Multiple Myeloma

Despite the perceived benefits of their use in guiding treatment, frailty indexes were not reliable in differentiating elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort of 40 patients studied at a single institution.

©AlexRaths/thinkstockphotos.com

The researchers examined three different models of frailty using data available in the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to define frailty in their cohort: the international myeloma working group (IMWG) frailty model, the revised myeloma comorbidity index (R-MCI), and the Carolina Frailty Index (CFI).

The researchers found that, for their same population, applying the IMWG frailty index yielded 3 (7.5%) patients categorized as fit, 15 (37.5%) categorized as intermediate fit, and 22 (55%) categorized as frail. The R-MCI yielded 4 (10%) patients categorized as fit, 29 (72.5%) as intermediate, and 7 (17.5%) as frail. When using the CFI, 17 (42.5%) patients were categorized as fit, 8 (20%) were intermediate, and 15 (37.5%) were frail. Of particular note, among 28 patients categorized as frail by at least one of the three indexes, only 3 (11%) patients were categorized as frail by all three models.

The reasons for the differences were discussed by the authors, who pointed out that patients categorized as frail by the IMWG or R-MCI tended to be older than those categorized as frail by CFI, reflecting the fact that the IMWG and R-MCI both include age as a component of frailty, while the CFI does not. In addition, each index incorporates comorbidities into its assessment of frailty in a different way.

For example, falls and depression are incorporated as components of the CFI, reflected in the higher proportion of patients reporting a prior fall and more symptoms of depression in the group categorized as frail by the CFI model than in the IMWG or R-MCI. In the CFI as well, each of the individual instrumental activities of daily living is a component of the model, rather than the summary score, as in the IMWG and R-MCI.

“Our findings highlight the differences in currently available approaches to applying the concept of frailty to older adults with cancer. This problem is not unique to oncology, as there is a continued lack of consensus on defining the concept of frailty in the general geriatric population,” the researchers stated. “Further studies are needed to establish the role of frailty indexes in predicting toxicity of therapy and other outcomes of importance in older adults with multiple myeloma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and other U.S. government agencies. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Isaacs A et al. J Geriat Onc. 2020;11(2):311-15.

Despite the perceived benefits of their use in guiding treatment, frailty indexes were not reliable in differentiating elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort of 40 patients studied at a single institution.

©AlexRaths/thinkstockphotos.com

The researchers examined three different models of frailty using data available in the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to define frailty in their cohort: the international myeloma working group (IMWG) frailty model, the revised myeloma comorbidity index (R-MCI), and the Carolina Frailty Index (CFI).

The researchers found that, for their same population, applying the IMWG frailty index yielded 3 (7.5%) patients categorized as fit, 15 (37.5%) categorized as intermediate fit, and 22 (55%) categorized as frail. The R-MCI yielded 4 (10%) patients categorized as fit, 29 (72.5%) as intermediate, and 7 (17.5%) as frail. When using the CFI, 17 (42.5%) patients were categorized as fit, 8 (20%) were intermediate, and 15 (37.5%) were frail. Of particular note, among 28 patients categorized as frail by at least one of the three indexes, only 3 (11%) patients were categorized as frail by all three models.

The reasons for the differences were discussed by the authors, who pointed out that patients categorized as frail by the IMWG or R-MCI tended to be older than those categorized as frail by CFI, reflecting the fact that the IMWG and R-MCI both include age as a component of frailty, while the CFI does not. In addition, each index incorporates comorbidities into its assessment of frailty in a different way.

For example, falls and depression are incorporated as components of the CFI, reflected in the higher proportion of patients reporting a prior fall and more symptoms of depression in the group categorized as frail by the CFI model than in the IMWG or R-MCI. In the CFI as well, each of the individual instrumental activities of daily living is a component of the model, rather than the summary score, as in the IMWG and R-MCI.

