very strongly that multispecific CARS are going to be essential for progress, especially as we move into solid tumors,” she added.
Early attempts at developing multispecific CARS suggest that coadministration is not ideal, but two other approaches – coexpression using two vectors or a bicistronic vector, or by creation of a bivalent-bispecific CAR (also known as a tandem CAR) – are both still on the table, she said.
Two clinical first-in-human trials evaluating a CD19/22-bispecific CAR (one in children and one in adults) for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies are underway at Stanford.
“We predict that this is going to be the beginning of a wave of bispecific, trispecific, and maybe even quad CARs,” she said. “There’s a lot of work to do, but this is an area that’s going to be very active in the coming years.”
Dr. Mackall has received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, GSK, Roche, Unum Therapeutics, and Vore Pharmaceuticals; has conducted research for Bluebird Bio; and has ownership interest from Juno Therapeutics.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A new CD22-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) demonstrated clinical activity in a phase 1 study of adults and children with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), including several who were previously treated with CD19-directed immunotherapy.
In 21 children and adults with B-ALL who were treated with the CD22 CAR, dose-dependent antileukemic activity was observed; complete remission occurred in 11 of 15 (73%) who received bioactive doses (at least 1 x 106 CD22 CAR T-cells per kg of body weight), including 5 of 5 patients with CD19dim or CD19neg B-ALL, Terry J. Fry, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues reported in Nature Medicine (2017 Nov 20. doi: 10.1038.nm.4441).
This study is the first to establish the clinical activity of a CD22 CAR in B-ALL. The investigators developed the CAR in an effort to counter the resistance sometimes seen in patients who receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. CD22 is also expressed in most B-ALL cases – and usually is retained following CD19 loss, they explained.
The findings, when considered in light of efficacy demonstrated in leukemia that is resistant to anti-CD19 immunotherapy, highlights the potential for – and importance of – developing multispecific CARs, Crystal L. Mackall, MD, the senior author of the study, said during an update on CAR T-cell research at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“All in all, once we got to the dose that was appropriate ... this CAR had really impressive activity,” said Dr. Mackall, director of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Stanford (Calif.) University. “In some patients, this was all the patient needed for a prolonged disease-free interval.”
Three patients had ongoing responses, at 21 months, 9 months, and 6 months, she said. There was a high rate of relapse among the study participants, but all patients had previously received at least one bone marrow transplant, and 17 had received CD19-based immunotherapy.
“But nonetheless, the interrogation of these relapses was really essential to understand more about the Achilles heels of these CAR T-cells,” she said. “What we saw is that it was all about the antigen.”
Unlike CD19, which tends to disappear after relapse, CD22-expressing tumors that relapse tend to come back with “simply lower expression of CD22,” she said. The CD22 CAR was unable to control the CD22lo leukemias. This is not unique to the CD22 CAR, she said.
“Every CAR we’ve looked at so far has this exquisite dependence on antigen density for functionality,” she explained, noting that heterogeneity in antigen expression will pose major challenges for the development of therapies, and “maybe has been one of the main reasons we haven’t yet seen the effectiveness of CAR T-cells in solid tumors that we have for hematological malignancies where we’ve typically had targets that are expressed homogenously and at high levels.”
“So we believe very strongly that multispecific CARS are going to be essential for progress, especially as we move into solid tumors,” she added.
Early attempts at developing multispecific CARS suggest that coadministration is not ideal, but two other approaches – coexpression using two vectors or a bicistronic vector, or by creation of a bivalent-bispecific CAR (also known as a tandem CAR) – are both still on the table, she said.
Two clinical first-in-human trials evaluating a CD19/22-bispecific CAR (one in children and one in adults) for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies are underway at Stanford.
“We predict that this is going to be the beginning of a wave of bispecific, trispecific, and maybe even quad CARs,” she said. “There’s a lot of work to do, but this is an area that’s going to be very active in the coming years.”
Dr. Mackall has received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, GSK, Roche, Unum Therapeutics, and Vore Pharmaceuticals; has conducted research for Bluebird Bio; and has ownership interest from Juno Therapeutics.
AT SITC 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Complete remission occurred in 73% of patients who received bioactive doses of the CD22 CAR.
Data source: A phase 1 study of 21 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Mackall has received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, GSK, Roche, Unum Therapeutics, and Vore Pharmaceuticals; has conducted research for Bluebird Bio; and has ownership interest from Juno Therapeutics.
CAR T-cell therapy: Moving from cost to value
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has generated a great deal of excitement in recent months with the approval of Novartis’ Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Kite Pharma’s Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, and experts in the field foresee a wave of approvals for additional indications in the coming months.
“CAR T is coming unbelievably fast,” Richard Maziarz, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, said in an interview.
In fact, a search of clinicaltrials.gov revealed 120 open CAR T-cell–based therapy trials for cancer and other conditions such as autoimmune diseases, he said.
Price tag pressure
During a plenary session on genetically modified cell therapies at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, experts and investigators provided a glimpse of what’s in store, including new targets and smarter targeting and combinations that incorporate CAR T-cell therapy to treat solid tumors.
The “list price” for tisagenlecleucel is $475,000, and the potential patient pool is in the hundreds. The price for axicabtagene ciloleucel is $373,000, with a potential market in the thousands. Taking this into account, the global CAR T market is estimated at about $72 million and is projected to expand to nearly $3.5 billion in the next decade, said Dr. Maziarz, who is also chair of the Value and Health Economics Interest Group of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
The market for adoptive cell therapy overall – including transplant, CAR T, natural killer cells, and cell vaccines – is projected by some individuals to be worth $30 billion by 2030, he added, noting, for the sake of comparison, that the total estimated U.S. expenditure for all cancer care in the United States in 2010 was $125 billion.
At the heart of the issue of cost is the matter of value, he said.
“You can talk about price, and you can talk about cost, but … what we want to do with our dollars is buy value – and quality and value are very hard to measure,” he said, noting that he expects public and governmental backlash, as was seen with prior high-cost treatments such as Sovaldi for hepatitis C and Glybera for lipoprotein lipase deficiency.
Value-based payment is a recurrent theme in medicine, and these treatments came under intense scrutiny for their high costs. Sovaldi, for example, costs approximately $90,000 for a treatment course. That sounds like a lot of money, but it cures the disease and can prevent long-term complications, Dr. Maziarz said. Still, it received a lot of negative press, and the backlash was severe.
“People do respond to price,” he said, noting that he predicts the same for CAR T-cell therapies.
The costs of CAR T-cell therapy, particularly when taking into consideration the costs that hospitals will incur given the lymphodepletion that patients experience and the after-care required, will likely exceed those of most stem cell transplants and could easily reach the $1 million-plus estimates, Helen Heslop, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics and director of the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
Aside from the research and development costs, these treatments also cost more to make than any others previously made, according to Carl H. June, MD, the Richard W. Vague Professor In Immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a pioneer in CAR T-cell research.
Dr. June predicted that costs will be forced down over time because of process improvements and competition. “What’s unknown is the time span on how long it will take,” he said in an interview.
Groups like the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are already looking at value-based approaches to providing CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Heslop said.
