Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.

The BALL score was able to identify a subset of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib therapy, according to the results of a study of 111 patients followed from two different institutions.

The BALL model consists of four factors: serum beta₂-microglobulin at 5 mg/dL or greater, hemoglobin < 110 g/L for women or < 120 g/L for men, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [UNL], and time elapsed from last therapy less than 24 months. Each parameter was alloted 1 point, leading to a stratification of patients into three different prognostic groups: low risk (score 0-1), intermediate risk (2-3), and high risk (score 4), according to a report published online in Leukemia Research.

According to Stefano Molica, MD, of the Azienda Ospedaliera Pugliese-Ciaccio, Catanzaro, Italy, and his colleagues, the majority of patients (82%) were clinical Rai stage II-IV. The median patient age was 63 years and nearly 68% were men.

The researchers assessed four models for predicting overall survival. The modified version of CLL-International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) failed to provide prognostic information in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL (P = .77) as did the Ahn et al. model (P = .95) and a simplified BALL model (P = .09). In contrast, the full BALL score captured two groups of patients with significant differences in survival (hazard ratio, 0.240; 95 % confidence interval, 0.10-0.54; P = .0005); however, because of the low number of patients in the high-risk category, these cases were combined with the intermediate-risk group.

The BALL score identified a subset of patients, accounting for about 50% of the whole population, who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib, according to Dr. Molica and his colleagues. These patients had a survival rate of 85% at 3 years.

“In contrast, the outcome of subjects with intermediate-high risk is disappointing. These patients should be considered for a combination of targeted drugs or cellular-based therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Molica S et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jun 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2020.

The BALL score was able to identify a subset of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib therapy, according to the results of a study of 111 patients followed from two different institutions.

The BALL model consists of four factors: serum beta₂-microglobulin at 5 mg/dL or greater, hemoglobin < 110 g/L for women or < 120 g/L for men, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [UNL], and time elapsed from last therapy less than 24 months. Each parameter was alloted 1 point, leading to a stratification of patients into three different prognostic groups: low risk (score 0-1), intermediate risk (2-3), and high risk (score 4), according to a report published online in Leukemia Research.

According to Stefano Molica, MD, of the Azienda Ospedaliera Pugliese-Ciaccio, Catanzaro, Italy, and his colleagues, the majority of patients (82%) were clinical Rai stage II-IV. The median patient age was 63 years and nearly 68% were men.

The researchers assessed four models for predicting overall survival. The modified version of CLL-International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) failed to provide prognostic information in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL (P = .77) as did the Ahn et al. model (P = .95) and a simplified BALL model (P = .09). In contrast, the full BALL score captured two groups of patients with significant differences in survival (hazard ratio, 0.240; 95 % confidence interval, 0.10-0.54; P = .0005); however, because of the low number of patients in the high-risk category, these cases were combined with the intermediate-risk group.

The BALL score identified a subset of patients, accounting for about 50% of the whole population, who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib, according to Dr. Molica and his colleagues. These patients had a survival rate of 85% at 3 years.

“In contrast, the outcome of subjects with intermediate-high risk is disappointing. These patients should be considered for a combination of targeted drugs or cellular-based therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Molica S et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jun 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2020.

The BALL score was able to identify a subset of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib therapy, according to the results of a study of 111 patients followed from two different institutions.

The BALL model consists of four factors: serum beta₂-microglobulin at 5 mg/dL or greater, hemoglobin < 110 g/L for women or < 120 g/L for men, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [UNL], and time elapsed from last therapy less than 24 months. Each parameter was alloted 1 point, leading to a stratification of patients into three different prognostic groups: low risk (score 0-1), intermediate risk (2-3), and high risk (score 4), according to a report published online in Leukemia Research.

According to Stefano Molica, MD, of the Azienda Ospedaliera Pugliese-Ciaccio, Catanzaro, Italy, and his colleagues, the majority of patients (82%) were clinical Rai stage II-IV. The median patient age was 63 years and nearly 68% were men.

The researchers assessed four models for predicting overall survival. The modified version of CLL-International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) failed to provide prognostic information in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL (P = .77) as did the Ahn et al. model (P = .95) and a simplified BALL model (P = .09). In contrast, the full BALL score captured two groups of patients with significant differences in survival (hazard ratio, 0.240; 95 % confidence interval, 0.10-0.54; P = .0005); however, because of the low number of patients in the high-risk category, these cases were combined with the intermediate-risk group.

The BALL score identified a subset of patients, accounting for about 50% of the whole population, who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib, according to Dr. Molica and his colleagues. These patients had a survival rate of 85% at 3 years.

“In contrast, the outcome of subjects with intermediate-high risk is disappointing. These patients should be considered for a combination of targeted drugs or cellular-based therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Molica S et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jun 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2020.

Targeted prophylaxis with posaconazole was more effective than fluconazole in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who were undergoing induction chemotherapy in order to prevent invasive fungal infection, according to a study by Tian Zhang of Xidian University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 155 patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, comparing invasive fungal infections in those who received no prophylaxis (60 patients), posaconazole prophylaxis (70), or fluconazole prophylaxis (55) during induction therapy, according to a report published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Proven and probable invasive fungal infections occurred during the induction phase in 45% in the no-prophylaxis group, in 18% of the posaconazole group and in 72% of the fluconazole group. Posaconazole prophylaxis reduced the odds of invasive fungal infections by greater than 60%, prolonged infection-free survival significantly, and did not increase the risk of hepatotoxicity.

