Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

Acalabrutinib, given alone or in combination with obinutuzumab, showed favorable progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with other frontline therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in fludarabine-ineligible patients, according to the results of a meta-analysis comparing clinical trial results.

Researchers conducted a systematic literature review for applicable CLL studies that examined frontline treatments in order to compare the results with data on acalabrutinib (monotherapy and in combination with obinutuzumab) from patients in the ELEVATE-TN study (NCT02475681), according to a report published in Clinical Therapeutics.

Matthew S. Davids, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing acalabrutinib versus other standard frontline therapies for CLL in patients for whom fludarabine-based treatment is not appropriate.

“In the absence of head-to-head trial data, NMAs allow for simultaneous comparisons of a number of interventions with multiple comparators, by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence,” the authors stated.

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the criteria for comparison.

The researchers constructed two evidence networks: Network A comprised solely RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, and Network B comprised seven RCTs and a published cross-trial comparison of ibrutinib from RESONATE-2 and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab from iLLUMINATE. PFS and OS results were reported by using hazard ratios and 95% credible intervals.


 

Overall benefit

Both networks showed a significant improvement in PFS for acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab over all comparators, according to the researchers. Both networks also showed a significant improvement in PFS for acalabrutinib monotherapy versus most comparators, with a significant difference to ibrutinib monotherapy found in Network A but not Network B.

Conversely, a significant difference in PFS was observed for acalabrutinib monotherapy versus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab in Network B but not Network A.

Overall survival hazard ratios ranged from 0.18 to 0.65 in favor of acalabrutinib-based treatment, but not all were significant. Acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab ranked highest in terms of PFS and OS improvement, followed by acalabrutinib monotherapy.

“Although our NMAs provide useful insights into the relative efficacy of acalabrutinib, compared with other frontline treatments of CLL, the results cannot be considered confirmatory, and head-to-head randomized trials are needed, especially to compare the efficacy of acalabrutinib versus other targeted agents,” the researchers concluded.

AstraZeneca sponsored the study. The authors reported funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Davids MS et al. Clin Ther. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.08.017.

Acalabrutinib, given alone or in combination with obinutuzumab, showed favorable progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with other frontline therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in fludarabine-ineligible patients, according to the results of a meta-analysis comparing clinical trial results.

Researchers conducted a systematic literature review for applicable CLL studies that examined frontline treatments in order to compare the results with data on acalabrutinib (monotherapy and in combination with obinutuzumab) from patients in the ELEVATE-TN study (NCT02475681), according to a report published in Clinical Therapeutics.

Matthew S. Davids, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing acalabrutinib versus other standard frontline therapies for CLL in patients for whom fludarabine-based treatment is not appropriate.

“In the absence of head-to-head trial data, NMAs allow for simultaneous comparisons of a number of interventions with multiple comparators, by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence,” the authors stated.

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the criteria for comparison.

The researchers constructed two evidence networks: Network A comprised solely RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, and Network B comprised seven RCTs and a published cross-trial comparison of ibrutinib from RESONATE-2 and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab from iLLUMINATE. PFS and OS results were reported by using hazard ratios and 95% credible intervals.


 

Overall benefit

Both networks showed a significant improvement in PFS for acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab over all comparators, according to the researchers. Both networks also showed a significant improvement in PFS for acalabrutinib monotherapy versus most comparators, with a significant difference to ibrutinib monotherapy found in Network A but not Network B.

Conversely, a significant difference in PFS was observed for acalabrutinib monotherapy versus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab in Network B but not Network A.

Overall survival hazard ratios ranged from 0.18 to 0.65 in favor of acalabrutinib-based treatment, but not all were significant. Acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab ranked highest in terms of PFS and OS improvement, followed by acalabrutinib monotherapy.

“Although our NMAs provide useful insights into the relative efficacy of acalabrutinib, compared with other frontline treatments of CLL, the results cannot be considered confirmatory, and head-to-head randomized trials are needed, especially to compare the efficacy of acalabrutinib versus other targeted agents,” the researchers concluded.

AstraZeneca sponsored the study. The authors reported funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Davids MS et al. Clin Ther. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.08.017.

Acalabrutinib, given alone or in combination with obinutuzumab, showed favorable progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with other frontline therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in fludarabine-ineligible patients, according to the results of a meta-analysis comparing clinical trial results.

Researchers conducted a systematic literature review for applicable CLL studies that examined frontline treatments in order to compare the results with data on acalabrutinib (monotherapy and in combination with obinutuzumab) from patients in the ELEVATE-TN study (NCT02475681), according to a report published in Clinical Therapeutics.

Matthew S. Davids, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing acalabrutinib versus other standard frontline therapies for CLL in patients for whom fludarabine-based treatment is not appropriate.

“In the absence of head-to-head trial data, NMAs allow for simultaneous comparisons of a number of interventions with multiple comparators, by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence,” the authors stated.

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the criteria for comparison.

The researchers constructed two evidence networks: Network A comprised solely RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, and Network B comprised seven RCTs and a published cross-trial comparison of ibrutinib from RESONATE-2 and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab from iLLUMINATE. PFS and OS results were reported by using hazard ratios and 95% credible intervals.


 

Overall benefit

Both networks showed a significant improvement in PFS for acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab over all comparators, according to the researchers. Both networks also showed a significant improvement in PFS for acalabrutinib monotherapy versus most comparators, with a significant difference to ibrutinib monotherapy found in Network A but not Network B.

Conversely, a significant difference in PFS was observed for acalabrutinib monotherapy versus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab in Network B but not Network A.

Overall survival hazard ratios ranged from 0.18 to 0.65 in favor of acalabrutinib-based treatment, but not all were significant. Acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab ranked highest in terms of PFS and OS improvement, followed by acalabrutinib monotherapy.

“Although our NMAs provide useful insights into the relative efficacy of acalabrutinib, compared with other frontline treatments of CLL, the results cannot be considered confirmatory, and head-to-head randomized trials are needed, especially to compare the efficacy of acalabrutinib versus other targeted agents,” the researchers concluded.