“Our findings highlight the differences in currently available approaches to applying the concept of frailty to older adults with cancer. This problem is not unique to oncology, as there is a continued lack of consensus on defining the concept of frailty in the general geriatric population,” the researchers stated. “Further studies are needed to establish the role of frailty indexes in predicting toxicity of therapy and other outcomes of importance in older adults with multiple myeloma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and other U.S. government agencies. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Isaacs A et al. J Geriat Onc. 2020;11(2):311-15.

Despite the perceived benefits of their use in guiding treatment, frailty indexes were not reliable in differentiating elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort of 40 patients studied at a single institution.

©AlexRaths/thinkstockphotos.com

The researchers examined three different models of frailty using data available in the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to define frailty in their cohort: the international myeloma working group (IMWG) frailty model, the revised myeloma comorbidity index (R-MCI), and the Carolina Frailty Index (CFI).

The researchers found that, for their same population, applying the IMWG frailty index yielded 3 (7.5%) patients categorized as fit, 15 (37.5%) categorized as intermediate fit, and 22 (55%) categorized as frail. The R-MCI yielded 4 (10%) patients categorized as fit, 29 (72.5%) as intermediate, and 7 (17.5%) as frail. When using the CFI, 17 (42.5%) patients were categorized as fit, 8 (20%) were intermediate, and 15 (37.5%) were frail. Of particular note, among 28 patients categorized as frail by at least one of the three indexes, only 3 (11%) patients were categorized as frail by all three models.

The reasons for the differences were discussed by the authors, who pointed out that patients categorized as frail by the IMWG or R-MCI tended to be older than those categorized as frail by CFI, reflecting the fact that the IMWG and R-MCI both include age as a component of frailty, while the CFI does not. In addition, each index incorporates comorbidities into its assessment of frailty in a different way.

For example, falls and depression are incorporated as components of the CFI, reflected in the higher proportion of patients reporting a prior fall and more symptoms of depression in the group categorized as frail by the CFI model than in the IMWG or R-MCI. In the CFI as well, each of the individual instrumental activities of daily living is a component of the model, rather than the summary score, as in the IMWG and R-MCI.

“Our findings highlight the differences in currently available approaches to applying the concept of frailty to older adults with cancer. This problem is not unique to oncology, as there is a continued lack of consensus on defining the concept of frailty in the general geriatric population,” the researchers stated. “Further studies are needed to establish the role of frailty indexes in predicting toxicity of therapy and other outcomes of importance in older adults with multiple myeloma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and other U.S. government agencies. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Isaacs A et al. J Geriat Onc. 2020;11(2):311-15.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.

“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”

In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.

The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.

Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.

To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.

“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”

If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.

Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.

“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.

“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”

Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”

It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.

“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.

Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.

“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.

In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.

“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.

In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.

“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.

Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”

In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.

While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.

“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.

Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.

Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.

To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.

“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”

Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.

“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.

“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”

In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.

The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.

Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.

To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.

“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”

If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.

Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.

“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.

“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”

Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”

It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.

“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.

Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.

“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.

In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.

“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.

In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.

“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.

Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”

In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.

While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.

“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.

Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.

Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.

To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.

“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”

Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.

“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.

“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”

In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.

The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.

Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.

To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.

“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”

If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.

Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.

“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.

“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”

Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”

It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.

“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.

Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.

“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.

In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.

“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.

In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.

“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.

Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”

In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.

While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.

“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.

Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.

Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.

To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.

“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”

Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.

“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a third of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) are over the age of 80, and yet most treatment successes have been reported in younger patients. However, patients over the age of 80 years received similar benefits as younger patients from MM treatment, according to a study reported online in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

Researchers identified 2,155 patients diagnosed with MM at age 80 years or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)–Medicare database from 2007 to 2013. A cohort of 2,933 similar patients diagnosed with myeloma at age 70-79 was used for comparison.

The researcher found that the number of patients receiving treatment for myeloma within 6 months of diagnosis was significantly lower in the 80 years and older group, compared with the 70-79 years group. Only 51% of patients in the 80 years and older cohort received systemic treatment within 6 months following diagnosis, compared with 71% of patients in the 70-79 years cohort received systemic treatment in the same timeframe (P < .001)

The analysis showed that treatment was associated with an overall 26% decrease in hazard for death, independent of age, race, gender, poverty, comorbidities, and proxy measures of performance status. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment benefit based on age cohort (P = .610).

