Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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.

Despite improvements in prevention of graft-versus-host disease, chronic GVHD still occurs in 10%-50% of patients who undergo an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and these patients may require prolonged treatment with multiple lines of therapy, said a hematologist and transplant researcher.

“More effective, less toxic therapies for chronic GVHD are needed,” Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

Dr. Lee reviewed clinical trials for chronic GVHD at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Although the incidence of chronic GVHD has gradually declined over the last 40 years and both relapse-free and overall survival following a chronic GVHD diagnosis have improved, “for patients who are diagnosed with chronic GVHD, they still will see many lines of therapy and many years of therapy,” she said.

Among 148 patients with chronic GVHD treated at her center, for example, 66% went on to two lines of therapy, 50% went on to three lines, 37% required four lines of therapy, and 20% needed five lines or more.

Salvage therapies for patients with chronic GVHD have evolved away from immunomodulators and immunosuppressants in the early 1990s, toward monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab in the early 2000s, to interleukin-2 and to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and ibrutinib (Imbruvica).

There are currently 36 agents that are FDA approved for at least one indication and can also be prescribed for the treatment of chronic GVHD, Dr. Lee noted.
 

Treatment goals

Dr. Lee laid out six goals for treating patients with chronic GVHD. They include:

• Controlling current signs and symptoms, measured by response rates and patient-reported outcomes
• Preventing further tissue and organ damage
• Minimizing toxicity
• Maintaining graft-versus-tumor effect
• Achieving graft tolerance and stopping immunosuppression
• Decreasing nonrelapse mortality and improving survival

Active trials

Dr. Lee identified 33 trials with chronic GVHD as an indication that are currently recruiting, and an additional 13 trials that are active but closed to recruiting. The trials can be generally grouped by mechanism of action, and involve agents targeting T-regulatory cells, B cells and/or B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling, monocytes/macrophages, costimulatory blockage, a proteasome inhibition, Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitors, ROCK2 inhibitors, hedgehog pathway inhibition, cellular therapy, and organ-targeted therapy.

Most of the trials have overall response rate as the primary endpoint, and all but five are currently in phase 1 or 2. The currently active phase 3 trials include two with ibrutinib, one with the investigational agent itacitinib, one with ruxolitinib, and one with mesenchymal stem cells.

“I’ll note that, when results are reported, the denominator really matters for the overall response rate, especially if you’re talking about small trials, because if you require the patient to be treated with an agent for a certain period of time, and you take out all the people who didn’t make it to that time point, then your overall response rate looks better,” she said.
 

BTK inhibitors

The first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib was the first and thus far only agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic GVHD. The approval was based on a single-arm, multicenter trial with 42 patients.

The ORR in this trial was 69%, consisting of 31% complete responses and 38% partial responses, with a duration of response longer than 10 months in slightly more than half of all patients. In all, 24% of patients had improvement of symptoms in two consecutive visits, and 29% continued on ibrutinib at the time of the primary analysis in 2017.

Based on these promising results, acalabrutinib, which is more potent and selective for BTK than ibrutinib, with no effect on either platelets or natural killer cells, is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial in 50 patients at a dose of 100 mg orally twice daily.
 

JAK1/2 inhibition

The JAK1 inhibitor itacitinib failed to meet its primary ORR endpoint in the phase 3 GRAVITAS-301 study, according to a press release, but the manufacturer (Incyte) said that it is continuing its commitment to JAK inhibitors with ruxolitinib, which has shown activity against acute, steroid-refractory GVHD, and is being explored for prevention of chronic GVHD in the randomized, phase 3 REACH3 study.

The trial met its primary endpoint for a higher ORR at week 24 with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy, at 49.7% versus 25.6%, respectively, which translated into an odds ratio for response with the JAK inhibitor of 2.99 (P < .0001).
 

Selective T-cell expansion

Efavaleukin alfa is an IL-2-mutated protein (mutein), with a mutation in the IL-2RB-binding portion of IL-2 causing increased selectivity for regulatory T-cell expansion. It is bound to an IgG-Fc domain that is itself mutated, with reduced Fc receptor binding and IgG effector function to give it a longer half life. This agent is being studied in a phase 1/2 trial in a subcutaneous formulation delivered every 1 or 2 weeks to 68 patients.