In addition, the researchers found that the combination of age at diagnosis, clinically documented bacterial infection in the first 15 days of induction therapy, and absolute neutrophil count curve enabled significant prediction of the susceptibility to infections after receiving posaconazole prophylaxis.

“In general, these findings may serve as a basis for developing screening protocols to identify children who are at high risk for infection despite posaconazole prophylaxis so that early intervention can be initiated to mitigate fungal infections,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang T et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.07.008.

Targeted prophylaxis with posaconazole was more effective than fluconazole in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who were undergoing induction chemotherapy in order to prevent invasive fungal infection, according to a study by Tian Zhang of Xidian University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 155 patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, comparing invasive fungal infections in those who received no prophylaxis (60 patients), posaconazole prophylaxis (70), or fluconazole prophylaxis (55) during induction therapy, according to a report published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Proven and probable invasive fungal infections occurred during the induction phase in 45% in the no-prophylaxis group, in 18% of the posaconazole group and in 72% of the fluconazole group. Posaconazole prophylaxis reduced the odds of invasive fungal infections by greater than 60%, prolonged infection-free survival significantly, and did not increase the risk of hepatotoxicity.

In addition, the researchers found that the combination of age at diagnosis, clinically documented bacterial infection in the first 15 days of induction therapy, and absolute neutrophil count curve enabled significant prediction of the susceptibility to infections after receiving posaconazole prophylaxis.

“In general, these findings may serve as a basis for developing screening protocols to identify children who are at high risk for infection despite posaconazole prophylaxis so that early intervention can be initiated to mitigate fungal infections,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang T et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.07.008.

Targeted prophylaxis with posaconazole was more effective than fluconazole in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who were undergoing induction chemotherapy in order to prevent invasive fungal infection, according to a study by Tian Zhang of Xidian University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 155 patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, comparing invasive fungal infections in those who received no prophylaxis (60 patients), posaconazole prophylaxis (70), or fluconazole prophylaxis (55) during induction therapy, according to a report published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Proven and probable invasive fungal infections occurred during the induction phase in 45% in the no-prophylaxis group, in 18% of the posaconazole group and in 72% of the fluconazole group. Posaconazole prophylaxis reduced the odds of invasive fungal infections by greater than 60%, prolonged infection-free survival significantly, and did not increase the risk of hepatotoxicity.

In addition, the researchers found that the combination of age at diagnosis, clinically documented bacterial infection in the first 15 days of induction therapy, and absolute neutrophil count curve enabled significant prediction of the susceptibility to infections after receiving posaconazole prophylaxis.

“In general, these findings may serve as a basis for developing screening protocols to identify children who are at high risk for infection despite posaconazole prophylaxis so that early intervention can be initiated to mitigate fungal infections,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang T et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.07.008.

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology “does not generally support” at-home infusions of anticancer therapy because of safety concerns, the organization says in a new policy statement issued July 31.

At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.

The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.

The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.

“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.

“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.

“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.

ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.

One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.

“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.

ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.

Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”

“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.

Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.

Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.

While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.

Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.

“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.

Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology “does not generally support” at-home infusions of anticancer therapy because of safety concerns, the organization says in a new policy statement issued July 31.

At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.

The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.

The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.

“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.

“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.

“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.

ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.

One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.

“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.

ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.

Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”

“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.

Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.

Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.

While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.

Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.

“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.

Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology “does not generally support” at-home infusions of anticancer therapy because of safety concerns, the organization says in a new policy statement issued July 31.

At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.

The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.

The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.

“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.

“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.

“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.

ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.

One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.

“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.

ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.

Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”

“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.

Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.

Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.

While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.

Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.

“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.

Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

When a patient with cancer hears there isn’t much left that doctors can do, it always stays fresh in the mind.

Doug Olson was first diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over 20 years ago, in 1996. For several years, his doctors used the watch-and-wait approach. But then his cancer progressed and needed treatment. By 2010, it had mutated so much that it no longer responded to standard therapy.

He was rapidly running out of options. Back then, the only treatment left was a bone marrow transplant. Without one, his doctors said, he would have 1 or 2 years left to live.

“I was really trying to avoid a bone marrow transplant. You’re playing your last card if that doesn’t work. It’s a pretty rough procedure,” Olson told Medscape Medical News.

Looking back, Olson counts himself as lucky – for being in the right place, at the right time, with the right doctor. His oncologist was David Porter, MD, the principal investigator on a trial at the University of Pennsylvania that was investigating a brand new approach to treating cancer: chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

CAR T-cell therapy uses a patient’s own T cells engineered to express a receptor that targets proteins on cancer cells. CAR T cells are considered “living drugs” because they expand inside the body and stick around for years – maybe for a lifetime – to fight the cancer if it tries to come back.

“I was certainly intrigued by the approach. It had worked in mice, and it was the sort of thing that looked like it would work,” Olson recalled.

Science is not a foreign language to Olson. He holds a PhD in medicinal chemistry, spent most of his career in the in vitro diagnostics industry, and currently acts as chief executive officer of Buhlmann Diagnostics Corp.

So he read the clinical protocol for the first in-human trial of CAR T cells and agreed to become patient number two.

Olson’s T cells were harvested, engineered to attack the CD19 antigen found on malignant and normal B lymphocytes, and then were expanded into millions in the lab. After undergoing preconditioning with chemotherapy to minimize rejection and boost the CAR T cells’ expansion inside the body, he received several infusions of the new therapy over the course of 3 days.

Nothing really happened for 2 weeks. Then he developed severe flu-like symptoms – so bad that he was hospitalized.

Ironically, getting sick was a sign that the CAR T cells were working. Olson was experiencing one of the main short-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy: cytokine release syndrome. Symptoms include extremely high fevers and dangerous drops in blood pressure that can potentially cause end-organ damage.

