User login
ALL: What Prompts A Post-Childhood ‘Survival Cliff’?
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
FROM ASH 2023
ALL: ASH Draws Up Tx Guidelines For Patients 15-39
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
FROM ASH 2023
ALL mortality gains bypass older adults
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
FROM ASH 2023
ALL: Asparaginase Tx Boosts Survival in AYA Patients
“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.
The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.
Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.
To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).
The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.
The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.
Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.
Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.
Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.
For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10–4).
The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.
Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.
Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.
Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.
“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”
“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”
The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.
“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.
“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”
Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”
Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”
Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.
Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.
“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.
The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.
Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.
To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).
The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.
The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.
Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.
Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.
Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.
For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10–4).
The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.
Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.
Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.
Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.
“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”
“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”
The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.
“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.
“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”
Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”
Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”
Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.
Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.
“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.
The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.
Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.
To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).
The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.
The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.
Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.
Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.
Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.
For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10–4).
The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.
Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.
Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.
Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.
“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”
“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”
The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.
“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.
“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”
Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”
Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”
Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.
Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.
FROM ASH 2023
FDA panel voices concerns over 2 lymphoma accelerated approvals
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
Study confirms small blood cancer risk from CT scans
The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.
This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.
These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.
Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.
The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.
A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.
Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.
The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.
Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.
“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.
This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.
These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.
Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.
The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.
A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.
Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.
The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.
Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.
“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.
This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.
These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.
Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.
The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.
A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.
Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.
The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.
Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.
“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
FDA’s Project Optimus aims to transform early cancer research
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
AT SITC 2023
T-cell cancers: CAR T therapy to the rescue?
As Baylor College of Medicine’s Max Mamonkin, PhD, noted in a presentation, patients with conditions such as T-cell lymphoma and T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have limited treatment options and grim prognoses. “This is an area with huge unmet need,” he said. “They don’t have options that patients with B-cell malignancies have, like [CAR T-cell therapy] and bispecifics.”
One big challenge is that CAR-targeted antigens in T-cell blood cancers are shared by both normal and malignant T-cells, he said. That poses a risk during therapy that the engineered cells will target each other with “disastrous consequences.”
Research by his team and others have shown that gene editing can help the cells to stop engaging in “fratricide,” Dr. Mamonkin said.
The problem is “it’s much easier to do gene editing on the bench and much harder to translate it into the clinic,” especially in light of limitations posed by the Food and Drug administration, he said. “We started to think about alternative methods to get this approach to the clinic.”
One strategy is to use pharmacologic inhibition via the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors ibrutinib and dasatinib to mute the tendency of CAR T toward self-destruction. When tested in mice, “the unedited cells not just persisted, they expanded with sustained anti-leukemic activity and significantly prolonged their lives even more than the knock-out [gene-edited] cells.”
The research has now moved to human subjects. In 2021, researchers at Texas Children’s Hospital and Houston Methodist Hospital launched a clinical trial to test CD7 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in 21 patients with CD7-positive T-cell lymphoma. The initial part of the transplant-enabling CRIMSON-NE study is expected to be completed by mid-2024, and patients will be followed for 15 years.
Early results show that CD7 CAR T-cells have persisted in the blood of patients over weeks and months, Dr. Mamonkin said. In eight patients, “we’re seeing good evidence of activity,” with two patients reaching complete remissions.
The findings suggest that CD7 can be targeted in T-cell malignancies, he said. What about CD5? A similar study known as MAGENTA is testing CD5 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in T-cell leukemia and lymphoma in 42 patients. The phase 1 trial began in 2017. It’s expected to be completed by 2024 and to track patients for 15 years.
Results so far have been positive with complete remission achieved in three of nine patients with T-cell lymphoma; two remained in remission for more than 4 years.
Results in T-cell ALL improved after researchers adjusted the manufacturing of the cells. As for durability in these patients, “we try to bridge them to transplantation as soon as possible.”
As for side effects overall, there wasn’t much immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and the CD7 approach seems to be more inflammatory, he said.
The presentation didn’t address the potential cost of the therapies. CAR T-cell therapy can cost between $500,000 and $1 million. Medicare covers it, but Medicaid may not depending on the state, and insurers may refuse to pay for it.
Dr. Mamonkin disclosed ties with Allogene, Amgen, Fate, Galapagos, March Bio, and NKILT.