AstraZeneca sponsored the study. The authors reported funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Davids MS et al. Clin Ther. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.08.017.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

The diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can be delayed because of vague presentation and normal hematological results. Orthopedic manifestations may be the primary presentation of ALL to physicians, and such symptoms in children should be cause for suspicion, even in the absence of hematological abnormalities, according to a report published in the Journal of Orthopaedics.

The study retrospectively assessed 250 consecutive ALL patients at a single institution to identify the frequency of ALL cases presented to the orthopedic department and to determine the number of these patients presenting with normal hematological results, according to Amrath Raj BK, MD, and colleagues at the Manipal (India) Academy of Higher Education.
 

Suspicion warranted

Twenty-two of the 250 patients (8.8%) presented primarily to the orthopedic department (4 with vertebral compression fractures, 12 with joint pain, and 6 with bone pain), but were subsequently diagnosed with ALL. These results were comparable to previous studies. The mean patient age at the first visit was 5.6 years; 13 patients were boys, and 9 were girls. Six of these 22 patients (27.3%) had a normal peripheral blood smear, according to the researchers.

“Acute leukemia should be considered strongly as a differential diagnosis in children with severe osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. Initial orthopedic manifestations are not uncommon, and the primary physician should maintain a high index of suspicion as a peripheral smear is not diagnostic in all patients,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that there was no outside funding source and that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Raj BK A et al. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2020;22:326-330.

The diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can be delayed because of vague presentation and normal hematological results. Orthopedic manifestations may be the primary presentation of ALL to physicians, and such symptoms in children should be cause for suspicion, even in the absence of hematological abnormalities, according to a report published in the Journal of Orthopaedics.

The study retrospectively assessed 250 consecutive ALL patients at a single institution to identify the frequency of ALL cases presented to the orthopedic department and to determine the number of these patients presenting with normal hematological results, according to Amrath Raj BK, MD, and colleagues at the Manipal (India) Academy of Higher Education.
 

Suspicion warranted

Twenty-two of the 250 patients (8.8%) presented primarily to the orthopedic department (4 with vertebral compression fractures, 12 with joint pain, and 6 with bone pain), but were subsequently diagnosed with ALL. These results were comparable to previous studies. The mean patient age at the first visit was 5.6 years; 13 patients were boys, and 9 were girls. Six of these 22 patients (27.3%) had a normal peripheral blood smear, according to the researchers.

“Acute leukemia should be considered strongly as a differential diagnosis in children with severe osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. Initial orthopedic manifestations are not uncommon, and the primary physician should maintain a high index of suspicion as a peripheral smear is not diagnostic in all patients,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that there was no outside funding source and that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Raj BK A et al. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2020;22:326-330.

The diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can be delayed because of vague presentation and normal hematological results. Orthopedic manifestations may be the primary presentation of ALL to physicians, and such symptoms in children should be cause for suspicion, even in the absence of hematological abnormalities, according to a report published in the Journal of Orthopaedics.

The study retrospectively assessed 250 consecutive ALL patients at a single institution to identify the frequency of ALL cases presented to the orthopedic department and to determine the number of these patients presenting with normal hematological results, according to Amrath Raj BK, MD, and colleagues at the Manipal (India) Academy of Higher Education.
 

Suspicion warranted

Twenty-two of the 250 patients (8.8%) presented primarily to the orthopedic department (4 with vertebral compression fractures, 12 with joint pain, and 6 with bone pain), but were subsequently diagnosed with ALL. These results were comparable to previous studies. The mean patient age at the first visit was 5.6 years; 13 patients were boys, and 9 were girls. Six of these 22 patients (27.3%) had a normal peripheral blood smear, according to the researchers.

“Acute leukemia should be considered strongly as a differential diagnosis in children with severe osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. Initial orthopedic manifestations are not uncommon, and the primary physician should maintain a high index of suspicion as a peripheral smear is not diagnostic in all patients,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that there was no outside funding source and that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Raj BK A et al. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2020;22:326-330.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new protein biomarkers may serve as prognostic indicators for outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients, according to the results of a proteomic assessment of patients’ serum compared to their event-free survival (EFS).

The results were published in Experimental Hematology.

The study attempted to validate the prognostic ability of known proteomic markers measured pretreatment and to search for new proteomic markers that might be related to treatment response in CLL, according to Fatemeh Saberi Hosnijeh, MD, of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and colleagues.

Baseline serum samples were taken from 51 CLL patients who were then treated with chemoimmunotherapy. The samples were analyzed for 360 proteomic markers, and those results were compared with patient EFS.

Study subjects were selected from patients enrolled in the HOVON 109 clinical trial, a phase 1/2 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line therapy involving chlorambucil, rituximab,and lenalidomide in elderly patients and young frail patients with advanced CLL.

The patients assessed comprised 30 men and 21 women, and the median EFS for all patients was 23 months (ranging from 1.25 to 60.9 months).
 

Promising biomarkers

The researchers found that patients who had high serum levels of the proteins sCD23 (P = .026), sCD27 (P = .04), the serine peptidase inhibitor SPINT1 (P = .001), and the surface antigen protein LY9 (P = .0003) had a shorter EFS than those with marker levels below the median.

“Taken together, our results validate the prognostic impact of sCD23 and highlight SPINT1 and LY9 as possible promising markers for treatment response in CLL patients,” the researchers stated.

“Despite the relatively small number of available cases, which had an impact on statistical power, our pilot study identified SPINT1 and LY9 as promising independent prognostic proteomic markers next to sCD23 and sCD27 in patients treated for CLL. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to validate these results,” the researchers concluded.

This research was supported by a grant from Gilead Sciences and an EU TRANSCAN/Dutch Cancer Society grant. The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hosnijeh FS et al. Exp Hematol. 2020;89:55-60.

Two new protein biomarkers may serve as prognostic indicators for outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients, according to the results of a proteomic assessment of patients’ serum compared to their event-free survival (EFS).

The results were published in Experimental Hematology.

The study attempted to validate the prognostic ability of known proteomic markers measured pretreatment and to search for new proteomic markers that might be related to treatment response in CLL, according to Fatemeh Saberi Hosnijeh, MD, of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and colleagues.

Baseline serum samples were taken from 51 CLL patients who were then treated with chemoimmunotherapy. The samples were analyzed for 360 proteomic markers, and those results were compared with patient EFS.