The median overall survival for patients diagnosed at age 80 years or older was 13.4 months, with those patients receiving systemic treatment having a median overall survival of 21.4 months, compared with 6.4 months for those not receiving treatment. In comparison, patients between ages 70 and 79 years had a median overall survival of 30.1 months with treatment.

The population over 80, when myeloma incidence peaks, is projected to triple over the next few decades, according to the researchers. “Antimyeloma treatment in the era of novel therapies seems to have a similar improvement on survival for the oldest-old, those beyond 80 years, as other patients. With growing knowledge of and experience with novel agents in older patients with myeloma, treatment rates have increased, which have in turn improved survival,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported research funding from Janssen. The other authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fiala MA et al. J Geriatric Oncol. 2020 Mar 10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.03.005.

More than a third of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) are over the age of 80, and yet most treatment successes have been reported in younger patients. However, patients over the age of 80 years received similar benefits as younger patients from MM treatment, according to a study reported online in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

Researchers identified 2,155 patients diagnosed with MM at age 80 years or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)–Medicare database from 2007 to 2013. A cohort of 2,933 similar patients diagnosed with myeloma at age 70-79 was used for comparison.

The researcher found that the number of patients receiving treatment for myeloma within 6 months of diagnosis was significantly lower in the 80 years and older group, compared with the 70-79 years group. Only 51% of patients in the 80 years and older cohort received systemic treatment within 6 months following diagnosis, compared with 71% of patients in the 70-79 years cohort received systemic treatment in the same timeframe (P < .001)

The analysis showed that treatment was associated with an overall 26% decrease in hazard for death, independent of age, race, gender, poverty, comorbidities, and proxy measures of performance status. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment benefit based on age cohort (P = .610).

The median overall survival for patients diagnosed at age 80 years or older was 13.4 months, with those patients receiving systemic treatment having a median overall survival of 21.4 months, compared with 6.4 months for those not receiving treatment. In comparison, patients between ages 70 and 79 years had a median overall survival of 30.1 months with treatment.

The population over 80, when myeloma incidence peaks, is projected to triple over the next few decades, according to the researchers. “Antimyeloma treatment in the era of novel therapies seems to have a similar improvement on survival for the oldest-old, those beyond 80 years, as other patients. With growing knowledge of and experience with novel agents in older patients with myeloma, treatment rates have increased, which have in turn improved survival,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported research funding from Janssen. The other authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fiala MA et al. J Geriatric Oncol. 2020 Mar 10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.03.005.

More than a third of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) are over the age of 80, and yet most treatment successes have been reported in younger patients. However, patients over the age of 80 years received similar benefits as younger patients from MM treatment, according to a study reported online in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

Researchers identified 2,155 patients diagnosed with MM at age 80 years or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)–Medicare database from 2007 to 2013. A cohort of 2,933 similar patients diagnosed with myeloma at age 70-79 was used for comparison.

The researcher found that the number of patients receiving treatment for myeloma within 6 months of diagnosis was significantly lower in the 80 years and older group, compared with the 70-79 years group. Only 51% of patients in the 80 years and older cohort received systemic treatment within 6 months following diagnosis, compared with 71% of patients in the 70-79 years cohort received systemic treatment in the same timeframe (P < .001)

The analysis showed that treatment was associated with an overall 26% decrease in hazard for death, independent of age, race, gender, poverty, comorbidities, and proxy measures of performance status. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment benefit based on age cohort (P = .610).

The median overall survival for patients diagnosed at age 80 years or older was 13.4 months, with those patients receiving systemic treatment having a median overall survival of 21.4 months, compared with 6.4 months for those not receiving treatment. In comparison, patients between ages 70 and 79 years had a median overall survival of 30.1 months with treatment.