In the early trials of these products, some patients experienced such a severe reaction that they needed intensive care, and some died. With increasing clinical experience, doctors have learned to control the reaction with the use of steroids and interleukein-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab (Actemra).

Fortunately for Olson, the reaction passed, and he was eventually discharged.

Then the “aha moment” happened. Four weeks after receiving the CAR T cells, Olson found out that he was cancer free.

“It still gives me shivers,” he said. “Dr Porter said, ‘Your bone marrow’s completely free. We just can’t find a cancer cell anywhere.’ “

The remission has lasted, and it is now 10 years later.
 

Balancing long-term risks vs benefits

Long-term data have been accumulating for these novel therapies since Olson’s treatment in 2010. This is particularly important for CAR T-cell therapy, because of its longevity. Because these are living cells and are expected to persist in the body for years, there is great interest in longer-term data, especially the risks for toxicity.

The FDA requires clinical follow-up for at least 15 years for patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy or any other genetically modified cells.

So far, most of the experience with CAR T cells comes from anti-CD19-directed therapy, which has shown “remarkable” remission rates in the 50% to 85% range, said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section of the Pediatric Oncology Branch at the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

The most recent results presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology support earlier efficacy data, she noted. In the longest follow-up to date, researchers reported remissions lasting over 9 years in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL treated with Kite›s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta), one of two anti-CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 (the other is Novartis’ tisagenlecleucel [Kymriah]).

This study included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved in 54% of patients, and 22% had partial remission.

The other focus is long-term safety. Although some of the long-term adverse effects are known and are manageable, others fall into the theoretical realm. In early May 2020, the NCI held a multidisciplinary virtual conference on CAR T-cell therapy «to encourage collaborative research about the subacute and potentially long-term toxicity profile of these treatments.»

“We know just a little at this point about late- and long-term effects of CAR-T therapy, because we are relatively early in the era of CAR T cells,” said Merav Bar, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
 

B-cell aplasia and risk for new infections

What is known is that B-cell aplasia represents the most common long-term adverse effect of CAR T-cell therapy. B-cell aplasia results when anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy wipes out healthy B cells as well as the malignant ones responsible for leukemia/lymphoma.

As major players in the immune system, B cells are a key defense against viruses. So B-cell aplasia represents a very specific type of immunosuppression. It is generally less severe than immunosuppression that occurs after organ transplant, which hits the immune system pretty much across the board and carries a much higher risk for infection.

The main concern is what happens when someone with B-cell aplasia encounters a new pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2.

After infection, B cells generate memory cells, which are not killed off by anti-CD19 therapy and that stick around for life. So a patient such as Olson would still make antibodies that fight infections they experienced before receiving CAR-T therapy, such as childhood chickenpox. But now they are unable to make new memory cells, so these patients receive monthly immunoglobulin infusions to protect against pathogens they have not previously encountered.

Olson takes this in stride and says he isn’t overly worried about COVID-19. He follows the recommended precautions for a man his age. He wears a mask, washes his hands frequently, and tries to maintain social distancing. But he doesn’t stay locked up in his New Hampshire home.

“I took the attitude when I was diagnosed with cancer that I’m going to live my life,” he said. “Quality of life to me is more important than quantity.”
 

Neuropsychiatric toxicity

Another problem is the possibility of neuropsychiatric toxicity. Past studies have reported a wide range of such toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, including seizures and hallucinations. Most have occurred early in the course of treatment and appear to be short-lived and reversible. However, there remain questions about long-term neuropsychiatric problems.

In a long-term study of 40 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and ALL, nearly half of patients (47.5%, 19/40) self-reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome (anxiety, depression, or cognitive difficulty) 1 to 5 years after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. In addition, 37.5% (15/40) self-reported cognitive difficulties.

“Patients with more severe neurotoxicity showed a trend for more cognitive difficulties afterwards,» said Bar, senior author of the study.

However, teasing out the role that CAR T-cell therapy plays in these problems poses a challenge. All of these patients had been heavily pretreated with previous cancer therapy, which has also been associated with neuropsychiatric problems.

“So far, we don’t know what caused it,” Bar said. “Nevertheless, people need to pay attention to neuropsychiatric symptoms in CAR T-cell therapy. It is important to continue to monitor these patients for these issues.”
 

Graft-vs-host disease

Another potential problem is graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). This is not uncommon after hematopoietic stem cell transplants. It develops when the donor T cells view antigens on healthy recipient cells as foreign and attack them.

For patients who are treated with CAR T cells, GVHD is mostly a concern among individuals who have previously had a transplant and who are already at increased risk for it.

In a study of late effects among 86 adults treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Bar and colleagues found that GVHD occurred only among patients who had received a previous donor stem cell transplant. Of these, 20% (3/15) developed GVHD about 28 months after CAR-T therapy.

“The data for CAR T cells causing GVHD really hasn’t shown that it’s a huge problem, although we have seen it and are continuing to monitor for it,” the NCI’s Shah commented to Medscape Medical News.

Other Long-term Adverse Effects

A range of other long-term adverse effects have been reported with CAR-T therapy, including prolonged cytopenias (reduced mature blood cells), myelodysplasia (bone marrow failure), and second malignancies.

In the study with the longest follow-up to date, 16% (7/43) of patients developed second malignancies, which is comparable to data from Bar’s study in Seattle (15%, 13/86). The researchers in this study consider this rate to be no higher than expected: these patients had already received extensive chemotherapy, which increases the risk for other cancers, they point out.