Study subjects were selected from patients enrolled in the HOVON 109 clinical trial, a phase 1/2 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line therapy involving chlorambucil, rituximab,and lenalidomide in elderly patients and young frail patients with advanced CLL.

The patients assessed comprised 30 men and 21 women, and the median EFS for all patients was 23 months (ranging from 1.25 to 60.9 months).
 

Promising biomarkers

The researchers found that patients who had high serum levels of the proteins sCD23 (P = .026), sCD27 (P = .04), the serine peptidase inhibitor SPINT1 (P = .001), and the surface antigen protein LY9 (P = .0003) had a shorter EFS than those with marker levels below the median.

“Taken together, our results validate the prognostic impact of sCD23 and highlight SPINT1 and LY9 as possible promising markers for treatment response in CLL patients,” the researchers stated.

“Despite the relatively small number of available cases, which had an impact on statistical power, our pilot study identified SPINT1 and LY9 as promising independent prognostic proteomic markers next to sCD23 and sCD27 in patients treated for CLL. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to validate these results,” the researchers concluded.

This research was supported by a grant from Gilead Sciences and an EU TRANSCAN/Dutch Cancer Society grant. The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hosnijeh FS et al. Exp Hematol. 2020;89:55-60.

Two new protein biomarkers may serve as prognostic indicators for outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients, according to the results of a proteomic assessment of patients’ serum compared to their event-free survival (EFS).

The results were published in Experimental Hematology.

The study attempted to validate the prognostic ability of known proteomic markers measured pretreatment and to search for new proteomic markers that might be related to treatment response in CLL, according to Fatemeh Saberi Hosnijeh, MD, of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and colleagues.

Baseline serum samples were taken from 51 CLL patients who were then treated with chemoimmunotherapy. The samples were analyzed for 360 proteomic markers, and those results were compared with patient EFS.

Study subjects were selected from patients enrolled in the HOVON 109 clinical trial, a phase 1/2 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line therapy involving chlorambucil, rituximab,and lenalidomide in elderly patients and young frail patients with advanced CLL.

The patients assessed comprised 30 men and 21 women, and the median EFS for all patients was 23 months (ranging from 1.25 to 60.9 months).
 

Promising biomarkers

The researchers found that patients who had high serum levels of the proteins sCD23 (P = .026), sCD27 (P = .04), the serine peptidase inhibitor SPINT1 (P = .001), and the surface antigen protein LY9 (P = .0003) had a shorter EFS than those with marker levels below the median.

“Taken together, our results validate the prognostic impact of sCD23 and highlight SPINT1 and LY9 as possible promising markers for treatment response in CLL patients,” the researchers stated.

“Despite the relatively small number of available cases, which had an impact on statistical power, our pilot study identified SPINT1 and LY9 as promising independent prognostic proteomic markers next to sCD23 and sCD27 in patients treated for CLL. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to validate these results,” the researchers concluded.

This research was supported by a grant from Gilead Sciences and an EU TRANSCAN/Dutch Cancer Society grant. The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hosnijeh FS et al. Exp Hematol. 2020;89:55-60.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Although COVID-19 has had negative effects on cancer research, the pandemic has also led to democratization of clinical trials, according to a panelist who spoke at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
 

Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications

COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.

Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.

Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.

Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:

• On-site auditing was suspended.
• Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
• “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
• Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
• Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.

“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
 

Operational accomplishments and benefits

The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.

However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.

The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.

Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.

Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.

These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.

Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.

“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
 

Streamlining trial regulatory processes

In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.

One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.

The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.

Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
 

Future directions and challenges

The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.

With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.

“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”

Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.

Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.

On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.

The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
 

Shared goals and democratization

The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.

A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.

Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.

Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.

Although COVID-19 has had negative effects on cancer research, the pandemic has also led to democratization of clinical trials, according to a panelist who spoke at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
 

Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications

COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.

Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.

Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.

Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:

• On-site auditing was suspended.
• Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
• “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
• Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
• Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.

“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
 

Operational accomplishments and benefits

The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.

However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.

The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.

Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.

Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.

These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.

Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.

“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
 

Streamlining trial regulatory processes

In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.

One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.

The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.

Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
 

Future directions and challenges

The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.

With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.

“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”

Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.

Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.

On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.

The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
 

Shared goals and democratization

The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.

A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.

Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.

Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.

Although COVID-19 has had negative effects on cancer research, the pandemic has also led to democratization of clinical trials, according to a panelist who spoke at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
 

Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications

COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.

Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.

Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.

Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:

• On-site auditing was suspended.
• Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
• “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
• Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
• Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.

“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
 

Operational accomplishments and benefits

The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.

However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.

The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.

Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.

Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.

These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.

Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.

“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
 

Streamlining trial regulatory processes

In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.

One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.

The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.

Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
 

Future directions and challenges

The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.

With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.

“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”

Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.

Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.

On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.

The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
 

Shared goals and democratization

The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.

A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.

Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.

Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.

Several recently approved and late-phase investigational agents may improve care for patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) by augmenting hypomethylating agents (HMAs), which are the current standard of care.

“HMA failure remains a challenge, and new approaches, such as ex vivo drug screening, are needed to improve outcomes,” said Brian A. Jonas, MD, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, in an online presentation during the virtual American Society of Hematology (ASH) Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The goal of treatment for patients with higher-risk MDS – defined as a Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (R-IPSS) intermediate, high-risk, or very high–risk category – is to alter as much as possible the natural history of the disease.

Treatment options include monotherapy with HMAs, HMAs in combination with other agents, high-intensity chemotherapy, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), or a clinical trial, Dr. Jonas said.
 

Improving bioavailability

Although HMAs, either azacitidine or decitabine, remain the standard of care for patients with higher-risk MDS, the oral bioavailability of these agents is limited by the rapid clearance of cytidine deaminase in the gut and liver.

But as Savona and colleagues reported in The Lancet Haematology, the combination of oral decitabine with cedazuridine, a novel cytidine deaminase inhibitor, significantly improved the bioavailability of the HMA, with an efficacy comparable to that of intravenous decitabine. The findings were confirmed by results from the phase 2 ASCERTAIN trial.

The combination (Inqovi) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for the treatment of MDS and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia in IPSS intermediate-1 or higher risk categories. The approved dose is 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine in a single oral tablet once daily on days 1 through 5 of each 28-day cycle.
 