The population over 80, when myeloma incidence peaks, is projected to triple over the next few decades, according to the researchers. “Antimyeloma treatment in the era of novel therapies seems to have a similar improvement on survival for the oldest-old, those beyond 80 years, as other patients. With growing knowledge of and experience with novel agents in older patients with myeloma, treatment rates have increased, which have in turn improved survival,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported research funding from Janssen. The other authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fiala MA et al. J Geriatric Oncol. 2020 Mar 10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.03.005.

Bone lesions are one of the primary symptoms in multiple myeloma (MM), and approximately 80% of patients experience a pathological fracture at initial presentation or during the course of the disease, according to the authors of a study published online in Bone.

The authors performed a study to determine if improved treatment strategies and supportive care over time, including the use of bisphosphonates, reduced the overall fracture risk in MM patients.

Their retrospective case-control study included 1,334 patients with MM in Denmark from the Danish National Health Service, of which 881 sustained a fracture between 1996 and 2011. MM patients were matched to patients from the database without MM.

The researchers found that the risk of any fracture was significantly higher in MM patients, compared with patients without MM at all three time periods examined, and remained high over time: adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 1996-2000: 1.7 (1.3–2.3); 2001-2006: 1.3 (1.1-1.6); 2007-2011: 1.7 (1.4-2.2)). The risk of vertebral fractures was particularly higher in MM patients and also remained high over time: ORadj (95% CI) 1996-2000: 3.5 (1.4–8.6); 2001-2006: 4.0 (1.9-8.2); 2007-2011: 3.0 (1.6-5.7).

In addition, they found that the risk of any fracture was equally high in men and women MM patients, and in patients aged ≤ 65 or > 65 years.

“New treatment strategies, even if they have a positive impact on overall survival, offer no guarantee for a corresponding reduction in bone lesions,” the authors concluded.

The majority of authors reported having no disclosures. One author reported grants and personal fees from three pharmaceutical companies, outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Oortgiesen BE et al. Bone. 2020 doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115299.

Bone lesions are one of the primary symptoms in multiple myeloma (MM), and approximately 80% of patients experience a pathological fracture at initial presentation or during the course of the disease, according to the authors of a study published online in Bone.

The authors performed a study to determine if improved treatment strategies and supportive care over time, including the use of bisphosphonates, reduced the overall fracture risk in MM patients.

Their retrospective case-control study included 1,334 patients with MM in Denmark from the Danish National Health Service, of which 881 sustained a fracture between 1996 and 2011. MM patients were matched to patients from the database without MM.

The researchers found that the risk of any fracture was significantly higher in MM patients, compared with patients without MM at all three time periods examined, and remained high over time: adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 1996-2000: 1.7 (1.3–2.3); 2001-2006: 1.3 (1.1-1.6); 2007-2011: 1.7 (1.4-2.2)). The risk of vertebral fractures was particularly higher in MM patients and also remained high over time: ORadj (95% CI) 1996-2000: 3.5 (1.4–8.6); 2001-2006: 4.0 (1.9-8.2); 2007-2011: 3.0 (1.6-5.7).

In addition, they found that the risk of any fracture was equally high in men and women MM patients, and in patients aged ≤ 65 or > 65 years.

“New treatment strategies, even if they have a positive impact on overall survival, offer no guarantee for a corresponding reduction in bone lesions,” the authors concluded.

The majority of authors reported having no disclosures. One author reported grants and personal fees from three pharmaceutical companies, outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Oortgiesen BE et al. Bone. 2020 doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115299.

Bone lesions are one of the primary symptoms in multiple myeloma (MM), and approximately 80% of patients experience a pathological fracture at initial presentation or during the course of the disease, according to the authors of a study published online in Bone.

The authors performed a study to determine if improved treatment strategies and supportive care over time, including the use of bisphosphonates, reduced the overall fracture risk in MM patients.

Their retrospective case-control study included 1,334 patients with MM in Denmark from the Danish National Health Service, of which 881 sustained a fracture between 1996 and 2011. MM patients were matched to patients from the database without MM.