Monocyte/macrophage depletion

Axatilimab is a high-affinity antibody targeting colony stimulating factor–1 receptor (CSF-1R) expressed on monocytes and macrophages. By blocking CSF-1R, it depletes circulation of nonclassical monocytes and prevents the differentiation and survival of M2 macrophages in tissue.

It is currently being investigated 30 patients in a phase 1/2 study in an intravenous formulation delivered over 30 minutes every 2-4 weeks.
 

Hedgehog pathway inhibition

There is evidence suggesting that hedgehog pathway inhibition can lessen fibrosis. Glasdegib (Daurismo) a potent selective oral inhibitor of the hedgehog signaling pathway, is approved for use with low-dose cytarabine for patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia aged older than 75 years or have comorbidities precluding intensive chemotherapy.

This agent is associated with drug intolerance because of muscle spasms, dysgeusia, and alopecia, however.

The drug is currently in phase 1/2 at a dose of 50 mg orally per day in 20 patients.
 

ROCK2 inhibition

Belumosudil (formerly KD025) “appears to rebalance the immune system,” Dr. Lee said. Investigators think that the drug dampens an autoaggressive inflammatory response by selective inhibition of ROCK2.

This drug has been studied in a dose-escalation study and a phase 2 trial, in which 132 participants were randomized to receive belumosudil 200 mg either once or twice daily.

At a median follow-up of 8 months, the ORR with belumosudil 200 mg once and twice daily was 73% and 74%, respectively. Similar results were seen in patients who had previously received either ruxolitinib or ibrutinib. High response rates were seen in patients with severe chronic GVHD, involvement of four or more organs and a refractory response to their last line of therapy.
 

Hard-to-manage patients

“We’re very hopeful for many of these agents, but we have to acknowledge that there are still many management dilemmas, patients that we just don’t really know what to do with,” Dr. Lee said. “These include patients who have bad sclerosis and fasciitis, nonhealing skin ulcers, bronchiolitis obliterans, serositis that can be very difficult to manage, severe keratoconjunctivitis that can be eyesight threatening, nonhealing mouth ulcers, esophageal structures, and always patients who have frequent infections.

“We are hopeful that some these agents will be useful for our patients who have severe manifestations, but often the number of patients with these manifestations in the trials is too low to say something specific about them,” she added.
 

‘Exciting time’

“It’s an exciting time because there are a lot of different drugs that are being studied for chronic GVHD,” commented Betty Hamilton, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.

“I think that where the field is going in terms of treatment is recognizing that chronic GVHD is a pretty heterogeneous disease, and we have to learn even more about the underlying biologic pathways to be able to determine which class of drugs to use and when,” she said in an interview.

She agreed with Dr. Lee that the goals of treating patients with chronic GVHD include improving symptoms and quality, preventing progression, ideally tapering patients off immunosuppression, and achieving a balance between preventing negative consequences of GVHD while maintain the benefits of a graft-versus-leukemia effect.

“In our center, drug choice is based on physician preference and comfort with how often they’ve used the drug, patients’ comorbidities, toxicities of the drug, and logistical considerations,” Dr. Hamilton said.

Dr. Lee disclosed consulting activities for Pfizer and Kadmon, travel and lodging from Amgen, and research funding from those companies and others. Dr. Hamilton disclosed consulting for Syndax and Incyte.

Despite improvements in prevention of graft-versus-host disease, chronic GVHD still occurs in 10%-50% of patients who undergo an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and these patients may require prolonged treatment with multiple lines of therapy, said a hematologist and transplant researcher.

“More effective, less toxic therapies for chronic GVHD are needed,” Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

Dr. Lee reviewed clinical trials for chronic GVHD at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Although the incidence of chronic GVHD has gradually declined over the last 40 years and both relapse-free and overall survival following a chronic GVHD diagnosis have improved, “for patients who are diagnosed with chronic GVHD, they still will see many lines of therapy and many years of therapy,” she said.