New drugs, potential new targets

Another promising approach to improving HMA therapy is the combination of azacitidine and the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta).

Results of a phase 1b study of the combination as first-line therapy for patients with higher-risk MDS showed a combined complete response and marrow complete response rate of 77.2%, with estimated 6-month and 12-month survival rates of 100% and 93.8%, respectively, for patients who had a complete response and 85.9% at both 6 and 12 months for patients with a marrow complete response.

“The question is does this challenge the standard of care for higher-risk MDS? I would argue that many are using the regimen since the abstract came out, and I myself consider this regimen for use in select patients with high–blast count MDS who are maybe going to transplant or need to have their disease controlled rapidly,” Dr. Jonas said.

A randomized trial of the combination (NCT04401748) is currently recruiting.
 

Novel checkpoint inhibitor

Another promising combination pairs azacitidine with magrolimab, an experimental immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets CD47, the “don’t eat me” signal that inhibits macrophages from carrying out their crucial phagocytosis role.

As previously reported, magrolimab in combination with rituximab showed good efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent or aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and more recently showed promise in combination with azacitidine in a phase 1b study for the treatment of MDS and acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Among patients with MDS in the trial, the overall response rate was 91% (30 of 33 patients). In all, 14 patients had complete responses, one had a partial response, eight had marrow complete responses, and seven had hematologic improvement.

The tolerability profile was similar to that seen with azacitidine monotherapy, with no significant worsening of cytopenias or infections or autoimmune adverse events. There were no deaths in the first 60 days on therapy, and no treatment discontinuation for drug-related adverse events.

Azacitidine was paired with a different novel agent, APR-246 in a clinical trial testing the combination in patients with TP53 mutant MDS and AML. APR-246 is a novel, first-in-class small molecule that binds covalently to p53, and selectively induces apoptosis in metastatic TP53 cells via thermodynamically stabilizing the p53 protein and shifting equilibrium toward the wild-type conformation.

Among 33 evaluable patients with higher-risk MDS, the combination was associated with an overall response in 29 (81%) including 20 patients (61%) with a complete response. After a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median duration of response was 7.3 months, and 17 patients went on to allo-HSCT.

The combination of magrolimab and azacitidine has also shown preliminary activity in TP53-mutated MDS, Dr. Jonas noted.
 

HMA-refractory disease

Patients who experience disease progression to AML or to higher-risk MDS; have stable disease but no complete, partial, or marrow responses; or have hematologic improvement after four to six cycles of HMA may have primary resistance to this class of agents. Patients can also have disease that develops resistance to HMAs after an initial response.

“Unfortunately, the prognosis is very dismal for these patients,” with a median overall survival of 5.6 months and 2-year overall survival of just 15%, Dr. Jonas said.

As reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting, in patients with relapsed/refractory MDS, venetoclax plus azacitidine was associated with a median progression-free survival of 9.1 months versus 3.3 months for venetoclax alone, and a median overall survival for the combination that was not reached, with a 12-month overall survival estimate of 65%. The median overall survival with venetoclax monotherapy was 5.5 months.

Adverse events included cytopenias, gastrointestinal events, and infections in both arms (ASH 2019 Abstract 565).

There are also data to suggest benefits of the isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib in patients with HMA-refractory MDS with IDH1 mutations and enasidenib in patients with HMA-refractory MDS with IDH2 mutations, Dr. Jonas said.

Finally, he described a pilot and feasibility study of ex vivo screening of myeloid neoplasms for drug sensitivity conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University. In 21 patients with HMA-refractory MDS, the ex vivo screening system provided results in a clinically actionable time frame comparable to that of a 596-gene panel. The positive predictive value of the screen was 92%, the negative predictive value was 82%, and the accuracy was 85%.

“This looks like a potentially promising approach to offer personalized therapy in patients with MDS,” he said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Jonas disclosed consulting activities for AbbVie, Celgen, GlycoMimetics, Jazz, Takeda, Tolero, and Treadwell; institutional research funding from multiple companies; and discussion of off-label use of various drugs not specifically approved for MDS.

Several recently approved and late-phase investigational agents may improve care for patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) by augmenting hypomethylating agents (HMAs), which are the current standard of care.

“HMA failure remains a challenge, and new approaches, such as ex vivo drug screening, are needed to improve outcomes,” said Brian A. Jonas, MD, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, in an online presentation during the virtual American Society of Hematology (ASH) Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The goal of treatment for patients with higher-risk MDS – defined as a Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (R-IPSS) intermediate, high-risk, or very high–risk category – is to alter as much as possible the natural history of the disease.

Treatment options include monotherapy with HMAs, HMAs in combination with other agents, high-intensity chemotherapy, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), or a clinical trial, Dr. Jonas said.
 

Improving bioavailability

Although HMAs, either azacitidine or decitabine, remain the standard of care for patients with higher-risk MDS, the oral bioavailability of these agents is limited by the rapid clearance of cytidine deaminase in the gut and liver.

But as Savona and colleagues reported in The Lancet Haematology, the combination of oral decitabine with cedazuridine, a novel cytidine deaminase inhibitor, significantly improved the bioavailability of the HMA, with an efficacy comparable to that of intravenous decitabine. The findings were confirmed by results from the phase 2 ASCERTAIN trial.

The combination (Inqovi) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for the treatment of MDS and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia in IPSS intermediate-1 or higher risk categories. The approved dose is 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine in a single oral tablet once daily on days 1 through 5 of each 28-day cycle.
 

New drugs, potential new targets

Another promising approach to improving HMA therapy is the combination of azacitidine and the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta).

Results of a phase 1b study of the combination as first-line therapy for patients with higher-risk MDS showed a combined complete response and marrow complete response rate of 77.2%, with estimated 6-month and 12-month survival rates of 100% and 93.8%, respectively, for patients who had a complete response and 85.9% at both 6 and 12 months for patients with a marrow complete response.

“The question is does this challenge the standard of care for higher-risk MDS? I would argue that many are using the regimen since the abstract came out, and I myself consider this regimen for use in select patients with high–blast count MDS who are maybe going to transplant or need to have their disease controlled rapidly,” Dr. Jonas said.

A randomized trial of the combination (NCT04401748) is currently recruiting.
 

