Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

[email protected]

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

[email protected]

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

[email protected]

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

Patients with multiple myeloma that has continued to progress despite many lines of therapy have shown deep and durable responses to a new chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, under development by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bluebird Bio).

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.”

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel said.

The new data on ide-cell, from a trial in 128 patients, were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Lead investigator of the study Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for this population of relapsed/refractory patients. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies. Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients who have failed all three classes of drugs, the median progression-free survival is about 3-4 months, with a median overall survival of 8-9 months.
 

Product is awaiting approval

Ide-cel is currently awaiting FDA approval, with a decision date slated for March 27.

Several CAR T-cell products are already marketed for use in certain leukemias and lymphomas, and there is another for use in multiple myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, under development by Janssen), that is awaiting approval in Europe.
 

Strong and sustained responses

The trial involved 128 patients treated with ide-cel infusions. At the time of data cutoff for this report (Jan. 14, 2020), 62 patients remained in the primary study. Of the 128 treated patients, the median age was 61 years and the median time since diagnosis was 6 years. About half (51%) had a high tumor burden (≥50% bone marrow plasma cells), 39% had extramedullary disease, 16% had stage III disease, and 35% had a high-risk cytogenetic abnormality, defined as del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16).

Patients in the cohort had received a median of six previous antimyeloma regimens (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants. In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta refractory.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001), with 42 (33%) showing a complete or stringent complete response, and 67 patients (52%) showing a “very good partial response or better.”

Overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months at the 450×106 dose but more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response. Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, with an overall survival of 78% at 12 months. The authors noted that overall survival data are not yet mature.

After experiencing disease progression, 28 patients were retreated with ide-cel, with 6 patients showing a second response. The durations of response ranged from 1.9 to 6.8 months.

All patients in the cohort experienced adverse events, primarily grade 3 or 4 events that occurred in 127 patients (99%). The most common events reported were hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia in 114 patients (89%), anemia in 77 (60%), and thrombocytopenia in 67 (52%), and were at least partially related to the lymphodepleting chemotherapy administered before ide-cel infusion, the authors note. Cytokine-release syndrome occurred in 107 patients (84%), primarily grade 1 or 2.

“Results of the KarMMa study support substantial antitumor activity for ide-cel across a target dose range of 150×106 to 450×106 CAR+ T cells,” the authors conclude. “The 450×106 dose appeared to be somewhat more effective than the other doses.”
 

New option?

“What this study further highlights is that higher cell dose tends to increase cell expansion, which correlates to improved response and duration of response,” said Dr. Patel.

Importantly, multiple vulnerable subgroups experienced impressive outcomes, such as those who are older or with high risk or extramedullary disease, she noted.

“My patients who have undergone this therapy, albeit on other clinical trials, all say that their quality of life during this time of remission is priceless,” Dr. Patel added. “The is the first therapy in the relapsed/refractory setting that allows patients to have a significant chemo-free period. We need to find more ways to do this for our patients.”

The study was supported by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Patel has served on the advisory board for Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. She also reports a speaking engagement with Oncopeptides. Dr. Munshi acts as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, and many coauthors also have relationships with industry, as listed in the original article.

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

Patients with multiple myeloma that has continued to progress despite many lines of therapy have shown deep and durable responses to a new chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, under development by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bluebird Bio).

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.”

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel said.

The new data on ide-cell, from a trial in 128 patients, were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Lead investigator of the study Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for this population of relapsed/refractory patients. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies. Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients who have failed all three classes of drugs, the median progression-free survival is about 3-4 months, with a median overall survival of 8-9 months.
 

Product is awaiting approval

Ide-cel is currently awaiting FDA approval, with a decision date slated for March 27.

Several CAR T-cell products are already marketed for use in certain leukemias and lymphomas, and there is another for use in multiple myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, under development by Janssen), that is awaiting approval in Europe.
 

Strong and sustained responses

The trial involved 128 patients treated with ide-cel infusions. At the time of data cutoff for this report (Jan. 14, 2020), 62 patients remained in the primary study. Of the 128 treated patients, the median age was 61 years and the median time since diagnosis was 6 years. About half (51%) had a high tumor burden (≥50% bone marrow plasma cells), 39% had extramedullary disease, 16% had stage III disease, and 35% had a high-risk cytogenetic abnormality, defined as del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16).

Patients in the cohort had received a median of six previous antimyeloma regimens (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants. In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta refractory.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001), with 42 (33%) showing a complete or stringent complete response, and 67 patients (52%) showing a “very good partial response or better.”

Overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months at the 450×106 dose but more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response. Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, with an overall survival of 78% at 12 months. The authors noted that overall survival data are not yet mature.

After experiencing disease progression, 28 patients were retreated with ide-cel, with 6 patients showing a second response. The durations of response ranged from 1.9 to 6.8 months.

All patients in the cohort experienced adverse events, primarily grade 3 or 4 events that occurred in 127 patients (99%). The most common events reported were hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia in 114 patients (89%), anemia in 77 (60%), and thrombocytopenia in 67 (52%), and were at least partially related to the lymphodepleting chemotherapy administered before ide-cel infusion, the authors note. Cytokine-release syndrome occurred in 107 patients (84%), primarily grade 1 or 2.

“Results of the KarMMa study support substantial antitumor activity for ide-cel across a target dose range of 150×106 to 450×106 CAR+ T cells,” the authors conclude. “The 450×106 dose appeared to be somewhat more effective than the other doses.”
 

New option?

“What this study further highlights is that higher cell dose tends to increase cell expansion, which correlates to improved response and duration of response,” said Dr. Patel.

Importantly, multiple vulnerable subgroups experienced impressive outcomes, such as those who are older or with high risk or extramedullary disease, she noted.

“My patients who have undergone this therapy, albeit on other clinical trials, all say that their quality of life during this time of remission is priceless,” Dr. Patel added. “The is the first therapy in the relapsed/refractory setting that allows patients to have a significant chemo-free period. We need to find more ways to do this for our patients.”

The study was supported by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Patel has served on the advisory board for Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. She also reports a speaking engagement with Oncopeptides. Dr. Munshi acts as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, and many coauthors also have relationships with industry, as listed in the original article.

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

Patients with multiple myeloma that has continued to progress despite many lines of therapy have shown deep and durable responses to a new chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, under development by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bluebird Bio).

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.”

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel said.

The new data on ide-cell, from a trial in 128 patients, were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Lead investigator of the study Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for this population of relapsed/refractory patients. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies. Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients who have failed all three classes of drugs, the median progression-free survival is about 3-4 months, with a median overall survival of 8-9 months.
 

Product is awaiting approval

Ide-cel is currently awaiting FDA approval, with a decision date slated for March 27.

Several CAR T-cell products are already marketed for use in certain leukemias and lymphomas, and there is another for use in multiple myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, under development by Janssen), that is awaiting approval in Europe.
 

Strong and sustained responses

The trial involved 128 patients treated with ide-cel infusions. At the time of data cutoff for this report (Jan. 14, 2020), 62 patients remained in the primary study. Of the 128 treated patients, the median age was 61 years and the median time since diagnosis was 6 years. About half (51%) had a high tumor burden (≥50% bone marrow plasma cells), 39% had extramedullary disease, 16% had stage III disease, and 35% had a high-risk cytogenetic abnormality, defined as del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16).

Patients in the cohort had received a median of six previous antimyeloma regimens (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants. In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta refractory.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001), with 42 (33%) showing a complete or stringent complete response, and 67 patients (52%) showing a “very good partial response or better.”

Overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months at the 450×106 dose but more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response. Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, with an overall survival of 78% at 12 months. The authors noted that overall survival data are not yet mature.

After experiencing disease progression, 28 patients were retreated with ide-cel, with 6 patients showing a second response. The durations of response ranged from 1.9 to 6.8 months.

All patients in the cohort experienced adverse events, primarily grade 3 or 4 events that occurred in 127 patients (99%). The most common events reported were hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia in 114 patients (89%), anemia in 77 (60%), and thrombocytopenia in 67 (52%), and were at least partially related to the lymphodepleting chemotherapy administered before ide-cel infusion, the authors note. Cytokine-release syndrome occurred in 107 patients (84%), primarily grade 1 or 2.

“Results of the KarMMa study support substantial antitumor activity for ide-cel across a target dose range of 150×106 to 450×106 CAR+ T cells,” the authors conclude. “The 450×106 dose appeared to be somewhat more effective than the other doses.”
 

New option?

“What this study further highlights is that higher cell dose tends to increase cell expansion, which correlates to improved response and duration of response,” said Dr. Patel.

Importantly, multiple vulnerable subgroups experienced impressive outcomes, such as those who are older or with high risk or extramedullary disease, she noted.