As Baylor College of Medicine’s Max Mamonkin, PhD, noted in a presentation, patients with conditions such as T-cell lymphoma and T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have limited treatment options and grim prognoses. “This is an area with huge unmet need,” he said. “They don’t have options that patients with B-cell malignancies have, like [CAR T-cell therapy] and bispecifics.”
One big challenge is that CAR-targeted antigens in T-cell blood cancers are shared by both normal and malignant T-cells, he said. That poses a risk during therapy that the engineered cells will target each other with “disastrous consequences.”
Research by his team and others have shown that gene editing can help the cells to stop engaging in “fratricide,” Dr. Mamonkin said.
The problem is “it’s much easier to do gene editing on the bench and much harder to translate it into the clinic,” especially in light of limitations posed by the Food and Drug administration, he said. “We started to think about alternative methods to get this approach to the clinic.”
One strategy is to use pharmacologic inhibition via the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors ibrutinib and dasatinib to mute the tendency of CAR T toward self-destruction. When tested in mice, “the unedited cells not just persisted, they expanded with sustained anti-leukemic activity and significantly prolonged their lives even more than the knock-out [gene-edited] cells.”
The research has now moved to human subjects. In 2021, researchers at Texas Children’s Hospital and Houston Methodist Hospital launched a clinical trial to test CD7 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in 21 patients with CD7-positive T-cell lymphoma. The initial part of the transplant-enabling CRIMSON-NE study is expected to be completed by mid-2024, and patients will be followed for 15 years.
Early results show that CD7 CAR T-cells have persisted in the blood of patients over weeks and months, Dr. Mamonkin said. In eight patients, “we’re seeing good evidence of activity,” with two patients reaching complete remissions.
The findings suggest that CD7 can be targeted in T-cell malignancies, he said. What about CD5? A similar study known as MAGENTA is testing CD5 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in T-cell leukemia and lymphoma in 42 patients. The phase 1 trial began in 2017. It’s expected to be completed by 2024 and to track patients for 15 years.
Results so far have been positive with complete remission achieved in three of nine patients with T-cell lymphoma; two remained in remission for more than 4 years.
Results in T-cell ALL improved after researchers adjusted the manufacturing of the cells. As for durability in these patients, “we try to bridge them to transplantation as soon as possible.”
As for side effects overall, there wasn’t much immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and the CD7 approach seems to be more inflammatory, he said.
The presentation didn’t address the potential cost of the therapies. CAR T-cell therapy can cost between $500,000 and $1 million. Medicare covers it, but Medicaid may not depending on the state, and insurers may refuse to pay for it.
Dr. Mamonkin disclosed ties with Allogene, Amgen, Fate, Galapagos, March Bio, and NKILT.
As Baylor College of Medicine’s Max Mamonkin, PhD, noted in a presentation, patients with conditions such as T-cell lymphoma and T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have limited treatment options and grim prognoses. “This is an area with huge unmet need,” he said. “They don’t have options that patients with B-cell malignancies have, like [CAR T-cell therapy] and bispecifics.”
One big challenge is that CAR-targeted antigens in T-cell blood cancers are shared by both normal and malignant T-cells, he said. That poses a risk during therapy that the engineered cells will target each other with “disastrous consequences.”
Research by his team and others have shown that gene editing can help the cells to stop engaging in “fratricide,” Dr. Mamonkin said.
The problem is “it’s much easier to do gene editing on the bench and much harder to translate it into the clinic,” especially in light of limitations posed by the Food and Drug administration, he said. “We started to think about alternative methods to get this approach to the clinic.”
One strategy is to use pharmacologic inhibition via the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors ibrutinib and dasatinib to mute the tendency of CAR T toward self-destruction. When tested in mice, “the unedited cells not just persisted, they expanded with sustained anti-leukemic activity and significantly prolonged their lives even more than the knock-out [gene-edited] cells.”
The research has now moved to human subjects. In 2021, researchers at Texas Children’s Hospital and Houston Methodist Hospital launched a clinical trial to test CD7 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in 21 patients with CD7-positive T-cell lymphoma. The initial part of the transplant-enabling CRIMSON-NE study is expected to be completed by mid-2024, and patients will be followed for 15 years.
Early results show that CD7 CAR T-cells have persisted in the blood of patients over weeks and months, Dr. Mamonkin said. In eight patients, “we’re seeing good evidence of activity,” with two patients reaching complete remissions.