However, this brings up theoretical concerns about the long-term effects of gene modification. CAR T cells are engineered using retroviruses (mainly lentiviruses), which randomly insert the CAR genes into the host genome. Doing so may cause mutations that could promote cancer. These lentiviruses also carry the theoretical risk of becoming capable of viral replication once inside the body.

To address these concerns, viruses used to engineer CAR T cells go through comprehensive safety testing. After therapy, patients are checked every few months during the first year and annually after that.

So far, there have been no reports of cancers associated with CAR T-cell therapy.

“Any type of cancer is a very theoretical risk,” Bar told Medscape Medical News. «Most likely the malignancies in our study were related to prior treatment that the patients received. None of them had any evidence of replication-competent lentivirus, or any other evidence that the malignancies were related to the CAR T cells.»

Another theoretical concern is the possibility of new-onset autoimmune disease, although, once again, no cases have been reported so far.

“We think of it as a theoretic possibility. Whenever you jack up the immune system, autoimmune disease is a potential risk,” said Carl June, MD, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the University of Pennsylvania.

June was the co–principal investigator of the trial in which Olson participated. He is also the inventor on patents for CAR T cells licensed by the University of Pennsylvania to Novartis and Tmunity and is a scientific founder with equity in Tmunity.

Still, autoimmunity could occur, and scientists are looking out for it.

“We are continuing to be vigilant in our monitoring for autoimmune disease,” Shah added. “We’ve been doing CAR T-cell therapy since 2012, and I think we have yet to see true autoimmunity beyond GVHD.”
 

Future directions

In the 10 years since Olson received CAR T-cell therapy, an entire industry has sprung up. Over 100 companies worldwide are now developing CAR T-cell therapies targeting various antigens. These therapies are directed at about 60 different tumor types, including solid tumors. Nearly 200 clinical trials are underway, though most are still in early stages: as of September 2019, only 5% had reached phase 3.

Clinical data show promising results for CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD22 (overexpressed on ALL cells), and BCMA (found on almost all multiple myeloma cells). Yet questions remain as to whether CAR T cells will be as effective if they target antigens other than CD19 or cells other than B lymphocytes. One of the biggest research questions is whether they will be effective against solid tumors.

One research avenue being watched with great interest is the development of universal CAR T cells. So far, such products are at very early stages of development (phase 1 trials), but they are attractive because of the potential advantages they offer over bespoke CAR T cells. Automating the process holds the promise of immediate availability, standardizing production, expanding access, and lowering costs. And because the T cells for this universal product come from healthy donors, they may function better than T cells that have been battered and bruised by past cancer treatments, or even the cancer itself.

However, precisely because they are developed from healthy donor T cells, universal CAR T cells may pose increased risk for GVHD. Scientists are trying to get around this problem by engineering universal CAR T cells that lack the T-cell receptor involved in GVHD.

There are also other concerns. Nature has a penchant for mutation. Engineering CAR T cells without T-cell receptors means the body may no longer detect or reject a universal CAR T cell if it goes rogue. Also, gene insertion in universal CAR-T therapy is targeted rather than random (as in bespoke CAR T cells), which could create off-target effects. Both issues create a theoretical risk of such products inducing an untreatable CAR T-cell therapy–associated cancer.

“The theoretic risk with universal cells is that their safety profile may not be as good for long term,” June commented.
 

Hope for the future

From that first trial in which June and Porter used CAR T cells, two of three patients they treated are still alive 10 years later.

Olson is one of these two, and he still undergoes monitoring every 3 months to check for relapse. So far, none of his tests have shown signs of his cancer returning.

After going into remission, Doug spent the next 6 to 9 months regaining his health and strength.

“I figured if I had this amazing treatment that saved my life, I had an obligation to stay alive,” he said. “I’d better not die of something like a heart attack!”

He took up long distance running and has completed six half marathons. He became involved in the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, participating in fund-raising and helping newly diagnosed patients. Over the years, he has also given talks for researchers, people with cancer, and healthcare providers.

Doug is now 73. Today, he marvels at how rapidly the CAR-T field has progressed.

“Twenty years ago, if you had cancer, your prospects weren’t nearly as good as these days. In 2010, people still didn’t believe in CAR T-cell therapy,” he said. “My goal always in telling my story is a message of hope.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When a patient with cancer hears there isn’t much left that doctors can do, it always stays fresh in the mind.

Doug Olson was first diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over 20 years ago, in 1996. For several years, his doctors used the watch-and-wait approach. But then his cancer progressed and needed treatment. By 2010, it had mutated so much that it no longer responded to standard therapy.

He was rapidly running out of options. Back then, the only treatment left was a bone marrow transplant. Without one, his doctors said, he would have 1 or 2 years left to live.

“I was really trying to avoid a bone marrow transplant. You’re playing your last card if that doesn’t work. It’s a pretty rough procedure,” Olson told Medscape Medical News.

Looking back, Olson counts himself as lucky – for being in the right place, at the right time, with the right doctor. His oncologist was David Porter, MD, the principal investigator on a trial at the University of Pennsylvania that was investigating a brand new approach to treating cancer: chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

CAR T-cell therapy uses a patient’s own T cells engineered to express a receptor that targets proteins on cancer cells. CAR T cells are considered “living drugs” because they expand inside the body and stick around for years – maybe for a lifetime – to fight the cancer if it tries to come back.

“I was certainly intrigued by the approach. It had worked in mice, and it was the sort of thing that looked like it would work,” Olson recalled.

Science is not a foreign language to Olson. He holds a PhD in medicinal chemistry, spent most of his career in the in vitro diagnostics industry, and currently acts as chief executive officer of Buhlmann Diagnostics Corp.