Among 148 patients with chronic GVHD treated at her center, for example, 66% went on to two lines of therapy, 50% went on to three lines, 37% required four lines of therapy, and 20% needed five lines or more.

Salvage therapies for patients with chronic GVHD have evolved away from immunomodulators and immunosuppressants in the early 1990s, toward monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab in the early 2000s, to interleukin-2 and to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and ibrutinib (Imbruvica).

There are currently 36 agents that are FDA approved for at least one indication and can also be prescribed for the treatment of chronic GVHD, Dr. Lee noted.
 

Treatment goals

Dr. Lee laid out six goals for treating patients with chronic GVHD. They include:

• Controlling current signs and symptoms, measured by response rates and patient-reported outcomes
• Preventing further tissue and organ damage
• Minimizing toxicity
• Maintaining graft-versus-tumor effect
• Achieving graft tolerance and stopping immunosuppression
• Decreasing nonrelapse mortality and improving survival

Active trials

Dr. Lee identified 33 trials with chronic GVHD as an indication that are currently recruiting, and an additional 13 trials that are active but closed to recruiting. The trials can be generally grouped by mechanism of action, and involve agents targeting T-regulatory cells, B cells and/or B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling, monocytes/macrophages, costimulatory blockage, a proteasome inhibition, Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitors, ROCK2 inhibitors, hedgehog pathway inhibition, cellular therapy, and organ-targeted therapy.

Most of the trials have overall response rate as the primary endpoint, and all but five are currently in phase 1 or 2. The currently active phase 3 trials include two with ibrutinib, one with the investigational agent itacitinib, one with ruxolitinib, and one with mesenchymal stem cells.

“I’ll note that, when results are reported, the denominator really matters for the overall response rate, especially if you’re talking about small trials, because if you require the patient to be treated with an agent for a certain period of time, and you take out all the people who didn’t make it to that time point, then your overall response rate looks better,” she said.
 

BTK inhibitors

The first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib was the first and thus far only agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic GVHD. The approval was based on a single-arm, multicenter trial with 42 patients.

The ORR in this trial was 69%, consisting of 31% complete responses and 38% partial responses, with a duration of response longer than 10 months in slightly more than half of all patients. In all, 24% of patients had improvement of symptoms in two consecutive visits, and 29% continued on ibrutinib at the time of the primary analysis in 2017.

Based on these promising results, acalabrutinib, which is more potent and selective for BTK than ibrutinib, with no effect on either platelets or natural killer cells, is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial in 50 patients at a dose of 100 mg orally twice daily.
 

JAK1/2 inhibition

The JAK1 inhibitor itacitinib failed to meet its primary ORR endpoint in the phase 3 GRAVITAS-301 study, according to a press release, but the manufacturer (Incyte) said that it is continuing its commitment to JAK inhibitors with ruxolitinib, which has shown activity against acute, steroid-refractory GVHD, and is being explored for prevention of chronic GVHD in the randomized, phase 3 REACH3 study.

The trial met its primary endpoint for a higher ORR at week 24 with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy, at 49.7% versus 25.6%, respectively, which translated into an odds ratio for response with the JAK inhibitor of 2.99 (P < .0001).
 

Selective T-cell expansion

Efavaleukin alfa is an IL-2-mutated protein (mutein), with a mutation in the IL-2RB-binding portion of IL-2 causing increased selectivity for regulatory T-cell expansion. It is bound to an IgG-Fc domain that is itself mutated, with reduced Fc receptor binding and IgG effector function to give it a longer half life. This agent is being studied in a phase 1/2 trial in a subcutaneous formulation delivered every 1 or 2 weeks to 68 patients.

Monocyte/macrophage depletion

Axatilimab is a high-affinity antibody targeting colony stimulating factor–1 receptor (CSF-1R) expressed on monocytes and macrophages. By blocking CSF-1R, it depletes circulation of nonclassical monocytes and prevents the differentiation and survival of M2 macrophages in tissue.

It is currently being investigated 30 patients in a phase 1/2 study in an intravenous formulation delivered over 30 minutes every 2-4 weeks.
 