“My patients who have undergone this therapy, albeit on other clinical trials, all say that their quality of life during this time of remission is priceless,” Dr. Patel added. “The is the first therapy in the relapsed/refractory setting that allows patients to have a significant chemo-free period. We need to find more ways to do this for our patients.”

The study was supported by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Patel has served on the advisory board for Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. She also reports a speaking engagement with Oncopeptides. Dr. Munshi acts as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, and many coauthors also have relationships with industry, as listed in the original article.

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

Maribavir, an investigational antiviral agent with a novel mechanism of action, was superior to other antiviral strategies at clearing cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia and controlling symptoms in hematopoietic cell or solid-organ transplant recipients, results of a phase 3 clinical trial showed.

CDC

CMV viremia clearance at study week 8 was seen in 55.7% of all patients randomized to receive maribavir, compared with 23.9% for patients assigned to receive investigator-assigned therapy (IAT), Francisco Marty, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston reported at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

“Maribavir’s benefit was driven by lower incidence of treatment-limiting toxicities, compared with IAT,” he said a late-breaking abstract session during the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“Available anti-CMV antivirals are limited by development of resistance and toxicities, particularly myelosuppression with the use of valganciclovir and nephrotoxicity with the use of foscarnet and cidofovir. Alternative treatment options are required to address this unmet medical need,” he said.

Maribavir inhibits the CMV UL97 protein kinase and is thought to affect several critical processes in CMV replication, including viral DNA synthesis, viral gene expression, encapsidation, and egress of mature capsids from the nucleus.
 

Details of trial

In the phase 3 SHP620-30e trial (NCT02931539), Dr. Marty and colleagues enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory CMV infections after hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) or solid-organ transplant (SOT) and after stratification by transplant type and screening CMV DNA level randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive either maribavir 400 mg twice daily (235 patients) or IAT (117 patients), consisting of either ganciclovir/valganciclovir, foscarnet, cidofovir, or combined foscarnet and val/ganciclovir.

The primary endpoint of viremia clearance at 8 weeks was defined as plasma CMV DNA less than 137 IU/mL in two consecutive tests at a central laboratory at least 5 days apart beginning at the end of week 8.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a viremia clearance rate of 55.7% with maribavir versus 23.9% with IAT.

The viremia clearance rates were similar in each of the transplant groups: 55.9% versus 20.8%, respectively, in patients who underwent HCT, and 55.6% versus 26.1% in patients who underwent SOT (P < .001).

Clearance rates among patients with CMV DNA below 9,100 IU/mL at baseline were 62.1% with maribavir versus 24.7% with IAT. Among patients with baseline CMV DNA of 9100 IU/mL or above, the respective rates were 43.9% versus 21.9%.

CMV viremia clearance continued from week 8 to week 16 in 18.7% of patients assigned to maribavir and to 10.3% of patients randomized to IAT (P < .013).

The median time to first CMV viremia clearance as 22 days with maribavir versus 27 days with IAT (P = .039).

All-cause mortality was similar between the groups, at 11.5% versus 11.1%, respectively.

The incidences of serious and severe treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were 38.5% and 32.1%, respectively, in the maribavir group, and 37.1% and 37.9% in the IAT group.

Any TEAE leading to study drug discontinuation was less common with maribavir, occurring in 13.2% of patients, compared with 31.9% of patients on IAT. Serious TEAEs leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 8.5% versus 14.7%, respectively.

Serious TEAEs leading to death occurred in 6.8% of patients on maribavir versus 5.2% of those on IAT.
 

Role of letermovir

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, comoderator Monalisa Ghosh, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked whether any patients in the study were currently on letermovir (Prevymis) prophylaxis, and whether any patients had previously been treated with letermovir but had CMV reactivation and were then treated on study.

Dr. Marty noted that the trial was designed before letermovir was approved for CMV prophylaxis in adults who have undergone an allogeneic HCT.

“Nobody was on letermovir at the beginning of the trial,” he replied, but noted that some patients who were enrolled and had infections that were refractory or resistant to valganciclovir, foscarnet, or a combination of the two received letermovir as secondary prophylaxis.

“I haven’t got the data to tell you how often [letermovir] was used; I think part of the lack of mortality benefit [with maribavir] may be due to the fact that people jumped into secondary prophylaxis with letermovir to minimize the toxicities that we saw,” he said.

Although maribavir has not as of this writing received Food and Drug Administration approval, the drug may be available to some patients through a compassionate-use program from Takeda, Dr. Marty noted.