The findings suggest that CD7 can be targeted in T-cell malignancies, he said. What about CD5? A similar study known as MAGENTA is testing CD5 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in T-cell leukemia and lymphoma in 42 patients. The phase 1 trial began in 2017. It’s expected to be completed by 2024 and to track patients for 15 years.
Results so far have been positive with complete remission achieved in three of nine patients with T-cell lymphoma; two remained in remission for more than 4 years.
Results in T-cell ALL improved after researchers adjusted the manufacturing of the cells. As for durability in these patients, “we try to bridge them to transplantation as soon as possible.”
As for side effects overall, there wasn’t much immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and the CD7 approach seems to be more inflammatory, he said.
The presentation didn’t address the potential cost of the therapies. CAR T-cell therapy can cost between $500,000 and $1 million. Medicare covers it, but Medicaid may not depending on the state, and insurers may refuse to pay for it.
Dr. Mamonkin disclosed ties with Allogene, Amgen, Fate, Galapagos, March Bio, and NKILT.
FROM SITC 2023
Post-SCT, better survival in children with healthy gut diversity
“To the best of our knowledge, we present the first evidence of an association between pretransplantation lower gut microbiota diversity and poorer outcome in children undergoing allo-HSCT,” the authors report, in research published in the journal Blood. “Our findings underscore the importance of pre-transplant gut microbiota diversity and compositional structure in influencing allo-HSCT-related clinical outcomes in the pediatric setting.”
While allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be potentially curative of hematologic malignancies, the stem cell transplantation process can wreak havoc on gut microbiota, because of factors including the conditioning regimen, antibiotic exposure, and dietary changes.
Specifically, the process can cause a substantial decrease in necessary alpha diversity and a potential expansion of possibly pathogenic bacteria.
While poor gut microbiota diversity has been linked to higher mortality in adult patients receiving allo-HSCT, research on the effects in pediatric patients is lacking.
“The gut microbiota of children differs from adults’ one, and this accounts for the need for specific pediatric studies on the gut microbiota-to–allo-HSCT relationship,” the authors write.
For the multicenter study, first author Riccardo Masetti, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatric oncology and hematology at the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues analyzed the gut microbiota diversity of 90 pediatric allo-HSCT recipients at four centers in Italy and one in Poland, stratifying the patients into groups of higher and lower diversity pretransplantation and again at the time of neutrophil engraftment.
Overall, gut microbiota diversity significantly declined from before allo-HSCT to afterward, at the time of neutrophil engraftment (P < .0001), with lower diversity observed in patients 3 years of age or younger.
With a median follow-up of 52 months, compared with the lower diversity group, those with higher diversity prior to transplantation had a significantly higher probability of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .011), after adjustment for age, graft source, donor type, intensity of conditioning regimen, center, and type of disease, with estimated overall survival at 52 months after allo-HSCT of 88.9% for the higher diversity group and 62.7% for the lower diversity group.
The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GvHD was significantly lower for the higher diversity group versus lower diversity (20.0 versus 44.4, respectively; P = .017), as were the incidence rates of grade III-IV acute GvHD (2.2 versus 20.0; P = .007).
There were, however, no significant differences between the low and high diversity gut microbiota groups in relapse-free survival (P = .091).
The higher diversity group notably had higher relative abundances of potentially health-related bacterial families, including Ruminococcaceae and Oscillospiraceae, while the lower diversity group showed an overabundance of Enterococcaceae and Enterobacteriaceae.
Of note, the results differ from those observed in adults, among whom gut microbiota diversity before as well as after transplantation has been significantly associated with transplant outcomes, whereas with children, the association was limited to diversity prior to transplant.
In general, children have significantly lower diversity of gut microbiota than adults, with varying functional properties, and microbiota that is more easily modified by environmental factors, with larger changes occurring upon exposure to external stressors, the authors explain.
“Considering these different ecological properties compared to adults, we hypothesize that allo-HSCT–induced dysbiosis in the pediatric setting may imply loss of age-related gut microbiota signatures, including alpha diversity, with high interpatient variability,” they say.
Characteristics that were associated with higher or lower gut microbiota diversity prior to allo-HSCT included the treating center, suggesting that the geographical region may affect the diversity and the type of antibiotic exposure prior to the transplant.