So he read the clinical protocol for the first in-human trial of CAR T cells and agreed to become patient number two.

Olson’s T cells were harvested, engineered to attack the CD19 antigen found on malignant and normal B lymphocytes, and then were expanded into millions in the lab. After undergoing preconditioning with chemotherapy to minimize rejection and boost the CAR T cells’ expansion inside the body, he received several infusions of the new therapy over the course of 3 days.

Nothing really happened for 2 weeks. Then he developed severe flu-like symptoms – so bad that he was hospitalized.

Ironically, getting sick was a sign that the CAR T cells were working. Olson was experiencing one of the main short-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy: cytokine release syndrome. Symptoms include extremely high fevers and dangerous drops in blood pressure that can potentially cause end-organ damage.

In the early trials of these products, some patients experienced such a severe reaction that they needed intensive care, and some died. With increasing clinical experience, doctors have learned to control the reaction with the use of steroids and interleukein-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab (Actemra).

Fortunately for Olson, the reaction passed, and he was eventually discharged.

Then the “aha moment” happened. Four weeks after receiving the CAR T cells, Olson found out that he was cancer free.

“It still gives me shivers,” he said. “Dr Porter said, ‘Your bone marrow’s completely free. We just can’t find a cancer cell anywhere.’ “

The remission has lasted, and it is now 10 years later.
 

Balancing long-term risks vs benefits

Long-term data have been accumulating for these novel therapies since Olson’s treatment in 2010. This is particularly important for CAR T-cell therapy, because of its longevity. Because these are living cells and are expected to persist in the body for years, there is great interest in longer-term data, especially the risks for toxicity.

The FDA requires clinical follow-up for at least 15 years for patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy or any other genetically modified cells.

So far, most of the experience with CAR T cells comes from anti-CD19-directed therapy, which has shown “remarkable” remission rates in the 50% to 85% range, said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section of the Pediatric Oncology Branch at the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

The most recent results presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology support earlier efficacy data, she noted. In the longest follow-up to date, researchers reported remissions lasting over 9 years in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL treated with Kite›s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta), one of two anti-CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 (the other is Novartis’ tisagenlecleucel [Kymriah]).

This study included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved in 54% of patients, and 22% had partial remission.

The other focus is long-term safety. Although some of the long-term adverse effects are known and are manageable, others fall into the theoretical realm. In early May 2020, the NCI held a multidisciplinary virtual conference on CAR T-cell therapy «to encourage collaborative research about the subacute and potentially long-term toxicity profile of these treatments.»

“We know just a little at this point about late- and long-term effects of CAR-T therapy, because we are relatively early in the era of CAR T cells,” said Merav Bar, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
 

B-cell aplasia and risk for new infections

What is known is that B-cell aplasia represents the most common long-term adverse effect of CAR T-cell therapy. B-cell aplasia results when anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy wipes out healthy B cells as well as the malignant ones responsible for leukemia/lymphoma.

As major players in the immune system, B cells are a key defense against viruses. So B-cell aplasia represents a very specific type of immunosuppression. It is generally less severe than immunosuppression that occurs after organ transplant, which hits the immune system pretty much across the board and carries a much higher risk for infection.

The main concern is what happens when someone with B-cell aplasia encounters a new pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2.

After infection, B cells generate memory cells, which are not killed off by anti-CD19 therapy and that stick around for life. So a patient such as Olson would still make antibodies that fight infections they experienced before receiving CAR-T therapy, such as childhood chickenpox. But now they are unable to make new memory cells, so these patients receive monthly immunoglobulin infusions to protect against pathogens they have not previously encountered.

Olson takes this in stride and says he isn’t overly worried about COVID-19. He follows the recommended precautions for a man his age. He wears a mask, washes his hands frequently, and tries to maintain social distancing. But he doesn’t stay locked up in his New Hampshire home.

“I took the attitude when I was diagnosed with cancer that I’m going to live my life,” he said. “Quality of life to me is more important than quantity.”
 

Neuropsychiatric toxicity

Another problem is the possibility of neuropsychiatric toxicity. Past studies have reported a wide range of such toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, including seizures and hallucinations. Most have occurred early in the course of treatment and appear to be short-lived and reversible. However, there remain questions about long-term neuropsychiatric problems.

In a long-term study of 40 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and ALL, nearly half of patients (47.5%, 19/40) self-reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome (anxiety, depression, or cognitive difficulty) 1 to 5 years after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. In addition, 37.5% (15/40) self-reported cognitive difficulties.

“Patients with more severe neurotoxicity showed a trend for more cognitive difficulties afterwards,» said Bar, senior author of the study.

However, teasing out the role that CAR T-cell therapy plays in these problems poses a challenge. All of these patients had been heavily pretreated with previous cancer therapy, which has also been associated with neuropsychiatric problems.

“So far, we don’t know what caused it,” Bar said. “Nevertheless, people need to pay attention to neuropsychiatric symptoms in CAR T-cell therapy. It is important to continue to monitor these patients for these issues.”
 

Graft-vs-host disease

Another potential problem is graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). This is not uncommon after hematopoietic stem cell transplants. It develops when the donor T cells view antigens on healthy recipient cells as foreign and attack them.

For patients who are treated with CAR T cells, GVHD is mostly a concern among individuals who have previously had a transplant and who are already at increased risk for it.

In a study of late effects among 86 adults treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Bar and colleagues found that GVHD occurred only among patients who had received a previous donor stem cell transplant. Of these, 20% (3/15) developed GVHD about 28 months after CAR-T therapy.