The study was funded by Shire ViroPharma. Dr. Marty disclosed research funding from Shire and from others. Dr. Ghosh had no relevant disclosures.

Maribavir, an investigational antiviral agent with a novel mechanism of action, was superior to other antiviral strategies at clearing cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia and controlling symptoms in hematopoietic cell or solid-organ transplant recipients, results of a phase 3 clinical trial showed.

CDC

CMV viremia clearance at study week 8 was seen in 55.7% of all patients randomized to receive maribavir, compared with 23.9% for patients assigned to receive investigator-assigned therapy (IAT), Francisco Marty, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston reported at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

“Maribavir’s benefit was driven by lower incidence of treatment-limiting toxicities, compared with IAT,” he said a late-breaking abstract session during the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“Available anti-CMV antivirals are limited by development of resistance and toxicities, particularly myelosuppression with the use of valganciclovir and nephrotoxicity with the use of foscarnet and cidofovir. Alternative treatment options are required to address this unmet medical need,” he said.

Maribavir inhibits the CMV UL97 protein kinase and is thought to affect several critical processes in CMV replication, including viral DNA synthesis, viral gene expression, encapsidation, and egress of mature capsids from the nucleus.
 

Details of trial

In the phase 3 SHP620-30e trial (NCT02931539), Dr. Marty and colleagues enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory CMV infections after hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) or solid-organ transplant (SOT) and after stratification by transplant type and screening CMV DNA level randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive either maribavir 400 mg twice daily (235 patients) or IAT (117 patients), consisting of either ganciclovir/valganciclovir, foscarnet, cidofovir, or combined foscarnet and val/ganciclovir.

The primary endpoint of viremia clearance at 8 weeks was defined as plasma CMV DNA less than 137 IU/mL in two consecutive tests at a central laboratory at least 5 days apart beginning at the end of week 8.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a viremia clearance rate of 55.7% with maribavir versus 23.9% with IAT.

The viremia clearance rates were similar in each of the transplant groups: 55.9% versus 20.8%, respectively, in patients who underwent HCT, and 55.6% versus 26.1% in patients who underwent SOT (P < .001).

Clearance rates among patients with CMV DNA below 9,100 IU/mL at baseline were 62.1% with maribavir versus 24.7% with IAT. Among patients with baseline CMV DNA of 9100 IU/mL or above, the respective rates were 43.9% versus 21.9%.

CMV viremia clearance continued from week 8 to week 16 in 18.7% of patients assigned to maribavir and to 10.3% of patients randomized to IAT (P < .013).

The median time to first CMV viremia clearance as 22 days with maribavir versus 27 days with IAT (P = .039).

All-cause mortality was similar between the groups, at 11.5% versus 11.1%, respectively.

The incidences of serious and severe treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were 38.5% and 32.1%, respectively, in the maribavir group, and 37.1% and 37.9% in the IAT group.

Any TEAE leading to study drug discontinuation was less common with maribavir, occurring in 13.2% of patients, compared with 31.9% of patients on IAT. Serious TEAEs leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 8.5% versus 14.7%, respectively.

Serious TEAEs leading to death occurred in 6.8% of patients on maribavir versus 5.2% of those on IAT.
 

Role of letermovir

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, comoderator Monalisa Ghosh, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked whether any patients in the study were currently on letermovir (Prevymis) prophylaxis, and whether any patients had previously been treated with letermovir but had CMV reactivation and were then treated on study.

Dr. Marty noted that the trial was designed before letermovir was approved for CMV prophylaxis in adults who have undergone an allogeneic HCT.

“Nobody was on letermovir at the beginning of the trial,” he replied, but noted that some patients who were enrolled and had infections that were refractory or resistant to valganciclovir, foscarnet, or a combination of the two received letermovir as secondary prophylaxis.

“I haven’t got the data to tell you how often [letermovir] was used; I think part of the lack of mortality benefit [with maribavir] may be due to the fact that people jumped into secondary prophylaxis with letermovir to minimize the toxicities that we saw,” he said.

Although maribavir has not as of this writing received Food and Drug Administration approval, the drug may be available to some patients through a compassionate-use program from Takeda, Dr. Marty noted.

The study was funded by Shire ViroPharma. Dr. Marty disclosed research funding from Shire and from others. Dr. Ghosh had no relevant disclosures.

Maribavir, an investigational antiviral agent with a novel mechanism of action, was superior to other antiviral strategies at clearing cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia and controlling symptoms in hematopoietic cell or solid-organ transplant recipients, results of a phase 3 clinical trial showed.