The researchers found that the risk of any fracture was significantly higher in MM patients, compared with patients without MM at all three time periods examined, and remained high over time: adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 1996-2000: 1.7 (1.3–2.3); 2001-2006: 1.3 (1.1-1.6); 2007-2011: 1.7 (1.4-2.2)). The risk of vertebral fractures was particularly higher in MM patients and also remained high over time: ORadj (95% CI) 1996-2000: 3.5 (1.4–8.6); 2001-2006: 4.0 (1.9-8.2); 2007-2011: 3.0 (1.6-5.7).

In addition, they found that the risk of any fracture was equally high in men and women MM patients, and in patients aged ≤ 65 or > 65 years.

“New treatment strategies, even if they have a positive impact on overall survival, offer no guarantee for a corresponding reduction in bone lesions,” the authors concluded.

The majority of authors reported having no disclosures. One author reported grants and personal fees from three pharmaceutical companies, outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Oortgiesen BE et al. Bone. 2020 doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115299.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have developed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells expressing a fully human antibody against CD229, a surface antigen that shows universal and strong tumor expression in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). These cells proved to be active in vitro and in vivo against MM plasma cells, memory B cells, and MM-propagating cells, according to a report in Nature Communications.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

This research is important because most MM patients eventually succumb to the disease and previously developed CAR T cells targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on MM cells have shown high-response rates but limited durability.

Previous research showed that CD229/LY9 is a potential target for CAR T-cell therapy in MM because of its strong and homogeneous expression on the bulk of tumor cells, as well as chemotherapy-resistant myeloma progenitors; its absence from most normal cells; and dependence of MM cells on CD229 for their survival, according to Sabarinath V. Radhakrishnan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

Using primary CD138+ tumor cells from three patients with plasma cell leukemia, a highly aggressive form of MM, which all showed high expression of CD229, the researchers found that CD229 CAR T cells exhibited high cytotoxic activity against these cells. In addition, when assessing two MM cell lines, U-266 and RPMI-8226, expressing different levels of CD229, they found that CD229 CAR T cells efficiently killed both cell lines in vitro.

“We do not observe fratricide during CD229 CAR T-cell production, as CD229 is downregulated in T cells during activation. In addition, while CD229 CAR T cells target normal CD229^high T cells, they spare functional CD229^neg/low T cells. These findings indicate that CD229 CAR T cells may be an effective treatment for patients with MM,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by several nongovernmental organizations and the National Cancer Institute. Three of the authors are inventors on PCT application US2017/42840 “Antibodies and CAR T Cells for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma” describing the therapeutic use of CD229 CAR T cells.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Radhakrishnan SV et al. Nat Commun. 2020 Feb 7;11(1):798. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14619-z.

Researchers have developed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells expressing a fully human antibody against CD229, a surface antigen that shows universal and strong tumor expression in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). These cells proved to be active in vitro and in vivo against MM plasma cells, memory B cells, and MM-propagating cells, according to a report in Nature Communications.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

This research is important because most MM patients eventually succumb to the disease and previously developed CAR T cells targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on MM cells have shown high-response rates but limited durability.

Previous research showed that CD229/LY9 is a potential target for CAR T-cell therapy in MM because of its strong and homogeneous expression on the bulk of tumor cells, as well as chemotherapy-resistant myeloma progenitors; its absence from most normal cells; and dependence of MM cells on CD229 for their survival, according to Sabarinath V. Radhakrishnan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

Using primary CD138+ tumor cells from three patients with plasma cell leukemia, a highly aggressive form of MM, which all showed high expression of CD229, the researchers found that CD229 CAR T cells exhibited high cytotoxic activity against these cells. In addition, when assessing two MM cell lines, U-266 and RPMI-8226, expressing different levels of CD229, they found that CD229 CAR T cells efficiently killed both cell lines in vitro.

“We do not observe fratricide during CD229 CAR T-cell production, as CD229 is downregulated in T cells during activation. In addition, while CD229 CAR T cells target normal CD229^high T cells, they spare functional CD229^neg/low T cells. These findings indicate that CD229 CAR T cells may be an effective treatment for patients with MM,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by several nongovernmental organizations and the National Cancer Institute. Three of the authors are inventors on PCT application US2017/42840 “Antibodies and CAR T Cells for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma” describing the therapeutic use of CD229 CAR T cells.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Radhakrishnan SV et al. Nat Commun. 2020 Feb 7;11(1):798. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14619-z.