Limitations included that “we didn’t assess other pretransplant characteristics such as the type of chemotherapy received, or the lifestyle, and this should be addressed in future studies on larger cohorts,” Dr. Masetti said in an interview.
While lengthy delays in screening of samples are barriers in the use of the gut microbiome as a tool in clinical practice, he noted that clinicians can take key measures to improve the microbiota.
“[Preventive measures] include the avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which has a detrimental effect on the microbiota,” he said. “Moreover, some dietary changes may promote microbiota health.”
In addition, key measures can be taken during the allo-HSCT to preserve the microbiota, he added.
“In our center, we use enteral nutrition with a nasogastric tube rather than parenteral nutrition, which helps the microbiota to recover faster,” Dr. Masetti explained. “Moreover, other interventional measures such as fecal microbiota transplantation or the use of probiotics are under testing.”
“In particular, our data emphasize the importance of an overall healthy network, rather than the abundance of specific families or genera, in preventing complications and unfavorable outcomes.”
Commenting on the study, Robert Jenq, MD, an assistant professor in the departments of genomic medicine and stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, noted that with the growing evidence of the effects of poor gut microbiota diversity on clinical outcomes, multiple early-phase clinical trials are being conducted to test various strategies to prevent or treat gut injury.
“I’m not aware of any one approach that has shown enough promise to warrant being tested in multicenter studies yet, but it’s still a bit early,” Dr. Jenq said.“In the meantime, discontinuing or de-escalating antibiotics when medically safe, and encouraging patients to eat as much as they’re able to is a reasonable recommendation.”
Dr. Jenq added that, with most of the data on the issue being retrospective, a causative role has not been established, and “the finding of an association between the gut microbiota composition and survival, while interesting and provocative, does not provide evidence that intervening on the gut microbiota will lead to a clinical benefit.”
“I’m hopeful that randomized clinical trials will eventually demonstrate that we can protect or restore the gut microbiota, and this will lead to substantial clinical benefits, but this remains to be seen,” he said.
The authors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Jenq is an advisor for Seres Therapeutics, Prolacta Biosciences, and MaaT Pharma.
“To the best of our knowledge, we present the first evidence of an association between pretransplantation lower gut microbiota diversity and poorer outcome in children undergoing allo-HSCT,” the authors report, in research published in the journal Blood. “Our findings underscore the importance of pre-transplant gut microbiota diversity and compositional structure in influencing allo-HSCT-related clinical outcomes in the pediatric setting.”
While allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be potentially curative of hematologic malignancies, the stem cell transplantation process can wreak havoc on gut microbiota, because of factors including the conditioning regimen, antibiotic exposure, and dietary changes.
Specifically, the process can cause a substantial decrease in necessary alpha diversity and a potential expansion of possibly pathogenic bacteria.
While poor gut microbiota diversity has been linked to higher mortality in adult patients receiving allo-HSCT, research on the effects in pediatric patients is lacking.
“The gut microbiota of children differs from adults’ one, and this accounts for the need for specific pediatric studies on the gut microbiota-to–allo-HSCT relationship,” the authors write.
For the multicenter study, first author Riccardo Masetti, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatric oncology and hematology at the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues analyzed the gut microbiota diversity of 90 pediatric allo-HSCT recipients at four centers in Italy and one in Poland, stratifying the patients into groups of higher and lower diversity pretransplantation and again at the time of neutrophil engraftment.
Overall, gut microbiota diversity significantly declined from before allo-HSCT to afterward, at the time of neutrophil engraftment (P < .0001), with lower diversity observed in patients 3 years of age or younger.
With a median follow-up of 52 months, compared with the lower diversity group, those with higher diversity prior to transplantation had a significantly higher probability of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .011), after adjustment for age, graft source, donor type, intensity of conditioning regimen, center, and type of disease, with estimated overall survival at 52 months after allo-HSCT of 88.9% for the higher diversity group and 62.7% for the lower diversity group.
The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GvHD was significantly lower for the higher diversity group versus lower diversity (20.0 versus 44.4, respectively; P = .017), as were the incidence rates of grade III-IV acute GvHD (2.2 versus 20.0; P = .007).