CDC

CMV viremia clearance at study week 8 was seen in 55.7% of all patients randomized to receive maribavir, compared with 23.9% for patients assigned to receive investigator-assigned therapy (IAT), Francisco Marty, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston reported at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

“Maribavir’s benefit was driven by lower incidence of treatment-limiting toxicities, compared with IAT,” he said a late-breaking abstract session during the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“Available anti-CMV antivirals are limited by development of resistance and toxicities, particularly myelosuppression with the use of valganciclovir and nephrotoxicity with the use of foscarnet and cidofovir. Alternative treatment options are required to address this unmet medical need,” he said.

Maribavir inhibits the CMV UL97 protein kinase and is thought to affect several critical processes in CMV replication, including viral DNA synthesis, viral gene expression, encapsidation, and egress of mature capsids from the nucleus.
 

Details of trial

In the phase 3 SHP620-30e trial (NCT02931539), Dr. Marty and colleagues enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory CMV infections after hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) or solid-organ transplant (SOT) and after stratification by transplant type and screening CMV DNA level randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive either maribavir 400 mg twice daily (235 patients) or IAT (117 patients), consisting of either ganciclovir/valganciclovir, foscarnet, cidofovir, or combined foscarnet and val/ganciclovir.

The primary endpoint of viremia clearance at 8 weeks was defined as plasma CMV DNA less than 137 IU/mL in two consecutive tests at a central laboratory at least 5 days apart beginning at the end of week 8.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a viremia clearance rate of 55.7% with maribavir versus 23.9% with IAT.

The viremia clearance rates were similar in each of the transplant groups: 55.9% versus 20.8%, respectively, in patients who underwent HCT, and 55.6% versus 26.1% in patients who underwent SOT (P < .001).

Clearance rates among patients with CMV DNA below 9,100 IU/mL at baseline were 62.1% with maribavir versus 24.7% with IAT. Among patients with baseline CMV DNA of 9100 IU/mL or above, the respective rates were 43.9% versus 21.9%.

CMV viremia clearance continued from week 8 to week 16 in 18.7% of patients assigned to maribavir and to 10.3% of patients randomized to IAT (P < .013).

The median time to first CMV viremia clearance as 22 days with maribavir versus 27 days with IAT (P = .039).

All-cause mortality was similar between the groups, at 11.5% versus 11.1%, respectively.

The incidences of serious and severe treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were 38.5% and 32.1%, respectively, in the maribavir group, and 37.1% and 37.9% in the IAT group.

Any TEAE leading to study drug discontinuation was less common with maribavir, occurring in 13.2% of patients, compared with 31.9% of patients on IAT. Serious TEAEs leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 8.5% versus 14.7%, respectively.

Serious TEAEs leading to death occurred in 6.8% of patients on maribavir versus 5.2% of those on IAT.
 

Role of letermovir

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, comoderator Monalisa Ghosh, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked whether any patients in the study were currently on letermovir (Prevymis) prophylaxis, and whether any patients had previously been treated with letermovir but had CMV reactivation and were then treated on study.

Dr. Marty noted that the trial was designed before letermovir was approved for CMV prophylaxis in adults who have undergone an allogeneic HCT.

“Nobody was on letermovir at the beginning of the trial,” he replied, but noted that some patients who were enrolled and had infections that were refractory or resistant to valganciclovir, foscarnet, or a combination of the two received letermovir as secondary prophylaxis.

“I haven’t got the data to tell you how often [letermovir] was used; I think part of the lack of mortality benefit [with maribavir] may be due to the fact that people jumped into secondary prophylaxis with letermovir to minimize the toxicities that we saw,” he said.

Although maribavir has not as of this writing received Food and Drug Administration approval, the drug may be available to some patients through a compassionate-use program from Takeda, Dr. Marty noted.

The study was funded by Shire ViroPharma. Dr. Marty disclosed research funding from Shire and from others. Dr. Ghosh had no relevant disclosures.

A novel T-cell engineered product, Orca-T (Orca Bio), was associated with lower incidence of both acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and more than double the rate of GVHD-free and relapse-free survival, compared with the current standard of care for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), investigators said.