Researchers have developed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells expressing a fully human antibody against CD229, a surface antigen that shows universal and strong tumor expression in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). These cells proved to be active in vitro and in vivo against MM plasma cells, memory B cells, and MM-propagating cells, according to a report in Nature Communications.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

This research is important because most MM patients eventually succumb to the disease and previously developed CAR T cells targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on MM cells have shown high-response rates but limited durability.

Previous research showed that CD229/LY9 is a potential target for CAR T-cell therapy in MM because of its strong and homogeneous expression on the bulk of tumor cells, as well as chemotherapy-resistant myeloma progenitors; its absence from most normal cells; and dependence of MM cells on CD229 for their survival, according to Sabarinath V. Radhakrishnan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

Using primary CD138+ tumor cells from three patients with plasma cell leukemia, a highly aggressive form of MM, which all showed high expression of CD229, the researchers found that CD229 CAR T cells exhibited high cytotoxic activity against these cells. In addition, when assessing two MM cell lines, U-266 and RPMI-8226, expressing different levels of CD229, they found that CD229 CAR T cells efficiently killed both cell lines in vitro.

“We do not observe fratricide during CD229 CAR T-cell production, as CD229 is downregulated in T cells during activation. In addition, while CD229 CAR T cells target normal CD229^high T cells, they spare functional CD229^neg/low T cells. These findings indicate that CD229 CAR T cells may be an effective treatment for patients with MM,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by several nongovernmental organizations and the National Cancer Institute. Three of the authors are inventors on PCT application US2017/42840 “Antibodies and CAR T Cells for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma” describing the therapeutic use of CD229 CAR T cells.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Radhakrishnan SV et al. Nat Commun. 2020 Feb 7;11(1):798. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14619-z.

There were no major adverse reactions to CRISPR-engineered T cells in three patients with advanced cancer enrolled in a first-in-human trial, according to a report in Science.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stadtmauer EA et al. Science. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7365.

There were no major adverse reactions to CRISPR-engineered T cells in three patients with advanced cancer enrolled in a first-in-human trial, according to a report in Science.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stadtmauer EA et al. Science. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7365.

There were no major adverse reactions to CRISPR-engineered T cells in three patients with advanced cancer enrolled in a first-in-human trial, according to a report in Science.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stadtmauer EA et al. Science. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7365.

Women and racial minorities with multiple myeloma may be at increased risk of delayed treatment, a situation that should be addressed urgently, according to authors of a recent analysis of a clinical oncology database.

By contrast, patients receiving myeloma treatment sooner after diagnosis included patients who were over 80 years of age, had multiple comorbidities, were treated at specialized cancer programs or in areas other than the Northeast, and had Medicaid or did not have private insurance, the authors reported.

Contrary to what was expected, levels of education and income did not significantly affect the timeliness of treatment in this analysis by Vivek Kumar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coinvestigators.

While results of studies to date are “conflicting” as to whether timeliness of myeloma therapy will affect patient outcomes, recent studies in breast cancer and other tumor types suggest earlier treatment intervention may reduce morbidity, improve quality of life, and possibly prolong survival, according to Dr. Kumar and colleagues.

Moreover, the focus of myeloma treatment has shifted toward earlier treatment in light of the superiority of today’s treatment options, which was demonstrated in the 2014 update of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) diagnostic criteria, according to the investigators.

“The definition of active MM [multiple myeloma] has been updated so that patients who may have been considered to have smoldering MM previously are now treated sooner to prevent end-organ damage whenever possible,” said Dr. Kumar and coauthors in their report in JCO Oncology Practice.

The analysis of timely myeloma treatment was based on for 74,722 patients in the National Cancer Database who received a diagnosis of multiple myeloma between 2004 and 2015 and went on to receive systemic treatment within the first year of diagnosis.