“The data for CAR T cells causing GVHD really hasn’t shown that it’s a huge problem, although we have seen it and are continuing to monitor for it,” the NCI’s Shah commented to Medscape Medical News.

Other Long-term Adverse Effects

A range of other long-term adverse effects have been reported with CAR-T therapy, including prolonged cytopenias (reduced mature blood cells), myelodysplasia (bone marrow failure), and second malignancies.

In the study with the longest follow-up to date, 16% (7/43) of patients developed second malignancies, which is comparable to data from Bar’s study in Seattle (15%, 13/86). The researchers in this study consider this rate to be no higher than expected: these patients had already received extensive chemotherapy, which increases the risk for other cancers, they point out.

However, this brings up theoretical concerns about the long-term effects of gene modification. CAR T cells are engineered using retroviruses (mainly lentiviruses), which randomly insert the CAR genes into the host genome. Doing so may cause mutations that could promote cancer. These lentiviruses also carry the theoretical risk of becoming capable of viral replication once inside the body.

To address these concerns, viruses used to engineer CAR T cells go through comprehensive safety testing. After therapy, patients are checked every few months during the first year and annually after that.

So far, there have been no reports of cancers associated with CAR T-cell therapy.

“Any type of cancer is a very theoretical risk,” Bar told Medscape Medical News. «Most likely the malignancies in our study were related to prior treatment that the patients received. None of them had any evidence of replication-competent lentivirus, or any other evidence that the malignancies were related to the CAR T cells.»

Another theoretical concern is the possibility of new-onset autoimmune disease, although, once again, no cases have been reported so far.

“We think of it as a theoretic possibility. Whenever you jack up the immune system, autoimmune disease is a potential risk,” said Carl June, MD, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the University of Pennsylvania.

June was the co–principal investigator of the trial in which Olson participated. He is also the inventor on patents for CAR T cells licensed by the University of Pennsylvania to Novartis and Tmunity and is a scientific founder with equity in Tmunity.

Still, autoimmunity could occur, and scientists are looking out for it.

“We are continuing to be vigilant in our monitoring for autoimmune disease,” Shah added. “We’ve been doing CAR T-cell therapy since 2012, and I think we have yet to see true autoimmunity beyond GVHD.”
 

Future directions

In the 10 years since Olson received CAR T-cell therapy, an entire industry has sprung up. Over 100 companies worldwide are now developing CAR T-cell therapies targeting various antigens. These therapies are directed at about 60 different tumor types, including solid tumors. Nearly 200 clinical trials are underway, though most are still in early stages: as of September 2019, only 5% had reached phase 3.

Clinical data show promising results for CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD22 (overexpressed on ALL cells), and BCMA (found on almost all multiple myeloma cells). Yet questions remain as to whether CAR T cells will be as effective if they target antigens other than CD19 or cells other than B lymphocytes. One of the biggest research questions is whether they will be effective against solid tumors.

One research avenue being watched with great interest is the development of universal CAR T cells. So far, such products are at very early stages of development (phase 1 trials), but they are attractive because of the potential advantages they offer over bespoke CAR T cells. Automating the process holds the promise of immediate availability, standardizing production, expanding access, and lowering costs. And because the T cells for this universal product come from healthy donors, they may function better than T cells that have been battered and bruised by past cancer treatments, or even the cancer itself.

However, precisely because they are developed from healthy donor T cells, universal CAR T cells may pose increased risk for GVHD. Scientists are trying to get around this problem by engineering universal CAR T cells that lack the T-cell receptor involved in GVHD.

There are also other concerns. Nature has a penchant for mutation. Engineering CAR T cells without T-cell receptors means the body may no longer detect or reject a universal CAR T cell if it goes rogue. Also, gene insertion in universal CAR-T therapy is targeted rather than random (as in bespoke CAR T cells), which could create off-target effects. Both issues create a theoretical risk of such products inducing an untreatable CAR T-cell therapy–associated cancer.

“The theoretic risk with universal cells is that their safety profile may not be as good for long term,” June commented.
 

Hope for the future

From that first trial in which June and Porter used CAR T cells, two of three patients they treated are still alive 10 years later.

Olson is one of these two, and he still undergoes monitoring every 3 months to check for relapse. So far, none of his tests have shown signs of his cancer returning.

After going into remission, Doug spent the next 6 to 9 months regaining his health and strength.

“I figured if I had this amazing treatment that saved my life, I had an obligation to stay alive,” he said. “I’d better not die of something like a heart attack!”

He took up long distance running and has completed six half marathons. He became involved in the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, participating in fund-raising and helping newly diagnosed patients. Over the years, he has also given talks for researchers, people with cancer, and healthcare providers.

Doug is now 73. Today, he marvels at how rapidly the CAR-T field has progressed.

“Twenty years ago, if you had cancer, your prospects weren’t nearly as good as these days. In 2010, people still didn’t believe in CAR T-cell therapy,” he said. “My goal always in telling my story is a message of hope.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When a patient with cancer hears there isn’t much left that doctors can do, it always stays fresh in the mind.

Doug Olson was first diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over 20 years ago, in 1996. For several years, his doctors used the watch-and-wait approach. But then his cancer progressed and needed treatment. By 2010, it had mutated so much that it no longer responded to standard therapy.

He was rapidly running out of options. Back then, the only treatment left was a bone marrow transplant. Without one, his doctors said, he would have 1 or 2 years left to live.

“I was really trying to avoid a bone marrow transplant. You’re playing your last card if that doesn’t work. It’s a pretty rough procedure,” Olson told Medscape Medical News.