Hedgehog pathway inhibition

There is evidence suggesting that hedgehog pathway inhibition can lessen fibrosis. Glasdegib (Daurismo) a potent selective oral inhibitor of the hedgehog signaling pathway, is approved for use with low-dose cytarabine for patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia aged older than 75 years or have comorbidities precluding intensive chemotherapy.

This agent is associated with drug intolerance because of muscle spasms, dysgeusia, and alopecia, however.

The drug is currently in phase 1/2 at a dose of 50 mg orally per day in 20 patients.
 

ROCK2 inhibition

Belumosudil (formerly KD025) “appears to rebalance the immune system,” Dr. Lee said. Investigators think that the drug dampens an autoaggressive inflammatory response by selective inhibition of ROCK2.

This drug has been studied in a dose-escalation study and a phase 2 trial, in which 132 participants were randomized to receive belumosudil 200 mg either once or twice daily.

At a median follow-up of 8 months, the ORR with belumosudil 200 mg once and twice daily was 73% and 74%, respectively. Similar results were seen in patients who had previously received either ruxolitinib or ibrutinib. High response rates were seen in patients with severe chronic GVHD, involvement of four or more organs and a refractory response to their last line of therapy.
 

Hard-to-manage patients

“We’re very hopeful for many of these agents, but we have to acknowledge that there are still many management dilemmas, patients that we just don’t really know what to do with,” Dr. Lee said. “These include patients who have bad sclerosis and fasciitis, nonhealing skin ulcers, bronchiolitis obliterans, serositis that can be very difficult to manage, severe keratoconjunctivitis that can be eyesight threatening, nonhealing mouth ulcers, esophageal structures, and always patients who have frequent infections.

“We are hopeful that some these agents will be useful for our patients who have severe manifestations, but often the number of patients with these manifestations in the trials is too low to say something specific about them,” she added.
 

‘Exciting time’

“It’s an exciting time because there are a lot of different drugs that are being studied for chronic GVHD,” commented Betty Hamilton, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.

“I think that where the field is going in terms of treatment is recognizing that chronic GVHD is a pretty heterogeneous disease, and we have to learn even more about the underlying biologic pathways to be able to determine which class of drugs to use and when,” she said in an interview.

She agreed with Dr. Lee that the goals of treating patients with chronic GVHD include improving symptoms and quality, preventing progression, ideally tapering patients off immunosuppression, and achieving a balance between preventing negative consequences of GVHD while maintain the benefits of a graft-versus-leukemia effect.

“In our center, drug choice is based on physician preference and comfort with how often they’ve used the drug, patients’ comorbidities, toxicities of the drug, and logistical considerations,” Dr. Hamilton said.

Dr. Lee disclosed consulting activities for Pfizer and Kadmon, travel and lodging from Amgen, and research funding from those companies and others. Dr. Hamilton disclosed consulting for Syndax and Incyte.

Despite improvements in prevention of graft-versus-host disease, chronic GVHD still occurs in 10%-50% of patients who undergo an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and these patients may require prolonged treatment with multiple lines of therapy, said a hematologist and transplant researcher.

“More effective, less toxic therapies for chronic GVHD are needed,” Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

Dr. Lee reviewed clinical trials for chronic GVHD at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Although the incidence of chronic GVHD has gradually declined over the last 40 years and both relapse-free and overall survival following a chronic GVHD diagnosis have improved, “for patients who are diagnosed with chronic GVHD, they still will see many lines of therapy and many years of therapy,” she said.

Among 148 patients with chronic GVHD treated at her center, for example, 66% went on to two lines of therapy, 50% went on to three lines, 37% required four lines of therapy, and 20% needed five lines or more.

Salvage therapies for patients with chronic GVHD have evolved away from immunomodulators and immunosuppressants in the early 1990s, toward monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab in the early 2000s, to interleukin-2 and to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and ibrutinib (Imbruvica).

There are currently 36 agents that are FDA approved for at least one indication and can also be prescribed for the treatment of chronic GVHD, Dr. Lee noted.
 