Delay in treatment, defined as receiving antimyeloma therapy 40 or more days after diagnosis, occurred in 18,375 of those patients, or about one-quarter of the study cohort. The mean time from diagnosis to start of treatment in that group was 63 days.

Compared with patients who received treatment within 7 days of diagnosis, patients with delays in treatment were more likely to be women (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2) and more likely to be non-Hispanic black (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28), the investigators reported.

A previous analysis of the SEER-Medicare database suggested that certain antimyeloma agents are used later in racial and ethnic minorities, including Hispanic patients, who had the highest median time to first dose of bortezomib, Dr. Kumar and colleagues noted.

However, no report before the present one had looked at the time to overall initial treatment in racial and ethnic minorities, they added.

Patients diagnosed in more recent years had higher odds of treatment delay, though this could have been caused by an increase in the number of patients diagnosed early; prior to the 2014 IMWG diagnostic criteria revision, many would have been offered therapy only when signs of end-organ damage were present, while patients without end-organ damage would have been said to have smoldering disease, authors said.

Patients 80 years of age and older and those with a higher Charlson comorbidity score had a lower likelihood of treatment delay in this analysis, possibly reflecting the frailty of those patients and an urgent need for treatment, according to investigators.

Uninsured patients and those with Medicaid were less likely than insured patients to experience treatment delay, according to the report.

“This may be associated with the fact that, for these insurances, prior authorization is typically not required before initiating treatment,” said Dr. Kumar and colleagues. “However, this could also depend on several other possible factors, including availability of caregiver support and seeking medical care later.”

Dr. Kumar reported no conflicts of interest related to the analysis. Coauthors reported disclosures with Takeda, Guardant Health, and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Kumar V et al. JCO Oncology Practice. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00309.

Women and racial minorities with multiple myeloma may be at increased risk of delayed treatment, a situation that should be addressed urgently, according to authors of a recent analysis of a clinical oncology database.

By contrast, patients receiving myeloma treatment sooner after diagnosis included patients who were over 80 years of age, had multiple comorbidities, were treated at specialized cancer programs or in areas other than the Northeast, and had Medicaid or did not have private insurance, the authors reported.

Contrary to what was expected, levels of education and income did not significantly affect the timeliness of treatment in this analysis by Vivek Kumar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coinvestigators.

While results of studies to date are “conflicting” as to whether timeliness of myeloma therapy will affect patient outcomes, recent studies in breast cancer and other tumor types suggest earlier treatment intervention may reduce morbidity, improve quality of life, and possibly prolong survival, according to Dr. Kumar and colleagues.

Moreover, the focus of myeloma treatment has shifted toward earlier treatment in light of the superiority of today’s treatment options, which was demonstrated in the 2014 update of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) diagnostic criteria, according to the investigators.

“The definition of active MM [multiple myeloma] has been updated so that patients who may have been considered to have smoldering MM previously are now treated sooner to prevent end-organ damage whenever possible,” said Dr. Kumar and coauthors in their report in JCO Oncology Practice.

The analysis of timely myeloma treatment was based on for 74,722 patients in the National Cancer Database who received a diagnosis of multiple myeloma between 2004 and 2015 and went on to receive systemic treatment within the first year of diagnosis.

Delay in treatment, defined as receiving antimyeloma therapy 40 or more days after diagnosis, occurred in 18,375 of those patients, or about one-quarter of the study cohort. The mean time from diagnosis to start of treatment in that group was 63 days.

Compared with patients who received treatment within 7 days of diagnosis, patients with delays in treatment were more likely to be women (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2) and more likely to be non-Hispanic black (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28), the investigators reported.

A previous analysis of the SEER-Medicare database suggested that certain antimyeloma agents are used later in racial and ethnic minorities, including Hispanic patients, who had the highest median time to first dose of bortezomib, Dr. Kumar and colleagues noted.

However, no report before the present one had looked at the time to overall initial treatment in racial and ethnic minorities, they added.

Patients diagnosed in more recent years had higher odds of treatment delay, though this could have been caused by an increase in the number of patients diagnosed early; prior to the 2014 IMWG diagnostic criteria revision, many would have been offered therapy only when signs of end-organ damage were present, while patients without end-organ damage would have been said to have smoldering disease, authors said.