Looking back, Olson counts himself as lucky – for being in the right place, at the right time, with the right doctor. His oncologist was David Porter, MD, the principal investigator on a trial at the University of Pennsylvania that was investigating a brand new approach to treating cancer: chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

CAR T-cell therapy uses a patient’s own T cells engineered to express a receptor that targets proteins on cancer cells. CAR T cells are considered “living drugs” because they expand inside the body and stick around for years – maybe for a lifetime – to fight the cancer if it tries to come back.

“I was certainly intrigued by the approach. It had worked in mice, and it was the sort of thing that looked like it would work,” Olson recalled.

Science is not a foreign language to Olson. He holds a PhD in medicinal chemistry, spent most of his career in the in vitro diagnostics industry, and currently acts as chief executive officer of Buhlmann Diagnostics Corp.

So he read the clinical protocol for the first in-human trial of CAR T cells and agreed to become patient number two.

Olson’s T cells were harvested, engineered to attack the CD19 antigen found on malignant and normal B lymphocytes, and then were expanded into millions in the lab. After undergoing preconditioning with chemotherapy to minimize rejection and boost the CAR T cells’ expansion inside the body, he received several infusions of the new therapy over the course of 3 days.

Nothing really happened for 2 weeks. Then he developed severe flu-like symptoms – so bad that he was hospitalized.

Ironically, getting sick was a sign that the CAR T cells were working. Olson was experiencing one of the main short-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy: cytokine release syndrome. Symptoms include extremely high fevers and dangerous drops in blood pressure that can potentially cause end-organ damage.

In the early trials of these products, some patients experienced such a severe reaction that they needed intensive care, and some died. With increasing clinical experience, doctors have learned to control the reaction with the use of steroids and interleukein-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab (Actemra).

Fortunately for Olson, the reaction passed, and he was eventually discharged.

Then the “aha moment” happened. Four weeks after receiving the CAR T cells, Olson found out that he was cancer free.

“It still gives me shivers,” he said. “Dr Porter said, ‘Your bone marrow’s completely free. We just can’t find a cancer cell anywhere.’ “

The remission has lasted, and it is now 10 years later.
 

Balancing long-term risks vs benefits

Long-term data have been accumulating for these novel therapies since Olson’s treatment in 2010. This is particularly important for CAR T-cell therapy, because of its longevity. Because these are living cells and are expected to persist in the body for years, there is great interest in longer-term data, especially the risks for toxicity.

The FDA requires clinical follow-up for at least 15 years for patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy or any other genetically modified cells.

So far, most of the experience with CAR T cells comes from anti-CD19-directed therapy, which has shown “remarkable” remission rates in the 50% to 85% range, said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section of the Pediatric Oncology Branch at the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

The most recent results presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology support earlier efficacy data, she noted. In the longest follow-up to date, researchers reported remissions lasting over 9 years in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL treated with Kite›s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta), one of two anti-CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 (the other is Novartis’ tisagenlecleucel [Kymriah]).

This study included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved in 54% of patients, and 22% had partial remission.

The other focus is long-term safety. Although some of the long-term adverse effects are known and are manageable, others fall into the theoretical realm. In early May 2020, the NCI held a multidisciplinary virtual conference on CAR T-cell therapy «to encourage collaborative research about the subacute and potentially long-term toxicity profile of these treatments.»

“We know just a little at this point about late- and long-term effects of CAR-T therapy, because we are relatively early in the era of CAR T cells,” said Merav Bar, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
 

B-cell aplasia and risk for new infections

What is known is that B-cell aplasia represents the most common long-term adverse effect of CAR T-cell therapy. B-cell aplasia results when anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy wipes out healthy B cells as well as the malignant ones responsible for leukemia/lymphoma.

As major players in the immune system, B cells are a key defense against viruses. So B-cell aplasia represents a very specific type of immunosuppression. It is generally less severe than immunosuppression that occurs after organ transplant, which hits the immune system pretty much across the board and carries a much higher risk for infection.

The main concern is what happens when someone with B-cell aplasia encounters a new pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2.

After infection, B cells generate memory cells, which are not killed off by anti-CD19 therapy and that stick around for life. So a patient such as Olson would still make antibodies that fight infections they experienced before receiving CAR-T therapy, such as childhood chickenpox. But now they are unable to make new memory cells, so these patients receive monthly immunoglobulin infusions to protect against pathogens they have not previously encountered.

Olson takes this in stride and says he isn’t overly worried about COVID-19. He follows the recommended precautions for a man his age. He wears a mask, washes his hands frequently, and tries to maintain social distancing. But he doesn’t stay locked up in his New Hampshire home.

“I took the attitude when I was diagnosed with cancer that I’m going to live my life,” he said. “Quality of life to me is more important than quantity.”
 

Neuropsychiatric toxicity

Another problem is the possibility of neuropsychiatric toxicity. Past studies have reported a wide range of such toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, including seizures and hallucinations. Most have occurred early in the course of treatment and appear to be short-lived and reversible. However, there remain questions about long-term neuropsychiatric problems.

In a long-term study of 40 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and ALL, nearly half of patients (47.5%, 19/40) self-reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome (anxiety, depression, or cognitive difficulty) 1 to 5 years after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. In addition, 37.5% (15/40) self-reported cognitive difficulties.

“Patients with more severe neurotoxicity showed a trend for more cognitive difficulties afterwards,» said Bar, senior author of the study.

However, teasing out the role that CAR T-cell therapy plays in these problems poses a challenge. All of these patients had been heavily pretreated with previous cancer therapy, which has also been associated with neuropsychiatric problems.