Treatment goals

Dr. Lee laid out six goals for treating patients with chronic GVHD. They include:

• Controlling current signs and symptoms, measured by response rates and patient-reported outcomes
• Preventing further tissue and organ damage
• Minimizing toxicity
• Maintaining graft-versus-tumor effect
• Achieving graft tolerance and stopping immunosuppression
• Decreasing nonrelapse mortality and improving survival

Active trials

Dr. Lee identified 33 trials with chronic GVHD as an indication that are currently recruiting, and an additional 13 trials that are active but closed to recruiting. The trials can be generally grouped by mechanism of action, and involve agents targeting T-regulatory cells, B cells and/or B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling, monocytes/macrophages, costimulatory blockage, a proteasome inhibition, Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitors, ROCK2 inhibitors, hedgehog pathway inhibition, cellular therapy, and organ-targeted therapy.

Most of the trials have overall response rate as the primary endpoint, and all but five are currently in phase 1 or 2. The currently active phase 3 trials include two with ibrutinib, one with the investigational agent itacitinib, one with ruxolitinib, and one with mesenchymal stem cells.

“I’ll note that, when results are reported, the denominator really matters for the overall response rate, especially if you’re talking about small trials, because if you require the patient to be treated with an agent for a certain period of time, and you take out all the people who didn’t make it to that time point, then your overall response rate looks better,” she said.
 

BTK inhibitors

The first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib was the first and thus far only agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic GVHD. The approval was based on a single-arm, multicenter trial with 42 patients.

The ORR in this trial was 69%, consisting of 31% complete responses and 38% partial responses, with a duration of response longer than 10 months in slightly more than half of all patients. In all, 24% of patients had improvement of symptoms in two consecutive visits, and 29% continued on ibrutinib at the time of the primary analysis in 2017.

Based on these promising results, acalabrutinib, which is more potent and selective for BTK than ibrutinib, with no effect on either platelets or natural killer cells, is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial in 50 patients at a dose of 100 mg orally twice daily.
 

JAK1/2 inhibition

The JAK1 inhibitor itacitinib failed to meet its primary ORR endpoint in the phase 3 GRAVITAS-301 study, according to a press release, but the manufacturer (Incyte) said that it is continuing its commitment to JAK inhibitors with ruxolitinib, which has shown activity against acute, steroid-refractory GVHD, and is being explored for prevention of chronic GVHD in the randomized, phase 3 REACH3 study.

The trial met its primary endpoint for a higher ORR at week 24 with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy, at 49.7% versus 25.6%, respectively, which translated into an odds ratio for response with the JAK inhibitor of 2.99 (P < .0001).
 

Selective T-cell expansion

Efavaleukin alfa is an IL-2-mutated protein (mutein), with a mutation in the IL-2RB-binding portion of IL-2 causing increased selectivity for regulatory T-cell expansion. It is bound to an IgG-Fc domain that is itself mutated, with reduced Fc receptor binding and IgG effector function to give it a longer half life. This agent is being studied in a phase 1/2 trial in a subcutaneous formulation delivered every 1 or 2 weeks to 68 patients.

Monocyte/macrophage depletion

Axatilimab is a high-affinity antibody targeting colony stimulating factor–1 receptor (CSF-1R) expressed on monocytes and macrophages. By blocking CSF-1R, it depletes circulation of nonclassical monocytes and prevents the differentiation and survival of M2 macrophages in tissue.

It is currently being investigated 30 patients in a phase 1/2 study in an intravenous formulation delivered over 30 minutes every 2-4 weeks.
 

Hedgehog pathway inhibition

There is evidence suggesting that hedgehog pathway inhibition can lessen fibrosis. Glasdegib (Daurismo) a potent selective oral inhibitor of the hedgehog signaling pathway, is approved for use with low-dose cytarabine for patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia aged older than 75 years or have comorbidities precluding intensive chemotherapy.

This agent is associated with drug intolerance because of muscle spasms, dysgeusia, and alopecia, however.

The drug is currently in phase 1/2 at a dose of 50 mg orally per day in 20 patients.
 

ROCK2 inhibition

Belumosudil (formerly KD025) “appears to rebalance the immune system,” Dr. Lee said. Investigators think that the drug dampens an autoaggressive inflammatory response by selective inhibition of ROCK2.