In both a multicenter phase 1 trial (NCT04013685) and single-center phase 1/2 trial (NCT01660607) with a total of 50 patients, those who received Orca-T with single-agent GVHD prophylaxis had a 1-year GVHD-free and relapse-free survival rate of 75%, compared with 31% for patients who received standard of care with two-agent prophylaxis, reported Everett H. Meyer, MD, PhD, from the Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Orca-T has good evidence for reduced acute graft-versus-host disease, reduced chromic graft-versus-host disease, and a low nonrelapse mortality,” he said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

The product can be quickly manufactured and delivered to treatment centers across the continental United States, with “vein-to-vein” time of less than 72 hours, he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Orca-T consists of highly purified, donor-derived T-regulatory (Treg) cells that are sorted and delivered on day 0 with hematopoietic stem cells, without immunosuppressants, followed 2 days later with infusion of a matching dose of conventional T cells.

“The Treg cells are allowed to expand to create the right microenvironment for the [conventional T cells],” he explained.

In preclinical studies, donor-derived, high-purity Tregs delivered prior to adoptive transfer of conventional T cells prevented GVHD while maintaining graft-versus-tumor immunity, he said.
 

Two T-cell infusions

He reported updated results from current studies on a total of 50 adults, with a cohort of 144 patients treated concurrently with standard of care as controls.

The Orca-T–treated patients had a median age of 47 and 52% were male. Indications for transplant included acute myeloid and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome/myelofibrosis, and other unspecified indications.

In both the Orca-T and control cohorts, patients underwent myeloablative conditioning from 10 to 2 days prior to stem cell infusion.

As noted patients in the experimental arm received infusion of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and Tregs, followed 2 days later by conventional T-cell infusion, and, on the day after that, tacrolimus at a target dose of 4.6 ng/mL. The conventional T cells were reserved from donor apheresis and were otherwise unmanipulated prior to infusion into the recipient, Dr. Meyer noted.

Patients in the standard-of-care arm received tacrolimus on the day before standard infusion of the apheresis product, followed by methotrexate prophylaxis on days 1, 3, 6 and 11.

Time to neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment, and from day 0 to hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the Orca-T group, at 12 versus 14 days (P < .0001), 11 vs. 17 days (P < .0001), and 15 vs. 17 days (P = .01) respectively.

At 100 days of follow-up, the rate of grade 2 or greater acute GVHD was 30% among standard-of-care patients versus 10% among Orca-T–treated patients. At 1-year follow-up, respective rates of chronic GVHD were 46% vs. 3%.
 

Safety

“In general, the protocol is extremely well tolerated by our patients. We’ve seen no exceptional infectious disease complications, and we’ve seen no other major complications,” Dr. Meyer said.

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was used variably, depending on the center and on the attending physician. Epstein-Barr virus reactivation occurred in eight patients, with one requiring therapy, but there was no biopsy or radiographic evidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

In all, 18% of patients had serious adverse events during the reporting period, all of which resolved. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Orca-T arm, compared with 11% of controls.
 

Engraftment differences explored

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Christopher J. Gamper, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, told Dr. Meyer that “your outcomes from Orca-T look excellent,” and asked about the cost differential, compared with similar, unmanipulated transplants performed with standard GVHD prophylaxis.

“Is this recovered by lower costs for treatment of GVHD?” he asked.

“I have not done an economic cost analysis of course, and I think others may be looking into this,” Dr. Meyer replied. “Graft engineering can be expensive, although it’s an engineering proposition and one could imagine that the costs will go down substantially over time.”

Session moderator Alan Hanash, MD, PhD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented on the differences in engraftment between the experimental controls arms, and asked Dr. Meyer: “Do you think this is due to the difference in prophylaxis? Absence of methotrexate? Do you think that it could be a direct impact of regulatory T cells on hematopoietic engraftment?”

“Certainly not having methotrexate is beneficial for engraftment, and may account for the differences we see, Dr. Meyer said. “However, it is possible that Tregs could be playing a facilitative role. There certainly is good preclinical literature that Tregs, particularly in the bone marrow space, can facilitate bone marrow engraftment.”

The Orca-T trials are sponsored by Orca Bio and Stanford, with support from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Meyer receives research support from Orca and is a scientific adviser to GigaGen, Triursus, Incyte, and Indee Labs. Dr. Hanash and Dr. Gamper had no relevant disclosures.

A novel T-cell engineered product, Orca-T (Orca Bio), was associated with lower incidence of both acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and more than double the rate of GVHD-free and relapse-free survival, compared with the current standard of care for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), investigators said.