Novel checkpoint inhibitor

Another promising combination pairs azacitidine with magrolimab, an experimental immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets CD47, the “don’t eat me” signal that inhibits macrophages from carrying out their crucial phagocytosis role.

As previously reported, magrolimab in combination with rituximab showed good efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent or aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and more recently showed promise in combination with azacitidine in a phase 1b study for the treatment of MDS and acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Among patients with MDS in the trial, the overall response rate was 91% (30 of 33 patients). In all, 14 patients had complete responses, one had a partial response, eight had marrow complete responses, and seven had hematologic improvement.

The tolerability profile was similar to that seen with azacitidine monotherapy, with no significant worsening of cytopenias or infections or autoimmune adverse events. There were no deaths in the first 60 days on therapy, and no treatment discontinuation for drug-related adverse events.

Azacitidine was paired with a different novel agent, APR-246 in a clinical trial testing the combination in patients with TP53 mutant MDS and AML. APR-246 is a novel, first-in-class small molecule that binds covalently to p53, and selectively induces apoptosis in metastatic TP53 cells via thermodynamically stabilizing the p53 protein and shifting equilibrium toward the wild-type conformation.

Among 33 evaluable patients with higher-risk MDS, the combination was associated with an overall response in 29 (81%) including 20 patients (61%) with a complete response. After a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median duration of response was 7.3 months, and 17 patients went on to allo-HSCT.

The combination of magrolimab and azacitidine has also shown preliminary activity in TP53-mutated MDS, Dr. Jonas noted.
 

HMA-refractory disease

Patients who experience disease progression to AML or to higher-risk MDS; have stable disease but no complete, partial, or marrow responses; or have hematologic improvement after four to six cycles of HMA may have primary resistance to this class of agents. Patients can also have disease that develops resistance to HMAs after an initial response.

“Unfortunately, the prognosis is very dismal for these patients,” with a median overall survival of 5.6 months and 2-year overall survival of just 15%, Dr. Jonas said.

As reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting, in patients with relapsed/refractory MDS, venetoclax plus azacitidine was associated with a median progression-free survival of 9.1 months versus 3.3 months for venetoclax alone, and a median overall survival for the combination that was not reached, with a 12-month overall survival estimate of 65%. The median overall survival with venetoclax monotherapy was 5.5 months.

Adverse events included cytopenias, gastrointestinal events, and infections in both arms (ASH 2019 Abstract 565).

There are also data to suggest benefits of the isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib in patients with HMA-refractory MDS with IDH1 mutations and enasidenib in patients with HMA-refractory MDS with IDH2 mutations, Dr. Jonas said.

Finally, he described a pilot and feasibility study of ex vivo screening of myeloid neoplasms for drug sensitivity conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University. In 21 patients with HMA-refractory MDS, the ex vivo screening system provided results in a clinically actionable time frame comparable to that of a 596-gene panel. The positive predictive value of the screen was 92%, the negative predictive value was 82%, and the accuracy was 85%.

“This looks like a potentially promising approach to offer personalized therapy in patients with MDS,” he said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Jonas disclosed consulting activities for AbbVie, Celgen, GlycoMimetics, Jazz, Takeda, Tolero, and Treadwell; institutional research funding from multiple companies; and discussion of off-label use of various drugs not specifically approved for MDS.

Several recently approved and late-phase investigational agents may improve care for patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) by augmenting hypomethylating agents (HMAs), which are the current standard of care.

“HMA failure remains a challenge, and new approaches, such as ex vivo drug screening, are needed to improve outcomes,” said Brian A. Jonas, MD, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, in an online presentation during the virtual American Society of Hematology (ASH) Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The goal of treatment for patients with higher-risk MDS – defined as a Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (R-IPSS) intermediate, high-risk, or very high–risk category – is to alter as much as possible the natural history of the disease.

Treatment options include monotherapy with HMAs, HMAs in combination with other agents, high-intensity chemotherapy, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), or a clinical trial, Dr. Jonas said.
 

Improving bioavailability

Although HMAs, either azacitidine or decitabine, remain the standard of care for patients with higher-risk MDS, the oral bioavailability of these agents is limited by the rapid clearance of cytidine deaminase in the gut and liver.

But as Savona and colleagues reported in The Lancet Haematology, the combination of oral decitabine with cedazuridine, a novel cytidine deaminase inhibitor, significantly improved the bioavailability of the HMA, with an efficacy comparable to that of intravenous decitabine. The findings were confirmed by results from the phase 2 ASCERTAIN trial.

The combination (Inqovi) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for the treatment of MDS and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia in IPSS intermediate-1 or higher risk categories. The approved dose is 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine in a single oral tablet once daily on days 1 through 5 of each 28-day cycle.
 

New drugs, potential new targets

Another promising approach to improving HMA therapy is the combination of azacitidine and the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta).

Results of a phase 1b study of the combination as first-line therapy for patients with higher-risk MDS showed a combined complete response and marrow complete response rate of 77.2%, with estimated 6-month and 12-month survival rates of 100% and 93.8%, respectively, for patients who had a complete response and 85.9% at both 6 and 12 months for patients with a marrow complete response.

“The question is does this challenge the standard of care for higher-risk MDS? I would argue that many are using the regimen since the abstract came out, and I myself consider this regimen for use in select patients with high–blast count MDS who are maybe going to transplant or need to have their disease controlled rapidly,” Dr. Jonas said.

A randomized trial of the combination (NCT04401748) is currently recruiting.
 

Novel checkpoint inhibitor

Another promising combination pairs azacitidine with magrolimab, an experimental immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets CD47, the “don’t eat me” signal that inhibits macrophages from carrying out their crucial phagocytosis role.

As previously reported, magrolimab in combination with rituximab showed good efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent or aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and more recently showed promise in combination with azacitidine in a phase 1b study for the treatment of MDS and acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Among patients with MDS in the trial, the overall response rate was 91% (30 of 33 patients). In all, 14 patients had complete responses, one had a partial response, eight had marrow complete responses, and seven had hematologic improvement.

The tolerability profile was similar to that seen with azacitidine monotherapy, with no significant worsening of cytopenias or infections or autoimmune adverse events. There were no deaths in the first 60 days on therapy, and no treatment discontinuation for drug-related adverse events.