This drug has been studied in a dose-escalation study and a phase 2 trial, in which 132 participants were randomized to receive belumosudil 200 mg either once or twice daily.

At a median follow-up of 8 months, the ORR with belumosudil 200 mg once and twice daily was 73% and 74%, respectively. Similar results were seen in patients who had previously received either ruxolitinib or ibrutinib. High response rates were seen in patients with severe chronic GVHD, involvement of four or more organs and a refractory response to their last line of therapy.
 

Hard-to-manage patients

“We’re very hopeful for many of these agents, but we have to acknowledge that there are still many management dilemmas, patients that we just don’t really know what to do with,” Dr. Lee said. “These include patients who have bad sclerosis and fasciitis, nonhealing skin ulcers, bronchiolitis obliterans, serositis that can be very difficult to manage, severe keratoconjunctivitis that can be eyesight threatening, nonhealing mouth ulcers, esophageal structures, and always patients who have frequent infections.

“We are hopeful that some these agents will be useful for our patients who have severe manifestations, but often the number of patients with these manifestations in the trials is too low to say something specific about them,” she added.
 

‘Exciting time’

“It’s an exciting time because there are a lot of different drugs that are being studied for chronic GVHD,” commented Betty Hamilton, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.

“I think that where the field is going in terms of treatment is recognizing that chronic GVHD is a pretty heterogeneous disease, and we have to learn even more about the underlying biologic pathways to be able to determine which class of drugs to use and when,” she said in an interview.

She agreed with Dr. Lee that the goals of treating patients with chronic GVHD include improving symptoms and quality, preventing progression, ideally tapering patients off immunosuppression, and achieving a balance between preventing negative consequences of GVHD while maintain the benefits of a graft-versus-leukemia effect.

“In our center, drug choice is based on physician preference and comfort with how often they’ve used the drug, patients’ comorbidities, toxicities of the drug, and logistical considerations,” Dr. Hamilton said.

Dr. Lee disclosed consulting activities for Pfizer and Kadmon, travel and lodging from Amgen, and research funding from those companies and others. Dr. Hamilton disclosed consulting for Syndax and Incyte.

A new prognostic gene signature was found to be associated with overall survival of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in multiple clinical studies, according to the results of a database analysis.

A total of 33 genes formed the signature that could be transformed into a risk score, according to a study by Santosh Khanal, a senior bioinformatics scientist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), and colleagues published in Cancer Genetics.

Their study used gene expression and clinical parameters from the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project from 233 patients who received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy to identify genes whose expression was associated with overall survival (OS). They refined the information to develop prognostic gene signature that could be used to calculate risk scores for each individual and predict OS.
 

Significant separation

The researchers initially found 61 genes individually associated with OS that had a nonadjusted P ≤ .001 using the univariate Cox regression model. The 61 genes were then assessed using multivariate Cox analysis to identify a minimal set of genes that could predict OS, resulting in a minimal set of 33 genes that were used to develop a survival risk score for each individual.

The OS of the high-risk group was significantly reduced, compared with the low-risk group (hazard ratio, 0.046; P < .0001). Upon stratification of individuals by risk score into quartiles, patients in the lowest quartile risk score had a 100% probability of survival, while individuals in the highest quartile had a 9.2% OS by year 5.

In order to validate their results, the researchers calculated risk scores using their prognostic gene set in three additional published DLBCL studies. For all three studies, individuals with low risk score had significantly better OS, “indicating the robustness of the gene signature for multiple external datasets,” according to the researchers.

The top biological pathways and processes that were significantly overrepresented in the 33-gene set were the thioester biosynthetic process (P = .00005), cellular response to hormone stimulus (P = .002), G protein–coupled receptor ligand binding (P = .003), and myeloid cell activation involved in immune responses (P = 0.006).

“As new therapies for lymphoma become available, including new immunotherapies and personalized medicine approaches such as [chimeric antigen receptor] T cells, it will be important to identify candidate individuals that are at high risk and may benefit from experimental therapeutic approaches compared with individuals who will have lower risk of death with current therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

A new prognostic gene signature was found to be associated with overall survival of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in multiple clinical studies, according to the results of a database analysis.