In both a multicenter phase 1 trial (NCT04013685) and single-center phase 1/2 trial (NCT01660607) with a total of 50 patients, those who received Orca-T with single-agent GVHD prophylaxis had a 1-year GVHD-free and relapse-free survival rate of 75%, compared with 31% for patients who received standard of care with two-agent prophylaxis, reported Everett H. Meyer, MD, PhD, from the Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Orca-T has good evidence for reduced acute graft-versus-host disease, reduced chromic graft-versus-host disease, and a low nonrelapse mortality,” he said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

The product can be quickly manufactured and delivered to treatment centers across the continental United States, with “vein-to-vein” time of less than 72 hours, he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Orca-T consists of highly purified, donor-derived T-regulatory (Treg) cells that are sorted and delivered on day 0 with hematopoietic stem cells, without immunosuppressants, followed 2 days later with infusion of a matching dose of conventional T cells.

“The Treg cells are allowed to expand to create the right microenvironment for the [conventional T cells],” he explained.

In preclinical studies, donor-derived, high-purity Tregs delivered prior to adoptive transfer of conventional T cells prevented GVHD while maintaining graft-versus-tumor immunity, he said.
 

Two T-cell infusions

He reported updated results from current studies on a total of 50 adults, with a cohort of 144 patients treated concurrently with standard of care as controls.

The Orca-T–treated patients had a median age of 47 and 52% were male. Indications for transplant included acute myeloid and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome/myelofibrosis, and other unspecified indications.

In both the Orca-T and control cohorts, patients underwent myeloablative conditioning from 10 to 2 days prior to stem cell infusion.

As noted patients in the experimental arm received infusion of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and Tregs, followed 2 days later by conventional T-cell infusion, and, on the day after that, tacrolimus at a target dose of 4.6 ng/mL. The conventional T cells were reserved from donor apheresis and were otherwise unmanipulated prior to infusion into the recipient, Dr. Meyer noted.

Patients in the standard-of-care arm received tacrolimus on the day before standard infusion of the apheresis product, followed by methotrexate prophylaxis on days 1, 3, 6 and 11.

Time to neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment, and from day 0 to hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the Orca-T group, at 12 versus 14 days (P < .0001), 11 vs. 17 days (P < .0001), and 15 vs. 17 days (P = .01) respectively.

At 100 days of follow-up, the rate of grade 2 or greater acute GVHD was 30% among standard-of-care patients versus 10% among Orca-T–treated patients. At 1-year follow-up, respective rates of chronic GVHD were 46% vs. 3%.
 

Safety

“In general, the protocol is extremely well tolerated by our patients. We’ve seen no exceptional infectious disease complications, and we’ve seen no other major complications,” Dr. Meyer said.

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was used variably, depending on the center and on the attending physician. Epstein-Barr virus reactivation occurred in eight patients, with one requiring therapy, but there was no biopsy or radiographic evidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

In all, 18% of patients had serious adverse events during the reporting period, all of which resolved. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Orca-T arm, compared with 11% of controls.
 

Engraftment differences explored

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Christopher J. Gamper, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, told Dr. Meyer that “your outcomes from Orca-T look excellent,” and asked about the cost differential, compared with similar, unmanipulated transplants performed with standard GVHD prophylaxis.

“Is this recovered by lower costs for treatment of GVHD?” he asked.

“I have not done an economic cost analysis of course, and I think others may be looking into this,” Dr. Meyer replied. “Graft engineering can be expensive, although it’s an engineering proposition and one could imagine that the costs will go down substantially over time.”

Session moderator Alan Hanash, MD, PhD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented on the differences in engraftment between the experimental controls arms, and asked Dr. Meyer: “Do you think this is due to the difference in prophylaxis? Absence of methotrexate? Do you think that it could be a direct impact of regulatory T cells on hematopoietic engraftment?”

“Certainly not having methotrexate is beneficial for engraftment, and may account for the differences we see, Dr. Meyer said. “However, it is possible that Tregs could be playing a facilitative role. There certainly is good preclinical literature that Tregs, particularly in the bone marrow space, can facilitate bone marrow engraftment.”

The Orca-T trials are sponsored by Orca Bio and Stanford, with support from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Meyer receives research support from Orca and is a scientific adviser to GigaGen, Triursus, Incyte, and Indee Labs. Dr. Hanash and Dr. Gamper had no relevant disclosures.

A novel T-cell engineered product, Orca-T (Orca Bio), was associated with lower incidence of both acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and more than double the rate of GVHD-free and relapse-free survival, compared with the current standard of care for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), investigators said.