Azacitidine was paired with a different novel agent, APR-246 in a clinical trial testing the combination in patients with TP53 mutant MDS and AML. APR-246 is a novel, first-in-class small molecule that binds covalently to p53, and selectively induces apoptosis in metastatic TP53 cells via thermodynamically stabilizing the p53 protein and shifting equilibrium toward the wild-type conformation.

Among 33 evaluable patients with higher-risk MDS, the combination was associated with an overall response in 29 (81%) including 20 patients (61%) with a complete response. After a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median duration of response was 7.3 months, and 17 patients went on to allo-HSCT.

The combination of magrolimab and azacitidine has also shown preliminary activity in TP53-mutated MDS, Dr. Jonas noted.
 

HMA-refractory disease

Patients who experience disease progression to AML or to higher-risk MDS; have stable disease but no complete, partial, or marrow responses; or have hematologic improvement after four to six cycles of HMA may have primary resistance to this class of agents. Patients can also have disease that develops resistance to HMAs after an initial response.

“Unfortunately, the prognosis is very dismal for these patients,” with a median overall survival of 5.6 months and 2-year overall survival of just 15%, Dr. Jonas said.

As reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting, in patients with relapsed/refractory MDS, venetoclax plus azacitidine was associated with a median progression-free survival of 9.1 months versus 3.3 months for venetoclax alone, and a median overall survival for the combination that was not reached, with a 12-month overall survival estimate of 65%. The median overall survival with venetoclax monotherapy was 5.5 months.

Adverse events included cytopenias, gastrointestinal events, and infections in both arms (ASH 2019 Abstract 565).

There are also data to suggest benefits of the isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib in patients with HMA-refractory MDS with IDH1 mutations and enasidenib in patients with HMA-refractory MDS with IDH2 mutations, Dr. Jonas said.

Finally, he described a pilot and feasibility study of ex vivo screening of myeloid neoplasms for drug sensitivity conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University. In 21 patients with HMA-refractory MDS, the ex vivo screening system provided results in a clinically actionable time frame comparable to that of a 596-gene panel. The positive predictive value of the screen was 92%, the negative predictive value was 82%, and the accuracy was 85%.

“This looks like a potentially promising approach to offer personalized therapy in patients with MDS,” he said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Jonas disclosed consulting activities for AbbVie, Celgen, GlycoMimetics, Jazz, Takeda, Tolero, and Treadwell; institutional research funding from multiple companies; and discussion of off-label use of various drugs not specifically approved for MDS.

Adding tyrosine kinase inhibitors to the treatment of patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) has significantly improved outcomes in recent years, but it’s still unclear which patients will also benefit from bone marrow transplants, and whether chemotherapy will gradually fade into the therapeutic background, a leukemia researcher contended.

“I think it’s likely in future that we’re going to use less chemotherapy, and more combinations of TKI and antibody-based therapy,” said Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute.

Dr. Advani discussed her approach to treating both fit and frail patients with Ph+ALL during the virtual American Society of Hematology (ASH) Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

Increasing understanding of the importance of eliminating minimal residual disease (MRD) colors decisions about the best TKI to use in the first line.

“In terms of which TKI to use in the upfront setting, no randomized study has been done, but since MRD is associated with improved response, we often use this data to make a decision,” she said. “This, however, is complicated, because TKIs are combined with chemotherapy, there are many new TKIs, and finally, although we can start with one TKI, we can change to another TKI if we see that a patient is not responding appropriately.”

With the use of second-generation TKIs in combination with chemotherapy, rates of complete molecular remission (CMR) and major molecular remission (MMR) improved significantly over those seen with the first-in-class agent imatinib.

Notably, she said, the combination of ponatinib (Iclusig) with steroids as frontline therapy for elderly or frail patients with Ph+ALL was associated with a 60.5% CMR at week 24 in a phase 2 Italian trial (Blood 2017;130[Suppl. 1]:99).

Combining ponatinib with the hyper-CVAD regimen (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) improved the 3-month CMR rate to 74% and, the MMR rate to 15% (Lancet Haematol Dec. 2018 Dec 1;5[12]:e618-e627).

A 2016 propensity-score analysis comparing hyper-CVAD plus ponatinib with the hyper-CVAD plus dasatinib showed significantly better event-free survival (P = .035) and overall survival (P = .025) with the ponatinib-containing combination (Cancer 2016;122[23]:3650-6).

As with all potent regimens, however, the combination of hyper-CVAD and ponatinib is associated with relatively high percentages of grade 3 or greater nonhematologic toxicities, including transaminase and bilirubin elevation, pancreatitis, hypertension, venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events.
 

Transplants in the TKI era

Prior to the advent of TKIs, there was strong evidence of the benefit of allogeneic stem cell transplant in patients with Ph+ALL in first remission (BMT 2003;31:623-32).

“The question is, now that we use TKIs, should we be transplanting patients still?” Dr. Advani said.

In the U.S. intergroup S0805 study looking at the combination of dasatinib and chemotherapy, there were distinct relapse-free and overall survival benefits for patients who underwent transplant. This trial did not evaluate MRD, however, ”so what we don’t know is for those patients achieving a complete molecular remission, would those patients do okay without transplant?” she said.

The current standard of care at Cleveland Clinic is to transplant eligible patients in first remission, ”but I think that’s likely to change as we get more data from these trials.”

In the COG AALL0031 trial of imatinib and chemotherapy in children with Ph+ALL, there was no significant benefit to stem cell transplant (Leukemia 2014 Jan 20;28:1467-71), Dr. Advani noted.

Other prognostic features associated with poor risk, such as 1KZF1 mutations with CDKN2A and/or PAX5 deletions, have been suggested as indicators for transplant, but “what’s less clear is what the impact of these abnormalities is now with the second- and third-generation TKIs, and also whether these various abnormalities correlate with molecular responses or achievement of complete molecular remission,” she said.


 

Frail/unfit patients

Therapeutic options for frail or unfit patients include the combination of dasatinib and prednisone, which was associated in one study with a 93% complete hematologic remission rate by day 22, and at 20 months with a 69.2% overall survival rate, and 51.1% disease-free survival rate.(Blood. 2011;118[25]:6521-8).

In this study MRD correlated with disease-free survival, but 23 of 53 patients experienced relapse, and 12 patients with relapsed disease had the T3151 mutation. Ponatinib would be a second-line option for this latter group of patients, Dr. Advani said.