A total of 33 genes formed the signature that could be transformed into a risk score, according to a study by Santosh Khanal, a senior bioinformatics scientist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), and colleagues published in Cancer Genetics.

Their study used gene expression and clinical parameters from the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project from 233 patients who received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy to identify genes whose expression was associated with overall survival (OS). They refined the information to develop prognostic gene signature that could be used to calculate risk scores for each individual and predict OS.
 

Significant separation

The researchers initially found 61 genes individually associated with OS that had a nonadjusted P ≤ .001 using the univariate Cox regression model. The 61 genes were then assessed using multivariate Cox analysis to identify a minimal set of genes that could predict OS, resulting in a minimal set of 33 genes that were used to develop a survival risk score for each individual.

The OS of the high-risk group was significantly reduced, compared with the low-risk group (hazard ratio, 0.046; P < .0001). Upon stratification of individuals by risk score into quartiles, patients in the lowest quartile risk score had a 100% probability of survival, while individuals in the highest quartile had a 9.2% OS by year 5.

In order to validate their results, the researchers calculated risk scores using their prognostic gene set in three additional published DLBCL studies. For all three studies, individuals with low risk score had significantly better OS, “indicating the robustness of the gene signature for multiple external datasets,” according to the researchers.

The top biological pathways and processes that were significantly overrepresented in the 33-gene set were the thioester biosynthetic process (P = .00005), cellular response to hormone stimulus (P = .002), G protein–coupled receptor ligand binding (P = .003), and myeloid cell activation involved in immune responses (P = 0.006).

“As new therapies for lymphoma become available, including new immunotherapies and personalized medicine approaches such as [chimeric antigen receptor] T cells, it will be important to identify candidate individuals that are at high risk and may benefit from experimental therapeutic approaches compared with individuals who will have lower risk of death with current therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

A new prognostic gene signature was found to be associated with overall survival of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in multiple clinical studies, according to the results of a database analysis.

A total of 33 genes formed the signature that could be transformed into a risk score, according to a study by Santosh Khanal, a senior bioinformatics scientist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), and colleagues published in Cancer Genetics.

Their study used gene expression and clinical parameters from the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project from 233 patients who received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy to identify genes whose expression was associated with overall survival (OS). They refined the information to develop prognostic gene signature that could be used to calculate risk scores for each individual and predict OS.
 

Significant separation

The researchers initially found 61 genes individually associated with OS that had a nonadjusted P ≤ .001 using the univariate Cox regression model. The 61 genes were then assessed using multivariate Cox analysis to identify a minimal set of genes that could predict OS, resulting in a minimal set of 33 genes that were used to develop a survival risk score for each individual.

The OS of the high-risk group was significantly reduced, compared with the low-risk group (hazard ratio, 0.046; P < .0001). Upon stratification of individuals by risk score into quartiles, patients in the lowest quartile risk score had a 100% probability of survival, while individuals in the highest quartile had a 9.2% OS by year 5.

In order to validate their results, the researchers calculated risk scores using their prognostic gene set in three additional published DLBCL studies. For all three studies, individuals with low risk score had significantly better OS, “indicating the robustness of the gene signature for multiple external datasets,” according to the researchers.

The top biological pathways and processes that were significantly overrepresented in the 33-gene set were the thioester biosynthetic process (P = .00005), cellular response to hormone stimulus (P = .002), G protein–coupled receptor ligand binding (P = .003), and myeloid cell activation involved in immune responses (P = 0.006).

“As new therapies for lymphoma become available, including new immunotherapies and personalized medicine approaches such as [chimeric antigen receptor] T cells, it will be important to identify candidate individuals that are at high risk and may benefit from experimental therapeutic approaches compared with individuals who will have lower risk of death with current therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product for the treatment of adults with certain types of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who relapse or fail to respond to at least two systemic treatments.

The new approval comes with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The product, from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol Myers Squibb company, is the third gene therapy to receive FDA approval for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults, accounting for about a third of the approximately 77,000 cases diagnosed each year in the United States.