In both a multicenter phase 1 trial (NCT04013685) and single-center phase 1/2 trial (NCT01660607) with a total of 50 patients, those who received Orca-T with single-agent GVHD prophylaxis had a 1-year GVHD-free and relapse-free survival rate of 75%, compared with 31% for patients who received standard of care with two-agent prophylaxis, reported Everett H. Meyer, MD, PhD, from the Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Orca-T has good evidence for reduced acute graft-versus-host disease, reduced chromic graft-versus-host disease, and a low nonrelapse mortality,” he said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

The product can be quickly manufactured and delivered to treatment centers across the continental United States, with “vein-to-vein” time of less than 72 hours, he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Orca-T consists of highly purified, donor-derived T-regulatory (Treg) cells that are sorted and delivered on day 0 with hematopoietic stem cells, without immunosuppressants, followed 2 days later with infusion of a matching dose of conventional T cells.

“The Treg cells are allowed to expand to create the right microenvironment for the [conventional T cells],” he explained.

In preclinical studies, donor-derived, high-purity Tregs delivered prior to adoptive transfer of conventional T cells prevented GVHD while maintaining graft-versus-tumor immunity, he said.
 

Two T-cell infusions

He reported updated results from current studies on a total of 50 adults, with a cohort of 144 patients treated concurrently with standard of care as controls.

The Orca-T–treated patients had a median age of 47 and 52% were male. Indications for transplant included acute myeloid and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome/myelofibrosis, and other unspecified indications.

In both the Orca-T and control cohorts, patients underwent myeloablative conditioning from 10 to 2 days prior to stem cell infusion.

As noted patients in the experimental arm received infusion of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and Tregs, followed 2 days later by conventional T-cell infusion, and, on the day after that, tacrolimus at a target dose of 4.6 ng/mL. The conventional T cells were reserved from donor apheresis and were otherwise unmanipulated prior to infusion into the recipient, Dr. Meyer noted.

Patients in the standard-of-care arm received tacrolimus on the day before standard infusion of the apheresis product, followed by methotrexate prophylaxis on days 1, 3, 6 and 11.

Time to neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment, and from day 0 to hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the Orca-T group, at 12 versus 14 days (P < .0001), 11 vs. 17 days (P < .0001), and 15 vs. 17 days (P = .01) respectively.

At 100 days of follow-up, the rate of grade 2 or greater acute GVHD was 30% among standard-of-care patients versus 10% among Orca-T–treated patients. At 1-year follow-up, respective rates of chronic GVHD were 46% vs. 3%.
 

Safety

“In general, the protocol is extremely well tolerated by our patients. We’ve seen no exceptional infectious disease complications, and we’ve seen no other major complications,” Dr. Meyer said.

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was used variably, depending on the center and on the attending physician. Epstein-Barr virus reactivation occurred in eight patients, with one requiring therapy, but there was no biopsy or radiographic evidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

In all, 18% of patients had serious adverse events during the reporting period, all of which resolved. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Orca-T arm, compared with 11% of controls.
 

Engraftment differences explored

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Christopher J. Gamper, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, told Dr. Meyer that “your outcomes from Orca-T look excellent,” and asked about the cost differential, compared with similar, unmanipulated transplants performed with standard GVHD prophylaxis.

“Is this recovered by lower costs for treatment of GVHD?” he asked.

“I have not done an economic cost analysis of course, and I think others may be looking into this,” Dr. Meyer replied. “Graft engineering can be expensive, although it’s an engineering proposition and one could imagine that the costs will go down substantially over time.”

Session moderator Alan Hanash, MD, PhD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented on the differences in engraftment between the experimental controls arms, and asked Dr. Meyer: “Do you think this is due to the difference in prophylaxis? Absence of methotrexate? Do you think that it could be a direct impact of regulatory T cells on hematopoietic engraftment?”

“Certainly not having methotrexate is beneficial for engraftment, and may account for the differences we see, Dr. Meyer said. “However, it is possible that Tregs could be playing a facilitative role. There certainly is good preclinical literature that Tregs, particularly in the bone marrow space, can facilitate bone marrow engraftment.”

The Orca-T trials are sponsored by Orca Bio and Stanford, with support from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Meyer receives research support from Orca and is a scientific adviser to GigaGen, Triursus, Incyte, and Indee Labs. Dr. Hanash and Dr. Gamper had no relevant disclosures.

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

[email protected]

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

[email protected]

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

[email protected]