“I think there will need to be a lot more comparative effectiveness analyses done,” she said. “I know my institution started to look at the cost in a child with ALL once they relapse, and when you look at all the downstream cost, even though [CAR T-cell therapy] sounds very expensive, as a one-time therapy versus much longer treatment, it may actually be value based,” she said.
When it comes to improving access, one of the approaches being studied is the use of universal cell banks as opposed to autologous cells for therapy. This “off-the-shelf” approach, much like the approach used in transfusion medicine, would allow for quicker availability of the cells to a greater number of patients, she said.
Dr. June who, along with Dr. Heslop, cochaired the SITC plenary session on genetically modified cell therapy, agreed, saying that if this approach works with T cells, it would radically change the CAR T landscape in terms of availability and, perhaps – eventually – cost.
Preliminary results from phase I studies (CALM and PALL) of this approach will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The studies are a joint effort by Servier and Cellectis, which joined forces in the development of UCART19, an allogeneic CAR-T product for the treatment of CD19-expressing B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Still, value remains an important consideration. If a therapy is expected to extend a pancreatic cancer patient’s life by a month, it’s probably valid to ask if that is cost effective, but if it is potentially curative for a patient with hematologic malignancy, it’s very hard to say they can’t access it, Dr. Heslop said.
Cost-saving proposals
Efforts to address the cost concerns, including proposals for novel payment strategies, are already emerging. One example involves an offer by Novartis to charge for Kymriah only if treated patients go into remission within 1 month. Details of the plan haven’t been released.
Another approach is being considered in Europe and involves a graduated payment system for an investigational regulatory T cell therapy for autoimmune disease, Dr. Maziarz said. For example, if the drug costs $1 million, the government might pay $200,000 the first year and then $100,000 per year if the patient is cured. “If the patient relapses, they can stop their payment, as cure was not achieved,” he explained.
In many discussions about value, the definition is based on quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, he said. A recent statement from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association on cost/value methodology, for example, used $50,000 per QALY gained as the cut-off for a good investment. Costs of $50,000 to less than $150,000 per QALY were considered to be of intermediate value, and costs of $150,000 or greater per QALY gained were considered to be of low value.
“A number of payers are using these guidelines to determine what drugs they will put on their portfolio and make available to enrollees,” Dr. Maziarz said.
In anticipation of cost-related issues with CAR T-cell therapy, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and its California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAP) put out a request for information and input regarding their intent to collaboratively initiate an assessment of CAR T-cell effectiveness and value, he said.
In the meantime, Dr. Maziarz said that most private insurers he’s been in contact with are planning coverage of CAR T-cell therapy but are working out the details of how to do it.
“It’s typically going to involve very, very strict guidelines for the patients who go on therapy – it’s not going to be a liberal use of the product. It will involve strict adherence to the label,” he said.
The real challenge, however, will be in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, because of the current nature of the reimbursement structures and lack of clear procedural codes to define the effort and cost of care associated with the application of these novel cell therapies.
Walid F. Gellad, MD, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, anticipated some of these challenges in light of accelerated approval processes for expensive drugs and proposed in a May 2017 paper that government payers reimburse only the cost of manufacturing and some predetermined mark-up for such drugs until confirmatory trials demonstrate clinical benefit (N Engl J Med. 2017;376[21]:2001-04).
“Both Yescarta and Kymriah are approved with very, very, very limited data – 100 patients, 80 patients. They absolutely look promising. I was part of those studies, so I’m a believer, but the classic approach to determining success in the medical community is a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Maziarz said.
The proposal by Dr. Gellad and Dr. Kesselheim acknowledged this, and said perhaps full payment isn’t warranted while the drugs remain in development and until they are proven to be a good investment.
Their proposal also calls for an economic impact analysis after 1-2 years on the market for all accelerated-approval pathway drugs that cost over a predetermined amount, timely and optimally designed confirmatory trials following accelerated approval to limit the period of uncertainty about the true clinical effect of the drug, and additional price concessions to public insurance programs for such drugs until the confirmatory trials are completed. Under this proposal, the unpaid portion of drug costs would be held in escrow until the drug’s efficacy is confirmed.
“I think what’s going to happen is that, as prices and costs go up for any therapy, that backlash will occur. These types of proposals to create solutions will come not from individual companies, but from the government,” Dr. Maziarz said. “I’m 100% excited about the work. I’m extremely excited to be part of the explorations. … I just still think we have to at least try to be aware and cognizant of the issues that we’ll be facing.”
Dr. Maziarz has received consulting fees from Novartis, Juno Therapeutics, and Kite Pharma. Dr. Heslop has received consulting fees from Novartis, has conducted research for Cell Medica and holds intellectual property rights/patent from Cell Medica, and has ownership interest in ViraCyte and Marker Therapeutics. Dr. June received royalties from Novartis, has conducted research for Novartis, and has ownership interest in Tmunity Therapeutics.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has generated a great deal of excitement in recent months with the approval of Novartis’ Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Kite Pharma’s Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, and experts in the field foresee a wave of approvals for additional indications in the coming months.
“CAR T is coming unbelievably fast,” Richard Maziarz, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, said in an interview.
In fact, a search of clinicaltrials.gov revealed 120 open CAR T-cell–based therapy trials for cancer and other conditions such as autoimmune diseases, he said.
Price tag pressure
During a plenary session on genetically modified cell therapies at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, experts and investigators provided a glimpse of what’s in store, including new targets and smarter targeting and combinations that incorporate CAR T-cell therapy to treat solid tumors.
The “list price” for tisagenlecleucel is $475,000, and the potential patient pool is in the hundreds. The price for axicabtagene ciloleucel is $373,000, with a potential market in the thousands. Taking this into account, the global CAR T market is estimated at about $72 million and is projected to expand to nearly $3.5 billion in the next decade, said Dr. Maziarz, who is also chair of the Value and Health Economics Interest Group of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
The market for adoptive cell therapy overall – including transplant, CAR T, natural killer cells, and cell vaccines – is projected by some individuals to be worth $30 billion by 2030, he added, noting, for the sake of comparison, that the total estimated U.S. expenditure for all cancer care in the United States in 2010 was $125 billion.
At the heart of the issue of cost is the matter of value, he said.
“You can talk about price, and you can talk about cost, but … what we want to do with our dollars is buy value – and quality and value are very hard to measure,” he said, noting that he expects public and governmental backlash, as was seen with prior high-cost treatments such as Sovaldi for hepatitis C and Glybera for lipoprotein lipase deficiency.
Value-based payment is a recurrent theme in medicine, and these treatments came under intense scrutiny for their high costs. Sovaldi, for example, costs approximately $90,000 for a treatment course. That sounds like a lot of money, but it cures the disease and can prevent long-term complications, Dr. Maziarz said. Still, it received a lot of negative press, and the backlash was severe.
“People do respond to price,” he said, noting that he predicts the same for CAR T-cell therapies.
The costs of CAR T-cell therapy, particularly when taking into consideration the costs that hospitals will incur given the lymphodepletion that patients experience and the after-care required, will likely exceed those of most stem cell transplants and could easily reach the $1 million-plus estimates, Helen Heslop, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics and director of the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
Aside from the research and development costs, these treatments also cost more to make than any others previously made, according to Carl H. June, MD, the Richard W. Vague Professor In Immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a pioneer in CAR T-cell research.
Dr. June predicted that costs will be forced down over time because of process improvements and competition. “What’s unknown is the time span on how long it will take,” he said in an interview.
Groups like the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are already looking at value-based approaches to providing CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Heslop said.
“I think there will need to be a lot more comparative effectiveness analyses done,” she said. “I know my institution started to look at the cost in a child with ALL once they relapse, and when you look at all the downstream cost, even though [CAR T-cell therapy] sounds very expensive, as a one-time therapy versus much longer treatment, it may actually be value based,” she said.
When it comes to improving access, one of the approaches being studied is the use of universal cell banks as opposed to autologous cells for therapy. This “off-the-shelf” approach, much like the approach used in transfusion medicine, would allow for quicker availability of the cells to a greater number of patients, she said.
Dr. June who, along with Dr. Heslop, cochaired the SITC plenary session on genetically modified cell therapy, agreed, saying that if this approach works with T cells, it would radically change the CAR T landscape in terms of availability and, perhaps – eventually – cost.
Preliminary results from phase I studies (CALM and PALL) of this approach will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The studies are a joint effort by Servier and Cellectis, which joined forces in the development of UCART19, an allogeneic CAR-T product for the treatment of CD19-expressing B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Still, value remains an important consideration. If a therapy is expected to extend a pancreatic cancer patient’s life by a month, it’s probably valid to ask if that is cost effective, but if it is potentially curative for a patient with hematologic malignancy, it’s very hard to say they can’t access it, Dr. Heslop said.
Cost-saving proposals
Efforts to address the cost concerns, including proposals for novel payment strategies, are already emerging. One example involves an offer by Novartis to charge for Kymriah only if treated patients go into remission within 1 month. Details of the plan haven’t been released.
Another approach is being considered in Europe and involves a graduated payment system for an investigational regulatory T cell therapy for autoimmune disease, Dr. Maziarz said. For example, if the drug costs $1 million, the government might pay $200,000 the first year and then $100,000 per year if the patient is cured. “If the patient relapses, they can stop their payment, as cure was not achieved,” he explained.
In many discussions about value, the definition is based on quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, he said. A recent statement from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association on cost/value methodology, for example, used $50,000 per QALY gained as the cut-off for a good investment. Costs of $50,000 to less than $150,000 per QALY were considered to be of intermediate value, and costs of $150,000 or greater per QALY gained were considered to be of low value.
“A number of payers are using these guidelines to determine what drugs they will put on their portfolio and make available to enrollees,” Dr. Maziarz said.
In anticipation of cost-related issues with CAR T-cell therapy, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and its California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAP) put out a request for information and input regarding their intent to collaboratively initiate an assessment of CAR T-cell effectiveness and value, he said.
In the meantime, Dr. Maziarz said that most private insurers he’s been in contact with are planning coverage of CAR T-cell therapy but are working out the details of how to do it.
“It’s typically going to involve very, very strict guidelines for the patients who go on therapy – it’s not going to be a liberal use of the product. It will involve strict adherence to the label,” he said.
The real challenge, however, will be in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, because of the current nature of the reimbursement structures and lack of clear procedural codes to define the effort and cost of care associated with the application of these novel cell therapies.
Walid F. Gellad, MD, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, anticipated some of these challenges in light of accelerated approval processes for expensive drugs and proposed in a May 2017 paper that government payers reimburse only the cost of manufacturing and some predetermined mark-up for such drugs until confirmatory trials demonstrate clinical benefit (N Engl J Med. 2017;376[21]:2001-04).
“Both Yescarta and Kymriah are approved with very, very, very limited data – 100 patients, 80 patients. They absolutely look promising. I was part of those studies, so I’m a believer, but the classic approach to determining success in the medical community is a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Maziarz said.
The proposal by Dr. Gellad and Dr. Kesselheim acknowledged this, and said perhaps full payment isn’t warranted while the drugs remain in development and until they are proven to be a good investment.
Their proposal also calls for an economic impact analysis after 1-2 years on the market for all accelerated-approval pathway drugs that cost over a predetermined amount, timely and optimally designed confirmatory trials following accelerated approval to limit the period of uncertainty about the true clinical effect of the drug, and additional price concessions to public insurance programs for such drugs until the confirmatory trials are completed. Under this proposal, the unpaid portion of drug costs would be held in escrow until the drug’s efficacy is confirmed.
“I think what’s going to happen is that, as prices and costs go up for any therapy, that backlash will occur. These types of proposals to create solutions will come not from individual companies, but from the government,” Dr. Maziarz said. “I’m 100% excited about the work. I’m extremely excited to be part of the explorations. … I just still think we have to at least try to be aware and cognizant of the issues that we’ll be facing.”
Dr. Maziarz has received consulting fees from Novartis, Juno Therapeutics, and Kite Pharma. Dr. Heslop has received consulting fees from Novartis, has conducted research for Cell Medica and holds intellectual property rights/patent from Cell Medica, and has ownership interest in ViraCyte and Marker Therapeutics. Dr. June received royalties from Novartis, has conducted research for Novartis, and has ownership interest in Tmunity Therapeutics.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has generated a great deal of excitement in recent months with the approval of Novartis’ Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Kite Pharma’s Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, and experts in the field foresee a wave of approvals for additional indications in the coming months.
“CAR T is coming unbelievably fast,” Richard Maziarz, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, said in an interview.
In fact, a search of clinicaltrials.gov revealed 120 open CAR T-cell–based therapy trials for cancer and other conditions such as autoimmune diseases, he said.
Price tag pressure
During a plenary session on genetically modified cell therapies at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, experts and investigators provided a glimpse of what’s in store, including new targets and smarter targeting and combinations that incorporate CAR T-cell therapy to treat solid tumors.
The “list price” for tisagenlecleucel is $475,000, and the potential patient pool is in the hundreds. The price for axicabtagene ciloleucel is $373,000, with a potential market in the thousands. Taking this into account, the global CAR T market is estimated at about $72 million and is projected to expand to nearly $3.5 billion in the next decade, said Dr. Maziarz, who is also chair of the Value and Health Economics Interest Group of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
The market for adoptive cell therapy overall – including transplant, CAR T, natural killer cells, and cell vaccines – is projected by some individuals to be worth $30 billion by 2030, he added, noting, for the sake of comparison, that the total estimated U.S. expenditure for all cancer care in the United States in 2010 was $125 billion.
At the heart of the issue of cost is the matter of value, he said.
“You can talk about price, and you can talk about cost, but … what we want to do with our dollars is buy value – and quality and value are very hard to measure,” he said, noting that he expects public and governmental backlash, as was seen with prior high-cost treatments such as Sovaldi for hepatitis C and Glybera for lipoprotein lipase deficiency.
Value-based payment is a recurrent theme in medicine, and these treatments came under intense scrutiny for their high costs. Sovaldi, for example, costs approximately $90,000 for a treatment course. That sounds like a lot of money, but it cures the disease and can prevent long-term complications, Dr. Maziarz said. Still, it received a lot of negative press, and the backlash was severe.
“People do respond to price,” he said, noting that he predicts the same for CAR T-cell therapies.
The costs of CAR T-cell therapy, particularly when taking into consideration the costs that hospitals will incur given the lymphodepletion that patients experience and the after-care required, will likely exceed those of most stem cell transplants and could easily reach the $1 million-plus estimates, Helen Heslop, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics and director of the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
Aside from the research and development costs, these treatments also cost more to make than any others previously made, according to Carl H. June, MD, the Richard W. Vague Professor In Immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a pioneer in CAR T-cell research.
Dr. June predicted that costs will be forced down over time because of process improvements and competition. “What’s unknown is the time span on how long it will take,” he said in an interview.
Groups like the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are already looking at value-based approaches to providing CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Heslop said.
“I think there will need to be a lot more comparative effectiveness analyses done,” she said. “I know my institution started to look at the cost in a child with ALL once they relapse, and when you look at all the downstream cost, even though [CAR T-cell therapy] sounds very expensive, as a one-time therapy versus much longer treatment, it may actually be value based,” she said.
When it comes to improving access, one of the approaches being studied is the use of universal cell banks as opposed to autologous cells for therapy. This “off-the-shelf” approach, much like the approach used in transfusion medicine, would allow for quicker availability of the cells to a greater number of patients, she said.
Dr. June who, along with Dr. Heslop, cochaired the SITC plenary session on genetically modified cell therapy, agreed, saying that if this approach works with T cells, it would radically change the CAR T landscape in terms of availability and, perhaps – eventually – cost.
Preliminary results from phase I studies (CALM and PALL) of this approach will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The studies are a joint effort by Servier and Cellectis, which joined forces in the development of UCART19, an allogeneic CAR-T product for the treatment of CD19-expressing B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Still, value remains an important consideration. If a therapy is expected to extend a pancreatic cancer patient’s life by a month, it’s probably valid to ask if that is cost effective, but if it is potentially curative for a patient with hematologic malignancy, it’s very hard to say they can’t access it, Dr. Heslop said.
Cost-saving proposals
Efforts to address the cost concerns, including proposals for novel payment strategies, are already emerging. One example involves an offer by Novartis to charge for Kymriah only if treated patients go into remission within 1 month. Details of the plan haven’t been released.
Another approach is being considered in Europe and involves a graduated payment system for an investigational regulatory T cell therapy for autoimmune disease, Dr. Maziarz said. For example, if the drug costs $1 million, the government might pay $200,000 the first year and then $100,000 per year if the patient is cured. “If the patient relapses, they can stop their payment, as cure was not achieved,” he explained.
In many discussions about value, the definition is based on quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, he said. A recent statement from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association on cost/value methodology, for example, used $50,000 per QALY gained as the cut-off for a good investment. Costs of $50,000 to less than $150,000 per QALY were considered to be of intermediate value, and costs of $150,000 or greater per QALY gained were considered to be of low value.
“A number of payers are using these guidelines to determine what drugs they will put on their portfolio and make available to enrollees,” Dr. Maziarz said.
In anticipation of cost-related issues with CAR T-cell therapy, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and its California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAP) put out a request for information and input regarding their intent to collaboratively initiate an assessment of CAR T-cell effectiveness and value, he said.
In the meantime, Dr. Maziarz said that most private insurers he’s been in contact with are planning coverage of CAR T-cell therapy but are working out the details of how to do it.
“It’s typically going to involve very, very strict guidelines for the patients who go on therapy – it’s not going to be a liberal use of the product. It will involve strict adherence to the label,” he said.
The real challenge, however, will be in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, because of the current nature of the reimbursement structures and lack of clear procedural codes to define the effort and cost of care associated with the application of these novel cell therapies.
Walid F. Gellad, MD, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, anticipated some of these challenges in light of accelerated approval processes for expensive drugs and proposed in a May 2017 paper that government payers reimburse only the cost of manufacturing and some predetermined mark-up for such drugs until confirmatory trials demonstrate clinical benefit (N Engl J Med. 2017;376[21]:2001-04).
“Both Yescarta and Kymriah are approved with very, very, very limited data – 100 patients, 80 patients. They absolutely look promising. I was part of those studies, so I’m a believer, but the classic approach to determining success in the medical community is a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Maziarz said.
The proposal by Dr. Gellad and Dr. Kesselheim acknowledged this, and said perhaps full payment isn’t warranted while the drugs remain in development and until they are proven to be a good investment.
Their proposal also calls for an economic impact analysis after 1-2 years on the market for all accelerated-approval pathway drugs that cost over a predetermined amount, timely and optimally designed confirmatory trials following accelerated approval to limit the period of uncertainty about the true clinical effect of the drug, and additional price concessions to public insurance programs for such drugs until the confirmatory trials are completed. Under this proposal, the unpaid portion of drug costs would be held in escrow until the drug’s efficacy is confirmed.
“I think what’s going to happen is that, as prices and costs go up for any therapy, that backlash will occur. These types of proposals to create solutions will come not from individual companies, but from the government,” Dr. Maziarz said. “I’m 100% excited about the work. I’m extremely excited to be part of the explorations. … I just still think we have to at least try to be aware and cognizant of the issues that we’ll be facing.”
Dr. Maziarz has received consulting fees from Novartis, Juno Therapeutics, and Kite Pharma. Dr. Heslop has received consulting fees from Novartis, has conducted research for Cell Medica and holds intellectual property rights/patent from Cell Medica, and has ownership interest in ViraCyte and Marker Therapeutics. Dr. June received royalties from Novartis, has conducted research for Novartis, and has ownership interest in Tmunity Therapeutics.
CD22-CAR therapy shows activity in rel/ref B-ALL
Researchers say they have reported the first results demonstrating clinical activity of a CD22-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
The team conducted a phase 1 study of the therapy in 21 children and adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
Twelve patients achieved a complete response (CR) to the treatment, with 3 patients still in CR at last follow-up.
Sixteen patients developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS), all grade 1 or 2.
Crystal Mackall, MD, of Stanford University in California, and her colleagues reported these results in Nature Medicine.*
“This is the first time that we’ve seen response rates anything like we achieved when we were first testing the CD19 CAR T therapy,” Dr Mackall said.
“We were all a little worried that we wouldn’t find anything comparable, but this study gives hope to the idea that there may be another similar, very potent treatment.”
Patients
Dr Mackall and her colleagues studied the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy in 21 patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. They had a median age of 19 (range, 7 to 30).
All of the patients had received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant at least once, and 2 patients had 2 prior transplants each. Seventeen patients had received prior CD19-directed immunotherapy. Fifteen had received CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 had received blinatumomab.
Lymphoblasts were CD19− or CD19dim in 10 patients (9 who had received a CD19-CAR and 1 treated with blinatumomab).
The median CD22 site density was 2839 molecules per cell (range, 613 to 13,452).
Dosing and DLTs
Patients received the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy at 1 of 3 dose levels:
- 0.3 × 106 CD22-CAR T cells per kg body weight (n=6)
- 1 × 106 cells per kg (n=13)
- 3 × 106 cells per kg (n=2).
There was 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at the first dose level. It was grade 3, self-limited, noninfectious diarrhea that occurred during CRS and resolved with supportive care.
The other DLT occurred in a patient who received treatment at the third dose level. This patient had grade 4 hypoxia that was associated with rapid disease progression. The patient required brief intubation, and the hypoxia was resolved within 24 hours of starting steroid treatment.
Based on these results, the second dose level became the recommended phase 2 dose.
Other adverse events
The researchers said the primary toxicity was CRS, which occurred in 16 patients. Nine patients had grade 1 CRS, and 7 had grade 2.
There were no cases of irreversible neurotoxicity or seizure reported. Among the first 16 patients with complete assessments, there were cases of transient visual hallucinations (n=2), mild unresponsiveness (n=1), mild disorientation (n=1), and mild to moderate pain (n=2). However, these incidents resolved by day 28.
One patient died from gram-negative rod sepsis that developed after the resolution of CRS and neutrophil count recovery to >1000 cells/μL blood. The patient had a history of multi-organ failure due to sepsis.
Response
Twelve patients (57%) had a CR, and 9 of them were minimal residual disease negative.
One CR occurred at the lowest dose of therapy, 1 occurred at the highest dose, and the remaining 10 CRs occurred in patients who received dose level 2.
The researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that previous CD19-directed immunotherapy or diminished surface expression of CD19 impacted response to the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy.
Of the 9 patients who did not respond, 4 progressed and 5 had stable disease.
The researchers said 4 non-responders had “very high disease burden with rapid disease progression.” And 2 non-responders expressed diminished or partial CD22 on leukemic blasts at the time of enrollment.
The median duration of response was 6 months (range, 1.5 to 21+ months). Three patients are still in CR at 6, 9, and 21 months of follow-up.
“The take-home message is that we’ve found another CAR T-cell therapy that displays high-level activity in this phase 1 trial,” Dr Mackall said. “But the relapse rate was also high. So this forces the field to get even more sophisticated. How much of a target is needed for successful, long-lasting treatment? What happens if we target both CD19 and CD22 simultaneously?”
The researchers are already tackling the last question by testing a CAR T-cell therapy that recognizes both CD19 and CD22. They’ve confirmed this therapy can kill cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Now, they’re testing it in a clinical trial that has opened at Stanford University and will open soon at the National Cancer Institute.
*This research was supported, in part, by the Intramural Research Program, National Cancer Institute and NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health; by a Stand Up to Cancer–St. Baldrick’s Pediatric Dream Team translational research grant; and by a St. Baldrick’s Foundation Scholar Award.
Researchers say they have reported the first results demonstrating clinical activity of a CD22-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
The team conducted a phase 1 study of the therapy in 21 children and adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
Twelve patients achieved a complete response (CR) to the treatment, with 3 patients still in CR at last follow-up.
Sixteen patients developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS), all grade 1 or 2.
Crystal Mackall, MD, of Stanford University in California, and her colleagues reported these results in Nature Medicine.*
“This is the first time that we’ve seen response rates anything like we achieved when we were first testing the CD19 CAR T therapy,” Dr Mackall said.
“We were all a little worried that we wouldn’t find anything comparable, but this study gives hope to the idea that there may be another similar, very potent treatment.”
Patients
Dr Mackall and her colleagues studied the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy in 21 patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. They had a median age of 19 (range, 7 to 30).
All of the patients had received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant at least once, and 2 patients had 2 prior transplants each. Seventeen patients had received prior CD19-directed immunotherapy. Fifteen had received CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 had received blinatumomab.
Lymphoblasts were CD19− or CD19dim in 10 patients (9 who had received a CD19-CAR and 1 treated with blinatumomab).
The median CD22 site density was 2839 molecules per cell (range, 613 to 13,452).
Dosing and DLTs
Patients received the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy at 1 of 3 dose levels:
- 0.3 × 106 CD22-CAR T cells per kg body weight (n=6)
- 1 × 106 cells per kg (n=13)
- 3 × 106 cells per kg (n=2).
There was 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at the first dose level. It was grade 3, self-limited, noninfectious diarrhea that occurred during CRS and resolved with supportive care.
The other DLT occurred in a patient who received treatment at the third dose level. This patient had grade 4 hypoxia that was associated with rapid disease progression. The patient required brief intubation, and the hypoxia was resolved within 24 hours of starting steroid treatment.
Based on these results, the second dose level became the recommended phase 2 dose.
Other adverse events
The researchers said the primary toxicity was CRS, which occurred in 16 patients. Nine patients had grade 1 CRS, and 7 had grade 2.
There were no cases of irreversible neurotoxicity or seizure reported. Among the first 16 patients with complete assessments, there were cases of transient visual hallucinations (n=2), mild unresponsiveness (n=1), mild disorientation (n=1), and mild to moderate pain (n=2). However, these incidents resolved by day 28.
One patient died from gram-negative rod sepsis that developed after the resolution of CRS and neutrophil count recovery to >1000 cells/μL blood. The patient had a history of multi-organ failure due to sepsis.
Response
Twelve patients (57%) had a CR, and 9 of them were minimal residual disease negative.
One CR occurred at the lowest dose of therapy, 1 occurred at the highest dose, and the remaining 10 CRs occurred in patients who received dose level 2.
The researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that previous CD19-directed immunotherapy or diminished surface expression of CD19 impacted response to the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy.
Of the 9 patients who did not respond, 4 progressed and 5 had stable disease.
The researchers said 4 non-responders had “very high disease burden with rapid disease progression.” And 2 non-responders expressed diminished or partial CD22 on leukemic blasts at the time of enrollment.
The median duration of response was 6 months (range, 1.5 to 21+ months). Three patients are still in CR at 6, 9, and 21 months of follow-up.
“The take-home message is that we’ve found another CAR T-cell therapy that displays high-level activity in this phase 1 trial,” Dr Mackall said. “But the relapse rate was also high. So this forces the field to get even more sophisticated. How much of a target is needed for successful, long-lasting treatment? What happens if we target both CD19 and CD22 simultaneously?”
The researchers are already tackling the last question by testing a CAR T-cell therapy that recognizes both CD19 and CD22. They’ve confirmed this therapy can kill cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Now, they’re testing it in a clinical trial that has opened at Stanford University and will open soon at the National Cancer Institute.
*This research was supported, in part, by the Intramural Research Program, National Cancer Institute and NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health; by a Stand Up to Cancer–St. Baldrick’s Pediatric Dream Team translational research grant; and by a St. Baldrick’s Foundation Scholar Award.
Researchers say they have reported the first results demonstrating clinical activity of a CD22-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
The team conducted a phase 1 study of the therapy in 21 children and adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
Twelve patients achieved a complete response (CR) to the treatment, with 3 patients still in CR at last follow-up.
Sixteen patients developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS), all grade 1 or 2.
Crystal Mackall, MD, of Stanford University in California, and her colleagues reported these results in Nature Medicine.*
“This is the first time that we’ve seen response rates anything like we achieved when we were first testing the CD19 CAR T therapy,” Dr Mackall said.
“We were all a little worried that we wouldn’t find anything comparable, but this study gives hope to the idea that there may be another similar, very potent treatment.”
Patients
Dr Mackall and her colleagues studied the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy in 21 patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. They had a median age of 19 (range, 7 to 30).
All of the patients had received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant at least once, and 2 patients had 2 prior transplants each. Seventeen patients had received prior CD19-directed immunotherapy. Fifteen had received CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 had received blinatumomab.
Lymphoblasts were CD19− or CD19dim in 10 patients (9 who had received a CD19-CAR and 1 treated with blinatumomab).
The median CD22 site density was 2839 molecules per cell (range, 613 to 13,452).
Dosing and DLTs
Patients received the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy at 1 of 3 dose levels:
- 0.3 × 106 CD22-CAR T cells per kg body weight (n=6)
- 1 × 106 cells per kg (n=13)
- 3 × 106 cells per kg (n=2).
There was 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at the first dose level. It was grade 3, self-limited, noninfectious diarrhea that occurred during CRS and resolved with supportive care.
The other DLT occurred in a patient who received treatment at the third dose level. This patient had grade 4 hypoxia that was associated with rapid disease progression. The patient required brief intubation, and the hypoxia was resolved within 24 hours of starting steroid treatment.
Based on these results, the second dose level became the recommended phase 2 dose.
Other adverse events
The researchers said the primary toxicity was CRS, which occurred in 16 patients. Nine patients had grade 1 CRS, and 7 had grade 2.
There were no cases of irreversible neurotoxicity or seizure reported. Among the first 16 patients with complete assessments, there were cases of transient visual hallucinations (n=2), mild unresponsiveness (n=1), mild disorientation (n=1), and mild to moderate pain (n=2). However, these incidents resolved by day 28.
One patient died from gram-negative rod sepsis that developed after the resolution of CRS and neutrophil count recovery to >1000 cells/μL blood. The patient had a history of multi-organ failure due to sepsis.
Response
Twelve patients (57%) had a CR, and 9 of them were minimal residual disease negative.
One CR occurred at the lowest dose of therapy, 1 occurred at the highest dose, and the remaining 10 CRs occurred in patients who received dose level 2.
The researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that previous CD19-directed immunotherapy or diminished surface expression of CD19 impacted response to the CD22-CAR T-cell therapy.
Of the 9 patients who did not respond, 4 progressed and 5 had stable disease.
The researchers said 4 non-responders had “very high disease burden with rapid disease progression.” And 2 non-responders expressed diminished or partial CD22 on leukemic blasts at the time of enrollment.
The median duration of response was 6 months (range, 1.5 to 21+ months). Three patients are still in CR at 6, 9, and 21 months of follow-up.
“The take-home message is that we’ve found another CAR T-cell therapy that displays high-level activity in this phase 1 trial,” Dr Mackall said. “But the relapse rate was also high. So this forces the field to get even more sophisticated. How much of a target is needed for successful, long-lasting treatment? What happens if we target both CD19 and CD22 simultaneously?”
The researchers are already tackling the last question by testing a CAR T-cell therapy that recognizes both CD19 and CD22. They’ve confirmed this therapy can kill cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Now, they’re testing it in a clinical trial that has opened at Stanford University and will open soon at the National Cancer Institute.
*This research was supported, in part, by the Intramural Research Program, National Cancer Institute and NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health; by a Stand Up to Cancer–St. Baldrick’s Pediatric Dream Team translational research grant; and by a St. Baldrick’s Foundation Scholar Award.
FDA approves generic clofarabine
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.’s Clofarabine Injection, a therapeutic equivalent generic version of Clolar® (clofarabine) Injection.
The generic drug is now approved to treat patients age 1 to 21 who have relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia and have received at least 2 prior treatment regimens.
Dr. Reddy’s Clofarabine Injection is available in single-dose, 20 mL flint vials containing 20 mg of clofarabine in 20 mL of solution (1 mg/mL).
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.’s Clofarabine Injection, a therapeutic equivalent generic version of Clolar® (clofarabine) Injection.
The generic drug is now approved to treat patients age 1 to 21 who have relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia and have received at least 2 prior treatment regimens.
Dr. Reddy’s Clofarabine Injection is available in single-dose, 20 mL flint vials containing 20 mg of clofarabine in 20 mL of solution (1 mg/mL).
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.’s Clofarabine Injection, a therapeutic equivalent generic version of Clolar® (clofarabine) Injection.
The generic drug is now approved to treat patients age 1 to 21 who have relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia and have received at least 2 prior treatment regimens.
Dr. Reddy’s Clofarabine Injection is available in single-dose, 20 mL flint vials containing 20 mg of clofarabine in 20 mL of solution (1 mg/mL).
Cancer patients with TKI-induced hypothyroidism had better survival rates
VICTORIA, B.C. – When it comes to the adverse effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), hypothyroidism appears to have a bright side, according to a retrospective cohort study among patients with nonthyroid cancers.
While taking one of these targeted agents, roughly a quarter of patients became overtly hypothyroid, an adverse effect that appears to be due in part to immune destruction. Risk was higher for women and earlier in therapy.
Relative to counterparts who remained euthyroid, overtly hypothyroid patients were 44% less likely to die after other factors were taken into account.
Hypothyroidism may reflect changes in immune activation, Dr. Angell proposed. “Additional studies may be helpful, both prospectively looking at the clinical importance of this finding [of survival benefit], and also potentially mechanistically, to understand the relationship between hypothyroidism and survival in these patients.”
“This is an innovative study that looked at an interesting clinical question,” observed session cochair Angela M. Leung, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and an endocrinologist at both UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.
Thyroid dysfunction is a well-known, common side effect of TKI therapy, Dr. Angell noted. “The possible mechanisms that have been suggested for this are direct toxicity on the thyroid gland, destructive thyroiditis, increased thyroid hormone clearance, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition, among others.”
Some previous research has suggested a possible survival benefit of TKI-induced hypothyroidism. But “there are limitations in our understanding of hypothyroidism in this setting, including the timing of onset, what risk factors there may be, and the effect of additional clinical variables on the survival effect seen,” Dr. Angell pointed out.
He and his coinvestigators studied 538 adult patients with nonthyroid cancers (mostly stage III or IV) who received a first TKI during 2000-2013 and were followed up through 2017. They excluded those who had preexisting thyroid disease or were on thyroid-related medications.
During TKI therapy, 26.7% of patients developed overt hypothyroidism, and another 13.2% developed subclinical hypothyroidism.
“For a given drug, patients were less likely to develop hypothyroidism when they were given it subsequent to another TKI, as opposed to it being the initial TKI,” Dr. Angell reported. But median time to onset of hypothyroidism was about 2.5 months, regardless.
Cumulative months of all TKI exposure during cancer treatment were not significantly associated with development of hypothyroidism.
In a multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to develop hypothyroidism if they were female (odds ratio, 1.99) and significantly less likely if they had a longer total time on treatment (OR, 0.98) or received a non-TKI VEGF inhibitor (OR, 0.43). Age, race, and cumulative TKI exposure did not influence the outcome.
In a second multivariate analysis, patients’ risk of death was significantly lower if they developed overt hypothyroidism (hazard ratio, 0.56; P less than .0001), but not if they developed subclinical hypothyroidism (HR, 0.79; P = .1655).
Treatment of hypothyroidism did not appear to influence survival, according to Dr. Angell. However, “there wasn’t a specific decision on who was treated, how they were treated, [or] when they were treated,” he said. “So, it is difficult within this cohort to look specifically at which cutoff would be ideal” for initiating treatment.
Similarly, thyroid function testing was not standardized in this retrospectively identified cohort, so it was not possible to determine how long patients were hypothyroid and whether that had an impact, according to Dr. Angell.
Dr. Angell had no relevant conflicts of interest.
VICTORIA, B.C. – When it comes to the adverse effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), hypothyroidism appears to have a bright side, according to a retrospective cohort study among patients with nonthyroid cancers.
While taking one of these targeted agents, roughly a quarter of patients became overtly hypothyroid, an adverse effect that appears to be due in part to immune destruction. Risk was higher for women and earlier in therapy.
Relative to counterparts who remained euthyroid, overtly hypothyroid patients were 44% less likely to die after other factors were taken into account.
Hypothyroidism may reflect changes in immune activation, Dr. Angell proposed. “Additional studies may be helpful, both prospectively looking at the clinical importance of this finding [of survival benefit], and also potentially mechanistically, to understand the relationship between hypothyroidism and survival in these patients.”
“This is an innovative study that looked at an interesting clinical question,” observed session cochair Angela M. Leung, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and an endocrinologist at both UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.
Thyroid dysfunction is a well-known, common side effect of TKI therapy, Dr. Angell noted. “The possible mechanisms that have been suggested for this are direct toxicity on the thyroid gland, destructive thyroiditis, increased thyroid hormone clearance, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition, among others.”
Some previous research has suggested a possible survival benefit of TKI-induced hypothyroidism. But “there are limitations in our understanding of hypothyroidism in this setting, including the timing of onset, what risk factors there may be, and the effect of additional clinical variables on the survival effect seen,” Dr. Angell pointed out.
He and his coinvestigators studied 538 adult patients with nonthyroid cancers (mostly stage III or IV) who received a first TKI during 2000-2013 and were followed up through 2017. They excluded those who had preexisting thyroid disease or were on thyroid-related medications.
During TKI therapy, 26.7% of patients developed overt hypothyroidism, and another 13.2% developed subclinical hypothyroidism.
“For a given drug, patients were less likely to develop hypothyroidism when they were given it subsequent to another TKI, as opposed to it being the initial TKI,” Dr. Angell reported. But median time to onset of hypothyroidism was about 2.5 months, regardless.
Cumulative months of all TKI exposure during cancer treatment were not significantly associated with development of hypothyroidism.
In a multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to develop hypothyroidism if they were female (odds ratio, 1.99) and significantly less likely if they had a longer total time on treatment (OR, 0.98) or received a non-TKI VEGF inhibitor (OR, 0.43). Age, race, and cumulative TKI exposure did not influence the outcome.
In a second multivariate analysis, patients’ risk of death was significantly lower if they developed overt hypothyroidism (hazard ratio, 0.56; P less than .0001), but not if they developed subclinical hypothyroidism (HR, 0.79; P = .1655).
Treatment of hypothyroidism did not appear to influence survival, according to Dr. Angell. However, “there wasn’t a specific decision on who was treated, how they were treated, [or] when they were treated,” he said. “So, it is difficult within this cohort to look specifically at which cutoff would be ideal” for initiating treatment.
Similarly, thyroid function testing was not standardized in this retrospectively identified cohort, so it was not possible to determine how long patients were hypothyroid and whether that had an impact, according to Dr. Angell.
Dr. Angell had no relevant conflicts of interest.
VICTORIA, B.C. – When it comes to the adverse effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), hypothyroidism appears to have a bright side, according to a retrospective cohort study among patients with nonthyroid cancers.
While taking one of these targeted agents, roughly a quarter of patients became overtly hypothyroid, an adverse effect that appears to be due in part to immune destruction. Risk was higher for women and earlier in therapy.
Relative to counterparts who remained euthyroid, overtly hypothyroid patients were 44% less likely to die after other factors were taken into account.
Hypothyroidism may reflect changes in immune activation, Dr. Angell proposed. “Additional studies may be helpful, both prospectively looking at the clinical importance of this finding [of survival benefit], and also potentially mechanistically, to understand the relationship between hypothyroidism and survival in these patients.”
“This is an innovative study that looked at an interesting clinical question,” observed session cochair Angela M. Leung, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and an endocrinologist at both UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.
Thyroid dysfunction is a well-known, common side effect of TKI therapy, Dr. Angell noted. “The possible mechanisms that have been suggested for this are direct toxicity on the thyroid gland, destructive thyroiditis, increased thyroid hormone clearance, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition, among others.”
Some previous research has suggested a possible survival benefit of TKI-induced hypothyroidism. But “there are limitations in our understanding of hypothyroidism in this setting, including the timing of onset, what risk factors there may be, and the effect of additional clinical variables on the survival effect seen,” Dr. Angell pointed out.
He and his coinvestigators studied 538 adult patients with nonthyroid cancers (mostly stage III or IV) who received a first TKI during 2000-2013 and were followed up through 2017. They excluded those who had preexisting thyroid disease or were on thyroid-related medications.
During TKI therapy, 26.7% of patients developed overt hypothyroidism, and another 13.2% developed subclinical hypothyroidism.
“For a given drug, patients were less likely to develop hypothyroidism when they were given it subsequent to another TKI, as opposed to it being the initial TKI,” Dr. Angell reported. But median time to onset of hypothyroidism was about 2.5 months, regardless.
Cumulative months of all TKI exposure during cancer treatment were not significantly associated with development of hypothyroidism.
In a multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to develop hypothyroidism if they were female (odds ratio, 1.99) and significantly less likely if they had a longer total time on treatment (OR, 0.98) or received a non-TKI VEGF inhibitor (OR, 0.43). Age, race, and cumulative TKI exposure did not influence the outcome.
In a second multivariate analysis, patients’ risk of death was significantly lower if they developed overt hypothyroidism (hazard ratio, 0.56; P less than .0001), but not if they developed subclinical hypothyroidism (HR, 0.79; P = .1655).
Treatment of hypothyroidism did not appear to influence survival, according to Dr. Angell. However, “there wasn’t a specific decision on who was treated, how they were treated, [or] when they were treated,” he said. “So, it is difficult within this cohort to look specifically at which cutoff would be ideal” for initiating treatment.
Similarly, thyroid function testing was not standardized in this retrospectively identified cohort, so it was not possible to determine how long patients were hypothyroid and whether that had an impact, according to Dr. Angell.
Dr. Angell had no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ATA 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Relative to peers who remained euthyroid, patients who developed overt hypothyroidism had a reduced risk of death (HR, 0.56; P less than .0001).
Data source: A retrospective cohort study of 538 adult patients with mainly advanced nonthyroid cancers treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor.
Disclosures: Dr. Angell had no relevant conflicts of interest.
In children with ALL, physical and emotional effects persist
Among children with average-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), those with impairments in physical and emotional functioning at 2 months after diagnosis are likely to have continuing difficulties over 2 years later, based on the results of a 594-patient study published online in Cancer (2017 Nov 7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31085).
Evaluations of quality of life and family functioning as early as 2 months after diagnosis identified those at highest risk of continued impairment, and can be used to target patients and their families for interventions and risk factor modification, the researchers said.
“These results provide a compelling rationale to screen patients for physical and emotional functioning early in therapy to target interventions toward patients at the highest risk of later impairment,” wrote lead author Daniel J. Zheng, MD, of the section of pediatric hematology-oncology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coauthors.
Dr. Zheng and his colleagues measured impairments in children with average-risk ALL using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales Version 4.0 (PedsQL4.0), a 23-item survey that measures a child’s quality of life, and the 12-question General Functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD-GF). Both are quick and low-cost screening measures that can be conducted in the clinic, they added. Evaluations occurred at approximately 2 months, 8 months, 17 months, 26 months, and 38 months (boys only) after diagnosis. The mean age of participants at diagnosis was 6.0 years (standard deviation, 1.6 years).
At 2 months after diagnosis, 36.5% of the children had impairments in physical functioning, and 26.2% had impairments in emotional functioning. The population norms for these measures are 2.3% for both scales, investigators wrote. At a 26-month evaluation, levels of impairment were still 11.9% for physical and 9.8% for emotional functioning.
Boys had an additional 38-month evaluation, at which time there were no significant differences in quality of life outcomes versus those observed at 26 months in the girls.
Unhealthy family functioning was a significant predictor of emotional impairment (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.1) in multivariate models controlling for age and sex.
Strategies are needed to “intervene early and help the substantial proportion of children” with quality of life impairments, the researchers said. In particular, family functioning is “potentially modifiable with early intervention,” as suggested by a series of promising studies of techniques such as stress management sessions for parents. Most techniques feature a “targeted family-centered approach to psychosocial needs” that includes “embedded psychologists” as part of the multidisciplinary cancer care team.
Study funding came from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Zheng reported funding from a Yale Medical Student research fellowship, while coauthors reported conflict of interest disclosures from entities including Amgen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, and Shire Pharmaceuticals.
Among children with average-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), those with impairments in physical and emotional functioning at 2 months after diagnosis are likely to have continuing difficulties over 2 years later, based on the results of a 594-patient study published online in Cancer (2017 Nov 7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31085).
Evaluations of quality of life and family functioning as early as 2 months after diagnosis identified those at highest risk of continued impairment, and can be used to target patients and their families for interventions and risk factor modification, the researchers said.
“These results provide a compelling rationale to screen patients for physical and emotional functioning early in therapy to target interventions toward patients at the highest risk of later impairment,” wrote lead author Daniel J. Zheng, MD, of the section of pediatric hematology-oncology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coauthors.
Dr. Zheng and his colleagues measured impairments in children with average-risk ALL using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales Version 4.0 (PedsQL4.0), a 23-item survey that measures a child’s quality of life, and the 12-question General Functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD-GF). Both are quick and low-cost screening measures that can be conducted in the clinic, they added. Evaluations occurred at approximately 2 months, 8 months, 17 months, 26 months, and 38 months (boys only) after diagnosis. The mean age of participants at diagnosis was 6.0 years (standard deviation, 1.6 years).
At 2 months after diagnosis, 36.5% of the children had impairments in physical functioning, and 26.2% had impairments in emotional functioning. The population norms for these measures are 2.3% for both scales, investigators wrote. At a 26-month evaluation, levels of impairment were still 11.9% for physical and 9.8% for emotional functioning.
Boys had an additional 38-month evaluation, at which time there were no significant differences in quality of life outcomes versus those observed at 26 months in the girls.
Unhealthy family functioning was a significant predictor of emotional impairment (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.1) in multivariate models controlling for age and sex.
Strategies are needed to “intervene early and help the substantial proportion of children” with quality of life impairments, the researchers said. In particular, family functioning is “potentially modifiable with early intervention,” as suggested by a series of promising studies of techniques such as stress management sessions for parents. Most techniques feature a “targeted family-centered approach to psychosocial needs” that includes “embedded psychologists” as part of the multidisciplinary cancer care team.
Study funding came from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Zheng reported funding from a Yale Medical Student research fellowship, while coauthors reported conflict of interest disclosures from entities including Amgen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, and Shire Pharmaceuticals.
Among children with average-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), those with impairments in physical and emotional functioning at 2 months after diagnosis are likely to have continuing difficulties over 2 years later, based on the results of a 594-patient study published online in Cancer (2017 Nov 7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31085).
Evaluations of quality of life and family functioning as early as 2 months after diagnosis identified those at highest risk of continued impairment, and can be used to target patients and their families for interventions and risk factor modification, the researchers said.
“These results provide a compelling rationale to screen patients for physical and emotional functioning early in therapy to target interventions toward patients at the highest risk of later impairment,” wrote lead author Daniel J. Zheng, MD, of the section of pediatric hematology-oncology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coauthors.
Dr. Zheng and his colleagues measured impairments in children with average-risk ALL using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales Version 4.0 (PedsQL4.0), a 23-item survey that measures a child’s quality of life, and the 12-question General Functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD-GF). Both are quick and low-cost screening measures that can be conducted in the clinic, they added. Evaluations occurred at approximately 2 months, 8 months, 17 months, 26 months, and 38 months (boys only) after diagnosis. The mean age of participants at diagnosis was 6.0 years (standard deviation, 1.6 years).
At 2 months after diagnosis, 36.5% of the children had impairments in physical functioning, and 26.2% had impairments in emotional functioning. The population norms for these measures are 2.3% for both scales, investigators wrote. At a 26-month evaluation, levels of impairment were still 11.9% for physical and 9.8% for emotional functioning.
Boys had an additional 38-month evaluation, at which time there were no significant differences in quality of life outcomes versus those observed at 26 months in the girls.
Unhealthy family functioning was a significant predictor of emotional impairment (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.1) in multivariate models controlling for age and sex.
Strategies are needed to “intervene early and help the substantial proportion of children” with quality of life impairments, the researchers said. In particular, family functioning is “potentially modifiable with early intervention,” as suggested by a series of promising studies of techniques such as stress management sessions for parents. Most techniques feature a “targeted family-centered approach to psychosocial needs” that includes “embedded psychologists” as part of the multidisciplinary cancer care team.
Study funding came from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Zheng reported funding from a Yale Medical Student research fellowship, while coauthors reported conflict of interest disclosures from entities including Amgen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, and Shire Pharmaceuticals.
FROM CANCER
Key clinical point: Simple
Major finding: At 26 months after diagnosis, a considerable proportion of children identified at 2 months after diagnosis still had impairments in physical functioning (11.9%) and emotional functioning (9.8%).
Data source: A prospective cohort study of 594 participants with average-risk ALL in the Children’s Oncology Group AALL0932 trial.
Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and St. Baldrick’s Foundation provided funding for the study.