The FDA previously granted Breyanzi orphan drug, regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT), and breakthrough therapy designations. The product is the first therapy with an RMAT designation to be licensed by the agency.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in a pivotal phase 1 trial of more than 250 adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The complete remission rate after treatment with Breyanzi was 54%. 

“Treatment with Breyanzi has the potential to cause severe side effects. The labeling carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which is a systemic response to the activation and proliferation of CAR T cells, causing high fever and flu-like symptoms and neurologic toxicities,” the FDA explained. “Both CRS and neurological events can be life-threatening.”

Other side effects, which typically present within 1-2 weeks after treatment, include hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, low blood cell counts, and a weakened immune system, but some side effects may occur later.

The REMS requires special certification for facilities that dispense the product and “specifies that patients be informed of the signs and symptoms of CRS and neurological toxicities following infusion – and of the importance of promptly returning to the treatment site if they develop fever or other adverse reactions after receiving treatment with Breyanzi,” the FDA noted.

Breyanzi is not indicated for patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma, the FDA noted.

Facility certification involves training to recognize and manage the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities.

A postmarketing study to further evaluate the long-term safety will also be required.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product for the treatment of adults with certain types of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who relapse or fail to respond to at least two systemic treatments.

The new approval comes with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The product, from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol Myers Squibb company, is the third gene therapy to receive FDA approval for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults, accounting for about a third of the approximately 77,000 cases diagnosed each year in the United States.

The FDA previously granted Breyanzi orphan drug, regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT), and breakthrough therapy designations. The product is the first therapy with an RMAT designation to be licensed by the agency.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in a pivotal phase 1 trial of more than 250 adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The complete remission rate after treatment with Breyanzi was 54%. 

“Treatment with Breyanzi has the potential to cause severe side effects. The labeling carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which is a systemic response to the activation and proliferation of CAR T cells, causing high fever and flu-like symptoms and neurologic toxicities,” the FDA explained. “Both CRS and neurological events can be life-threatening.”

Other side effects, which typically present within 1-2 weeks after treatment, include hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, low blood cell counts, and a weakened immune system, but some side effects may occur later.

The REMS requires special certification for facilities that dispense the product and “specifies that patients be informed of the signs and symptoms of CRS and neurological toxicities following infusion – and of the importance of promptly returning to the treatment site if they develop fever or other adverse reactions after receiving treatment with Breyanzi,” the FDA noted.

Breyanzi is not indicated for patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma, the FDA noted.

Facility certification involves training to recognize and manage the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities.

A postmarketing study to further evaluate the long-term safety will also be required.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product for the treatment of adults with certain types of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who relapse or fail to respond to at least two systemic treatments.

The new approval comes with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The product, from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol Myers Squibb company, is the third gene therapy to receive FDA approval for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults, accounting for about a third of the approximately 77,000 cases diagnosed each year in the United States.

The FDA previously granted Breyanzi orphan drug, regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT), and breakthrough therapy designations. The product is the first therapy with an RMAT designation to be licensed by the agency.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in a pivotal phase 1 trial of more than 250 adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The complete remission rate after treatment with Breyanzi was 54%. 

“Treatment with Breyanzi has the potential to cause severe side effects. The labeling carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which is a systemic response to the activation and proliferation of CAR T cells, causing high fever and flu-like symptoms and neurologic toxicities,” the FDA explained. “Both CRS and neurological events can be life-threatening.”

Other side effects, which typically present within 1-2 weeks after treatment, include hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, low blood cell counts, and a weakened immune system, but some side effects may occur later.

The REMS requires special certification for facilities that dispense the product and “specifies that patients be informed of the signs and symptoms of CRS and neurological toxicities following infusion – and of the importance of promptly returning to the treatment site if they develop fever or other adverse reactions after receiving treatment with Breyanzi,” the FDA noted.

Breyanzi is not indicated for patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma, the FDA noted.

Facility certification involves training to recognize and manage the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities.

A postmarketing study to further evaluate the long-term safety will also be required.

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

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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