A study reported at the 2017 ASH annual meeting looked at the combination of ponatinib with steroids in patients either 60 and older or younger unfit patients with Ph+ALL.

The primary endpoint of complete hematological response at 24 weeks in at least 75% of patients was reached early, with 40 of 42 patients (95.2%) having a complete hematologic response after 1 course of therapy (6 weeks). The CMR rate at 24 weeks was 61%, and 1-year overall survival was 87.5%.

There were 13 serious adverse events related to ponatinib, however, including one death, and one patient who experienced a relapse was found to have the T315L ponatinib-resistance mutation. (Blood 2017 Dec. 7;130[Suppl. 1]:99).

“I think a few things with ponatinib and steroids that we still don’t know are the long-term follow-up results of this as a single agent in combination with steroids, and second, in this elderly population, if you look, patients are dropping out due to adverse events and toxicities,” she said.
 

TKIs plus antibodies

The S1318 trial conducted by the SWOG cancer research network contains both a Ph+ALL and a Ph-negative ALL cohort. In this trial, patients with Ph+ALL receive dasatinib and steroids as induction, then go on to receive blinatumomab (Blincyto) with dasatinib for three cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with dasitinib and prednisone.

A trial currently in the planning stages, EA9181, will compare in a randomized fashion induction regimens with either dasatinib or ponatinib at the investigator’s discretion with steroids and either blinatumomab or chemotherapy.

No funding source was reported for the presentation. Dr. Advani disclosed steering committee activities, honoraria/consulting, and research funding from multiple companies.

Adding tyrosine kinase inhibitors to the treatment of patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) has significantly improved outcomes in recent years, but it’s still unclear which patients will also benefit from bone marrow transplants, and whether chemotherapy will gradually fade into the therapeutic background, a leukemia researcher contended.

“I think it’s likely in future that we’re going to use less chemotherapy, and more combinations of TKI and antibody-based therapy,” said Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute.

Dr. Advani discussed her approach to treating both fit and frail patients with Ph+ALL during the virtual American Society of Hematology (ASH) Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

Increasing understanding of the importance of eliminating minimal residual disease (MRD) colors decisions about the best TKI to use in the first line.

“In terms of which TKI to use in the upfront setting, no randomized study has been done, but since MRD is associated with improved response, we often use this data to make a decision,” she said. “This, however, is complicated, because TKIs are combined with chemotherapy, there are many new TKIs, and finally, although we can start with one TKI, we can change to another TKI if we see that a patient is not responding appropriately.”

With the use of second-generation TKIs in combination with chemotherapy, rates of complete molecular remission (CMR) and major molecular remission (MMR) improved significantly over those seen with the first-in-class agent imatinib.

Notably, she said, the combination of ponatinib (Iclusig) with steroids as frontline therapy for elderly or frail patients with Ph+ALL was associated with a 60.5% CMR at week 24 in a phase 2 Italian trial (Blood 2017;130[Suppl. 1]:99).

Combining ponatinib with the hyper-CVAD regimen (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) improved the 3-month CMR rate to 74% and, the MMR rate to 15% (Lancet Haematol Dec. 2018 Dec 1;5[12]:e618-e627).

A 2016 propensity-score analysis comparing hyper-CVAD plus ponatinib with the hyper-CVAD plus dasatinib showed significantly better event-free survival (P = .035) and overall survival (P = .025) with the ponatinib-containing combination (Cancer 2016;122[23]:3650-6).

As with all potent regimens, however, the combination of hyper-CVAD and ponatinib is associated with relatively high percentages of grade 3 or greater nonhematologic toxicities, including transaminase and bilirubin elevation, pancreatitis, hypertension, venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events.
 

Transplants in the TKI era

Prior to the advent of TKIs, there was strong evidence of the benefit of allogeneic stem cell transplant in patients with Ph+ALL in first remission (BMT 2003;31:623-32).

“The question is, now that we use TKIs, should we be transplanting patients still?” Dr. Advani said.

In the U.S. intergroup S0805 study looking at the combination of dasatinib and chemotherapy, there were distinct relapse-free and overall survival benefits for patients who underwent transplant. This trial did not evaluate MRD, however, ”so what we don’t know is for those patients achieving a complete molecular remission, would those patients do okay without transplant?” she said.

The current standard of care at Cleveland Clinic is to transplant eligible patients in first remission, ”but I think that’s likely to change as we get more data from these trials.”

In the COG AALL0031 trial of imatinib and chemotherapy in children with Ph+ALL, there was no significant benefit to stem cell transplant (Leukemia 2014 Jan 20;28:1467-71), Dr. Advani noted.

Other prognostic features associated with poor risk, such as 1KZF1 mutations with CDKN2A and/or PAX5 deletions, have been suggested as indicators for transplant, but “what’s less clear is what the impact of these abnormalities is now with the second- and third-generation TKIs, and also whether these various abnormalities correlate with molecular responses or achievement of complete molecular remission,” she said.


 

Frail/unfit patients

Therapeutic options for frail or unfit patients include the combination of dasatinib and prednisone, which was associated in one study with a 93% complete hematologic remission rate by day 22, and at 20 months with a 69.2% overall survival rate, and 51.1% disease-free survival rate.(Blood. 2011;118[25]:6521-8).

In this study MRD correlated with disease-free survival, but 23 of 53 patients experienced relapse, and 12 patients with relapsed disease had the T3151 mutation. Ponatinib would be a second-line option for this latter group of patients, Dr. Advani said.

A study reported at the 2017 ASH annual meeting looked at the combination of ponatinib with steroids in patients either 60 and older or younger unfit patients with Ph+ALL.

The primary endpoint of complete hematological response at 24 weeks in at least 75% of patients was reached early, with 40 of 42 patients (95.2%) having a complete hematologic response after 1 course of therapy (6 weeks). The CMR rate at 24 weeks was 61%, and 1-year overall survival was 87.5%.

There were 13 serious adverse events related to ponatinib, however, including one death, and one patient who experienced a relapse was found to have the T315L ponatinib-resistance mutation. (Blood 2017 Dec. 7;130[Suppl. 1]:99).