Patients 80 years of age and older and those with a higher Charlson comorbidity score had a lower likelihood of treatment delay in this analysis, possibly reflecting the frailty of those patients and an urgent need for treatment, according to investigators.

Uninsured patients and those with Medicaid were less likely than insured patients to experience treatment delay, according to the report.

“This may be associated with the fact that, for these insurances, prior authorization is typically not required before initiating treatment,” said Dr. Kumar and colleagues. “However, this could also depend on several other possible factors, including availability of caregiver support and seeking medical care later.”

Dr. Kumar reported no conflicts of interest related to the analysis. Coauthors reported disclosures with Takeda, Guardant Health, and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Kumar V et al. JCO Oncology Practice. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00309.

Women and racial minorities with multiple myeloma may be at increased risk of delayed treatment, a situation that should be addressed urgently, according to authors of a recent analysis of a clinical oncology database.

By contrast, patients receiving myeloma treatment sooner after diagnosis included patients who were over 80 years of age, had multiple comorbidities, were treated at specialized cancer programs or in areas other than the Northeast, and had Medicaid or did not have private insurance, the authors reported.

Contrary to what was expected, levels of education and income did not significantly affect the timeliness of treatment in this analysis by Vivek Kumar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coinvestigators.

While results of studies to date are “conflicting” as to whether timeliness of myeloma therapy will affect patient outcomes, recent studies in breast cancer and other tumor types suggest earlier treatment intervention may reduce morbidity, improve quality of life, and possibly prolong survival, according to Dr. Kumar and colleagues.

Moreover, the focus of myeloma treatment has shifted toward earlier treatment in light of the superiority of today’s treatment options, which was demonstrated in the 2014 update of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) diagnostic criteria, according to the investigators.

“The definition of active MM [multiple myeloma] has been updated so that patients who may have been considered to have smoldering MM previously are now treated sooner to prevent end-organ damage whenever possible,” said Dr. Kumar and coauthors in their report in JCO Oncology Practice.

The analysis of timely myeloma treatment was based on for 74,722 patients in the National Cancer Database who received a diagnosis of multiple myeloma between 2004 and 2015 and went on to receive systemic treatment within the first year of diagnosis.

Delay in treatment, defined as receiving antimyeloma therapy 40 or more days after diagnosis, occurred in 18,375 of those patients, or about one-quarter of the study cohort. The mean time from diagnosis to start of treatment in that group was 63 days.

Compared with patients who received treatment within 7 days of diagnosis, patients with delays in treatment were more likely to be women (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2) and more likely to be non-Hispanic black (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28), the investigators reported.

A previous analysis of the SEER-Medicare database suggested that certain antimyeloma agents are used later in racial and ethnic minorities, including Hispanic patients, who had the highest median time to first dose of bortezomib, Dr. Kumar and colleagues noted.

However, no report before the present one had looked at the time to overall initial treatment in racial and ethnic minorities, they added.

Patients diagnosed in more recent years had higher odds of treatment delay, though this could have been caused by an increase in the number of patients diagnosed early; prior to the 2014 IMWG diagnostic criteria revision, many would have been offered therapy only when signs of end-organ damage were present, while patients without end-organ damage would have been said to have smoldering disease, authors said.

Patients 80 years of age and older and those with a higher Charlson comorbidity score had a lower likelihood of treatment delay in this analysis, possibly reflecting the frailty of those patients and an urgent need for treatment, according to investigators.

Uninsured patients and those with Medicaid were less likely than insured patients to experience treatment delay, according to the report.

“This may be associated with the fact that, for these insurances, prior authorization is typically not required before initiating treatment,” said Dr. Kumar and colleagues. “However, this could also depend on several other possible factors, including availability of caregiver support and seeking medical care later.”

Dr. Kumar reported no conflicts of interest related to the analysis. Coauthors reported disclosures with Takeda, Guardant Health, and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Kumar V et al. JCO Oncology Practice. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00309.