“So far, we don’t know what caused it,” Bar said. “Nevertheless, people need to pay attention to neuropsychiatric symptoms in CAR T-cell therapy. It is important to continue to monitor these patients for these issues.”
 

Graft-vs-host disease

Another potential problem is graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). This is not uncommon after hematopoietic stem cell transplants. It develops when the donor T cells view antigens on healthy recipient cells as foreign and attack them.

For patients who are treated with CAR T cells, GVHD is mostly a concern among individuals who have previously had a transplant and who are already at increased risk for it.

In a study of late effects among 86 adults treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Bar and colleagues found that GVHD occurred only among patients who had received a previous donor stem cell transplant. Of these, 20% (3/15) developed GVHD about 28 months after CAR-T therapy.

“The data for CAR T cells causing GVHD really hasn’t shown that it’s a huge problem, although we have seen it and are continuing to monitor for it,” the NCI’s Shah commented to Medscape Medical News.

Other Long-term Adverse Effects

A range of other long-term adverse effects have been reported with CAR-T therapy, including prolonged cytopenias (reduced mature blood cells), myelodysplasia (bone marrow failure), and second malignancies.

In the study with the longest follow-up to date, 16% (7/43) of patients developed second malignancies, which is comparable to data from Bar’s study in Seattle (15%, 13/86). The researchers in this study consider this rate to be no higher than expected: these patients had already received extensive chemotherapy, which increases the risk for other cancers, they point out.

However, this brings up theoretical concerns about the long-term effects of gene modification. CAR T cells are engineered using retroviruses (mainly lentiviruses), which randomly insert the CAR genes into the host genome. Doing so may cause mutations that could promote cancer. These lentiviruses also carry the theoretical risk of becoming capable of viral replication once inside the body.

To address these concerns, viruses used to engineer CAR T cells go through comprehensive safety testing. After therapy, patients are checked every few months during the first year and annually after that.

So far, there have been no reports of cancers associated with CAR T-cell therapy.

“Any type of cancer is a very theoretical risk,” Bar told Medscape Medical News. «Most likely the malignancies in our study were related to prior treatment that the patients received. None of them had any evidence of replication-competent lentivirus, or any other evidence that the malignancies were related to the CAR T cells.»

Another theoretical concern is the possibility of new-onset autoimmune disease, although, once again, no cases have been reported so far.

“We think of it as a theoretic possibility. Whenever you jack up the immune system, autoimmune disease is a potential risk,” said Carl June, MD, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the University of Pennsylvania.

June was the co–principal investigator of the trial in which Olson participated. He is also the inventor on patents for CAR T cells licensed by the University of Pennsylvania to Novartis and Tmunity and is a scientific founder with equity in Tmunity.

Still, autoimmunity could occur, and scientists are looking out for it.

“We are continuing to be vigilant in our monitoring for autoimmune disease,” Shah added. “We’ve been doing CAR T-cell therapy since 2012, and I think we have yet to see true autoimmunity beyond GVHD.”
 

Future directions

In the 10 years since Olson received CAR T-cell therapy, an entire industry has sprung up. Over 100 companies worldwide are now developing CAR T-cell therapies targeting various antigens. These therapies are directed at about 60 different tumor types, including solid tumors. Nearly 200 clinical trials are underway, though most are still in early stages: as of September 2019, only 5% had reached phase 3.

Clinical data show promising results for CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD22 (overexpressed on ALL cells), and BCMA (found on almost all multiple myeloma cells). Yet questions remain as to whether CAR T cells will be as effective if they target antigens other than CD19 or cells other than B lymphocytes. One of the biggest research questions is whether they will be effective against solid tumors.

One research avenue being watched with great interest is the development of universal CAR T cells. So far, such products are at very early stages of development (phase 1 trials), but they are attractive because of the potential advantages they offer over bespoke CAR T cells. Automating the process holds the promise of immediate availability, standardizing production, expanding access, and lowering costs. And because the T cells for this universal product come from healthy donors, they may function better than T cells that have been battered and bruised by past cancer treatments, or even the cancer itself.

However, precisely because they are developed from healthy donor T cells, universal CAR T cells may pose increased risk for GVHD. Scientists are trying to get around this problem by engineering universal CAR T cells that lack the T-cell receptor involved in GVHD.

There are also other concerns. Nature has a penchant for mutation. Engineering CAR T cells without T-cell receptors means the body may no longer detect or reject a universal CAR T cell if it goes rogue. Also, gene insertion in universal CAR-T therapy is targeted rather than random (as in bespoke CAR T cells), which could create off-target effects. Both issues create a theoretical risk of such products inducing an untreatable CAR T-cell therapy–associated cancer.

“The theoretic risk with universal cells is that their safety profile may not be as good for long term,” June commented.
 

Hope for the future

From that first trial in which June and Porter used CAR T cells, two of three patients they treated are still alive 10 years later.

Olson is one of these two, and he still undergoes monitoring every 3 months to check for relapse. So far, none of his tests have shown signs of his cancer returning.

After going into remission, Doug spent the next 6 to 9 months regaining his health and strength.

“I figured if I had this amazing treatment that saved my life, I had an obligation to stay alive,” he said. “I’d better not die of something like a heart attack!”

He took up long distance running and has completed six half marathons. He became involved in the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, participating in fund-raising and helping newly diagnosed patients. Over the years, he has also given talks for researchers, people with cancer, and healthcare providers.

Doug is now 73. Today, he marvels at how rapidly the CAR-T field has progressed.

“Twenty years ago, if you had cancer, your prospects weren’t nearly as good as these days. In 2010, people still didn’t believe in CAR T-cell therapy,” he said. “My goal always in telling my story is a message of hope.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.