There were, however, no significant differences between the low and high diversity gut microbiota groups in relapse-free survival (P = .091).
The higher diversity group notably had higher relative abundances of potentially health-related bacterial families, including Ruminococcaceae and Oscillospiraceae, while the lower diversity group showed an overabundance of Enterococcaceae and Enterobacteriaceae.
Of note, the results differ from those observed in adults, among whom gut microbiota diversity before as well as after transplantation has been significantly associated with transplant outcomes, whereas with children, the association was limited to diversity prior to transplant.
In general, children have significantly lower diversity of gut microbiota than adults, with varying functional properties, and microbiota that is more easily modified by environmental factors, with larger changes occurring upon exposure to external stressors, the authors explain.
“Considering these different ecological properties compared to adults, we hypothesize that allo-HSCT–induced dysbiosis in the pediatric setting may imply loss of age-related gut microbiota signatures, including alpha diversity, with high interpatient variability,” they say.
Characteristics that were associated with higher or lower gut microbiota diversity prior to allo-HSCT included the treating center, suggesting that the geographical region may affect the diversity and the type of antibiotic exposure prior to the transplant.
Limitations included that “we didn’t assess other pretransplant characteristics such as the type of chemotherapy received, or the lifestyle, and this should be addressed in future studies on larger cohorts,” Dr. Masetti said in an interview.
While lengthy delays in screening of samples are barriers in the use of the gut microbiome as a tool in clinical practice, he noted that clinicians can take key measures to improve the microbiota.
“[Preventive measures] include the avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which has a detrimental effect on the microbiota,” he said. “Moreover, some dietary changes may promote microbiota health.”
In addition, key measures can be taken during the allo-HSCT to preserve the microbiota, he added.
“In our center, we use enteral nutrition with a nasogastric tube rather than parenteral nutrition, which helps the microbiota to recover faster,” Dr. Masetti explained. “Moreover, other interventional measures such as fecal microbiota transplantation or the use of probiotics are under testing.”
“In particular, our data emphasize the importance of an overall healthy network, rather than the abundance of specific families or genera, in preventing complications and unfavorable outcomes.”
Commenting on the study, Robert Jenq, MD, an assistant professor in the departments of genomic medicine and stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, noted that with the growing evidence of the effects of poor gut microbiota diversity on clinical outcomes, multiple early-phase clinical trials are being conducted to test various strategies to prevent or treat gut injury.
“I’m not aware of any one approach that has shown enough promise to warrant being tested in multicenter studies yet, but it’s still a bit early,” Dr. Jenq said.“In the meantime, discontinuing or de-escalating antibiotics when medically safe, and encouraging patients to eat as much as they’re able to is a reasonable recommendation.”
Dr. Jenq added that, with most of the data on the issue being retrospective, a causative role has not been established, and “the finding of an association between the gut microbiota composition and survival, while interesting and provocative, does not provide evidence that intervening on the gut microbiota will lead to a clinical benefit.”
“I’m hopeful that randomized clinical trials will eventually demonstrate that we can protect or restore the gut microbiota, and this will lead to substantial clinical benefits, but this remains to be seen,” he said.
The authors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Jenq is an advisor for Seres Therapeutics, Prolacta Biosciences, and MaaT Pharma.
“To the best of our knowledge, we present the first evidence of an association between pretransplantation lower gut microbiota diversity and poorer outcome in children undergoing allo-HSCT,” the authors report, in research published in the journal Blood. “Our findings underscore the importance of pre-transplant gut microbiota diversity and compositional structure in influencing allo-HSCT-related clinical outcomes in the pediatric setting.”
While allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be potentially curative of hematologic malignancies, the stem cell transplantation process can wreak havoc on gut microbiota, because of factors including the conditioning regimen, antibiotic exposure, and dietary changes.
Specifically, the process can cause a substantial decrease in necessary alpha diversity and a potential expansion of possibly pathogenic bacteria.
While poor gut microbiota diversity has been linked to higher mortality in adult patients receiving allo-HSCT, research on the effects in pediatric patients is lacking.
“The gut microbiota of children differs from adults’ one, and this accounts for the need for specific pediatric studies on the gut microbiota-to–allo-HSCT relationship,” the authors write.