“I think a few things with ponatinib and steroids that we still don’t know are the long-term follow-up results of this as a single agent in combination with steroids, and second, in this elderly population, if you look, patients are dropping out due to adverse events and toxicities,” she said.
 

TKIs plus antibodies

The S1318 trial conducted by the SWOG cancer research network contains both a Ph+ALL and a Ph-negative ALL cohort. In this trial, patients with Ph+ALL receive dasatinib and steroids as induction, then go on to receive blinatumomab (Blincyto) with dasatinib for three cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with dasitinib and prednisone.

A trial currently in the planning stages, EA9181, will compare in a randomized fashion induction regimens with either dasatinib or ponatinib at the investigator’s discretion with steroids and either blinatumomab or chemotherapy.

No funding source was reported for the presentation. Dr. Advani disclosed steering committee activities, honoraria/consulting, and research funding from multiple companies.

Adding tyrosine kinase inhibitors to the treatment of patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) has significantly improved outcomes in recent years, but it’s still unclear which patients will also benefit from bone marrow transplants, and whether chemotherapy will gradually fade into the therapeutic background, a leukemia researcher contended.

“I think it’s likely in future that we’re going to use less chemotherapy, and more combinations of TKI and antibody-based therapy,” said Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute.

Dr. Advani discussed her approach to treating both fit and frail patients with Ph+ALL during the virtual American Society of Hematology (ASH) Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

Increasing understanding of the importance of eliminating minimal residual disease (MRD) colors decisions about the best TKI to use in the first line.

“In terms of which TKI to use in the upfront setting, no randomized study has been done, but since MRD is associated with improved response, we often use this data to make a decision,” she said. “This, however, is complicated, because TKIs are combined with chemotherapy, there are many new TKIs, and finally, although we can start with one TKI, we can change to another TKI if we see that a patient is not responding appropriately.”

With the use of second-generation TKIs in combination with chemotherapy, rates of complete molecular remission (CMR) and major molecular remission (MMR) improved significantly over those seen with the first-in-class agent imatinib.

Notably, she said, the combination of ponatinib (Iclusig) with steroids as frontline therapy for elderly or frail patients with Ph+ALL was associated with a 60.5% CMR at week 24 in a phase 2 Italian trial (Blood 2017;130[Suppl. 1]:99).

Combining ponatinib with the hyper-CVAD regimen (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) improved the 3-month CMR rate to 74% and, the MMR rate to 15% (Lancet Haematol Dec. 2018 Dec 1;5[12]:e618-e627).

A 2016 propensity-score analysis comparing hyper-CVAD plus ponatinib with the hyper-CVAD plus dasatinib showed significantly better event-free survival (P = .035) and overall survival (P = .025) with the ponatinib-containing combination (Cancer 2016;122[23]:3650-6).

As with all potent regimens, however, the combination of hyper-CVAD and ponatinib is associated with relatively high percentages of grade 3 or greater nonhematologic toxicities, including transaminase and bilirubin elevation, pancreatitis, hypertension, venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events.
 

Transplants in the TKI era

Prior to the advent of TKIs, there was strong evidence of the benefit of allogeneic stem cell transplant in patients with Ph+ALL in first remission (BMT 2003;31:623-32).

“The question is, now that we use TKIs, should we be transplanting patients still?” Dr. Advani said.

In the U.S. intergroup S0805 study looking at the combination of dasatinib and chemotherapy, there were distinct relapse-free and overall survival benefits for patients who underwent transplant. This trial did not evaluate MRD, however, ”so what we don’t know is for those patients achieving a complete molecular remission, would those patients do okay without transplant?” she said.

The current standard of care at Cleveland Clinic is to transplant eligible patients in first remission, ”but I think that’s likely to change as we get more data from these trials.”

In the COG AALL0031 trial of imatinib and chemotherapy in children with Ph+ALL, there was no significant benefit to stem cell transplant (Leukemia 2014 Jan 20;28:1467-71), Dr. Advani noted.

Other prognostic features associated with poor risk, such as 1KZF1 mutations with CDKN2A and/or PAX5 deletions, have been suggested as indicators for transplant, but “what’s less clear is what the impact of these abnormalities is now with the second- and third-generation TKIs, and also whether these various abnormalities correlate with molecular responses or achievement of complete molecular remission,” she said.


 

Frail/unfit patients

Therapeutic options for frail or unfit patients include the combination of dasatinib and prednisone, which was associated in one study with a 93% complete hematologic remission rate by day 22, and at 20 months with a 69.2% overall survival rate, and 51.1% disease-free survival rate.(Blood. 2011;118[25]:6521-8).

In this study MRD correlated with disease-free survival, but 23 of 53 patients experienced relapse, and 12 patients with relapsed disease had the T3151 mutation. Ponatinib would be a second-line option for this latter group of patients, Dr. Advani said.

A study reported at the 2017 ASH annual meeting looked at the combination of ponatinib with steroids in patients either 60 and older or younger unfit patients with Ph+ALL.

The primary endpoint of complete hematological response at 24 weeks in at least 75% of patients was reached early, with 40 of 42 patients (95.2%) having a complete hematologic response after 1 course of therapy (6 weeks). The CMR rate at 24 weeks was 61%, and 1-year overall survival was 87.5%.

There were 13 serious adverse events related to ponatinib, however, including one death, and one patient who experienced a relapse was found to have the T315L ponatinib-resistance mutation. (Blood 2017 Dec. 7;130[Suppl. 1]:99).

“I think a few things with ponatinib and steroids that we still don’t know are the long-term follow-up results of this as a single agent in combination with steroids, and second, in this elderly population, if you look, patients are dropping out due to adverse events and toxicities,” she said.
 

TKIs plus antibodies

The S1318 trial conducted by the SWOG cancer research network contains both a Ph+ALL and a Ph-negative ALL cohort. In this trial, patients with Ph+ALL receive dasatinib and steroids as induction, then go on to receive blinatumomab (Blincyto) with dasatinib for three cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with dasitinib and prednisone.

A trial currently in the planning stages, EA9181, will compare in a randomized fashion induction regimens with either dasatinib or ponatinib at the investigator’s discretion with steroids and either blinatumomab or chemotherapy.

No funding source was reported for the presentation. Dr. Advani disclosed steering committee activities, honoraria/consulting, and research funding from multiple companies.