For the multicenter study, first author Riccardo Masetti, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatric oncology and hematology at the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues analyzed the gut microbiota diversity of 90 pediatric allo-HSCT recipients at four centers in Italy and one in Poland, stratifying the patients into groups of higher and lower diversity pretransplantation and again at the time of neutrophil engraftment.
Overall, gut microbiota diversity significantly declined from before allo-HSCT to afterward, at the time of neutrophil engraftment (P < .0001), with lower diversity observed in patients 3 years of age or younger.
With a median follow-up of 52 months, compared with the lower diversity group, those with higher diversity prior to transplantation had a significantly higher probability of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .011), after adjustment for age, graft source, donor type, intensity of conditioning regimen, center, and type of disease, with estimated overall survival at 52 months after allo-HSCT of 88.9% for the higher diversity group and 62.7% for the lower diversity group.
The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GvHD was significantly lower for the higher diversity group versus lower diversity (20.0 versus 44.4, respectively; P = .017), as were the incidence rates of grade III-IV acute GvHD (2.2 versus 20.0; P = .007).
There were, however, no significant differences between the low and high diversity gut microbiota groups in relapse-free survival (P = .091).
The higher diversity group notably had higher relative abundances of potentially health-related bacterial families, including Ruminococcaceae and Oscillospiraceae, while the lower diversity group showed an overabundance of Enterococcaceae and Enterobacteriaceae.
Of note, the results differ from those observed in adults, among whom gut microbiota diversity before as well as after transplantation has been significantly associated with transplant outcomes, whereas with children, the association was limited to diversity prior to transplant.
In general, children have significantly lower diversity of gut microbiota than adults, with varying functional properties, and microbiota that is more easily modified by environmental factors, with larger changes occurring upon exposure to external stressors, the authors explain.
“Considering these different ecological properties compared to adults, we hypothesize that allo-HSCT–induced dysbiosis in the pediatric setting may imply loss of age-related gut microbiota signatures, including alpha diversity, with high interpatient variability,” they say.
Characteristics that were associated with higher or lower gut microbiota diversity prior to allo-HSCT included the treating center, suggesting that the geographical region may affect the diversity and the type of antibiotic exposure prior to the transplant.
Limitations included that “we didn’t assess other pretransplant characteristics such as the type of chemotherapy received, or the lifestyle, and this should be addressed in future studies on larger cohorts,” Dr. Masetti said in an interview.
While lengthy delays in screening of samples are barriers in the use of the gut microbiome as a tool in clinical practice, he noted that clinicians can take key measures to improve the microbiota.
“[Preventive measures] include the avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which has a detrimental effect on the microbiota,” he said. “Moreover, some dietary changes may promote microbiota health.”
In addition, key measures can be taken during the allo-HSCT to preserve the microbiota, he added.
“In our center, we use enteral nutrition with a nasogastric tube rather than parenteral nutrition, which helps the microbiota to recover faster,” Dr. Masetti explained. “Moreover, other interventional measures such as fecal microbiota transplantation or the use of probiotics are under testing.”
“In particular, our data emphasize the importance of an overall healthy network, rather than the abundance of specific families or genera, in preventing complications and unfavorable outcomes.”
Commenting on the study, Robert Jenq, MD, an assistant professor in the departments of genomic medicine and stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, noted that with the growing evidence of the effects of poor gut microbiota diversity on clinical outcomes, multiple early-phase clinical trials are being conducted to test various strategies to prevent or treat gut injury.
“I’m not aware of any one approach that has shown enough promise to warrant being tested in multicenter studies yet, but it’s still a bit early,” Dr. Jenq said.“In the meantime, discontinuing or de-escalating antibiotics when medically safe, and encouraging patients to eat as much as they’re able to is a reasonable recommendation.”
Dr. Jenq added that, with most of the data on the issue being retrospective, a causative role has not been established, and “the finding of an association between the gut microbiota composition and survival, while interesting and provocative, does not provide evidence that intervening on the gut microbiota will lead to a clinical benefit.”
“I’m hopeful that randomized clinical trials will eventually demonstrate that we can protect or restore the gut microbiota, and this will lead to substantial clinical benefits, but this remains to be seen,” he said.
The authors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Jenq is an advisor for Seres Therapeutics, Prolacta Biosciences, and MaaT Pharma.
FROM BLOOD
Antibody shows promise in preventing GVHD
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
FROM SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE